Monday, June 08, 2020

An Argument for Faith


From a website I frequent:
 
Posted by 'GottliebPins' 
 
I am a Christian but also a man of science. All of my years of study have made me conclude that all of this around us was not just created out of some random chance. Living cells are far too complex to just “evolve” out of random chemicals floating around in a swamp somewhere.

If the only purpose in living was to survive and reproduce there would be no reason to make foods so delicious if all they were for is to nourish.

If the only purpose in seeing was to avoid danger there would be no need of colors.

If the only reason for hearing was to detect prey then there would be no need for music or it’s appreciation.

Everything we enjoy was given to us as a gift. Touch, smell, hearing, etc. it was to make life more enjoyable. And that’s why I believe even more than just having faith.

Science just can’t explain “why” we exist. It can explain “how” to a small degree, but never “why”.

That’s what faith is for. We will never know the reason why.

/gun

4 comments:

  1. This one leaped out at me. I'm an engineer and I consider science, hard science, as my bag of tools. I suppose I have always had faith in God, but wasn't so sure about the Biblical accounts. I suppose it was by accident that my eyes were opened to look at the softer sciences objectively, and the more I looked the more I had to agree the Bible had it right. It's the account of what God did, and not of how He did it. That was for us to ponder and discover.

    Like the author of the article, I could not come to accept a theory that proposed one incredible event after another and another leading from rocks to people. It was just mathematically too much to swallow and required to much faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just a footnote if I may. It was a scientist that convinced me that not all scientists pursue science. It was Edwin Hubble the astronomer and discoverer of the red shift, which with General Relativity led to the theory of the Big Bang, which I have come to reject. Hubble insisted his discovery NOT be used to suggest the universe has a center even though it appears it does. He gave no explanation why he made such an unscientific statement and put such a constraint on his findings. More recent discoveries, particularly that red shifts are quantized, strongly suggest the universe does have a center and we are near it.

    Science is one thing but scientists are something else and bring their world view to their interpretations. Science should be objective and unfortunately, many modern scientists are not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think the existence of "God" negates the theory of the Big Bang or of Evolution, as some Creationists (I'm not one) argue. Seems perfectly plausible that God (being the INVENTOR of SCIENCE) caused both.

    But, as for all those coincidences. Doesn't it only seem that way tracing BACK from our current point of view to the beginning? We exist. As we follow the path that got us here we think it is too miraculous to be mere chance.

    But from the starting point, it just went along from event to event, and happened to create people.

    I mean, it might have happened to create something else, and THEY would be thinking how miraculous it is that THEY, so very specifically, exist.

    When you retrace any path BACK to it's beginning, doesn't it always seem like a whole lot of coincidences happened along to way to get so precisely from A-Z?

    Just wondering out loud.

    A lot of my life has been spent Agnostic (certainly not an Atheist). Happened in college. Was raised a Catholic.

    I WANT "God" to exist, I think....I just have yet to be convinced.

    But arguments like his are what help on the journey.

    (And why, may I ask, do you reject the "Big Bang"? That's interesting)

    ReplyDelete
  4. The evidence (or lack thereof) against the Big Bang and evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. What we actually see in nature fits the Biblical account of creation and Genesis in general better than the so-called "scientific theories" which are really world views that deliberately dismiss the existence of God. That is done by scientists, not science.

    The incredible sequence of chance accidents necessary to start life (which we can't even do in a lab with the best equipment available), and then have that life go through another incredible sequence of events to produce a human, is just so far fetched you would have to believe in miracle after miracle for it to happen, Now that is a huge leap of faith.

    Something just as strange is the scientists who believe there was a global flood on Mars and they have labeled it the Noahdic Flood. The only evidence they have is erosion, which could have been wind generated. These same scientists reject a global flood on Earth despite the fact there are continental sedimentary deposits world wide, an abundance of water (none on Mars) and the massive fossil deposits you would expect from a flood of that magnitude. They refuse to see the evidence on Earth because if it's in the Bible, they reject it outright no matter how good the evidence.

    ReplyDelete