You clearly know science better than Newton, Faraday and Maxwell.
People bodily resurrect all the time. Yea, right.
That is an excellent attitude. Newton, while leaning towards Arianism, was an opponent of atheism.Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Richard, glad you enjoyed such a nice "folksy vacation," and with those luminaries as well, WOW! You said:You clearly know science better than Newton, Faraday and Maxwell.
Will you please explain? To be corrected, when wrong, is my life's pursuit.
www.isaac-newton.org/science.docWhen the young Cambridge-educated clergyman Richard Bentley was called upon in 1692 to deliver the first Boyle Lectures for the defence of Christianity against infidelity, he buttressed his natural theological argument for the existence of God with support from Newton’s Principia. While revising his lectures for the press, he wrote the author of the Principia to determine if his deployment of its physics would meet the approval of the great man himself. In his first reply to Bentley Newton confirmed: “When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work wth considering men for the beleife of a Deity & nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose.” Newton went on and asserted that “ye diurnal rotations of ye Sun & Planets as they could hardly arise from any cause purely mechanical . . . they seem to make up that harmony in ye systeme wch . . . was the effect of choice rather than of chance.”
These great scientists believed that the results of science did not exclude belief in religion including miracles. Now maybe they were wrong. But sometimes scientists follow theories in the hope that they will exclude the possibility of creation. The steady state is an example in my opinion. Some applications of string theory are another example.And though Maxwell was no theological liberal but accepted the revelation of God through Jesus Christ, he is pointing to a different perfection in creation, one which he emphasizes cannot be attributed to evolutionary adaptation. It is an intriguing thought, not that Maxwell was strictly correct that atoms are immutable, but his approach is more to appreciate the ordered uniformity rather than the peculiarity and complexity of nature, as signs of the creator.
Yes, it was sarcasm.Also, I'm not sure how to take:People bodily resurrect all the time. Yea, right.
What am I to make of that bit of sarcasim--as I read it???
(Slightly altered for clarity.)I respectfully suggest ... THE principle upon which all science is dependent (is): cause & effect. One that many religious types have yet to learn: there are no miracles; there is no magic. Including blood-atonement, redemption and an after-life--as theologians of most religions imagine and teach--as reward or punishment for sinning/being-stupid or doing-good/being-smart.
We receive the fruits of our labour/efforts here...now or never. Soooo, procrastinate not your moment of service, goodness, wisdom or happiness...
I agree that he is not one of whimsy. The favor issue is more complicated. The sun rises on the just and the unjust. On the other hand, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy."
The first quote isRoger Morrison wrote:Richard, nice to see we have so much common ground... however you said:I agree that he is not one of whimsy. The favor issue is more complicated. The sun rises on the just and the unjust. On the other hand, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy."
Is that quote taken from the Old Testament or the New Testament? (if it matters???) As it is it's in 1st-person, which brings it into question by any realistic student of literalism vs figurative/metaphorical/alagorical interpretation of "God's" word. Which is, we both know, in reality man's written word.
As you, and they, present it is in justification of whatever use it might put to: Carrot or stick... As I see it, it is inconsistant with being a "God" of "order" ... Warm regards, Roger