Famous Scientists who conclude the universe is created

[Miles]

If creation is true, theism does not fall, it stands. Creation means that a supernatural being created the universe; hence theism. Miles, you surprise me. First you attempt to define creationism as believing in Genesis (when that isn't what it is at all), and then try to say that creation does not equal theism....??? huh? Dude, you may be good in biology, but in philosophy you are failing.

First of all, I did not define creationism, But go to ANY website that supports creationism and it will speak to the literal translation of genesis. Seems that everyone but you define it that way, but that's ok, I was accepting your definition, but was merely trying to prevent other readers from confusing your notion of creationism with the popular notion of creationism.

Creationists are theists but not all theists are creationists (by the popular definition). This is the point I was trying to make.

watch yourself.... just because you don't understand does not mean that my argument is failing.

and many of those quotes above are from astrophysicists who conclude that God is not such a far fetched idea. Even the great Stephen Hawking does not dismiss God. The notion of a supreme being unfounded? huh? Many physicists seem to disagree with you.

Don't confuse "not dismissing God" with believing in God. I don't dismiss God, as it is possible with as little as we know of the origin of the universe. Most scientists will take this position, but until there is real evidence to at least indicate his existence, I refuse to jump to conclusions. It is invalid to inject ANY explanation without evidence and especially to then proclaim it as absolute truth.

Question for Acriku, Miles: (do not dodge this please, answer it, even though I predict Acriku especially will dodge it. I predict this with 70% accuracy)

Many physicists, some nobel prize winners, have examined the evidence and conclude that God created the universe.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

Note the words "some" and "many". There are also many physicists and nobel prize winners who do not jump to that conclusion. Again, don't confuse "not dismissing" with "believing in" God. I simply find the origin of the universe discussion to be too incomplete to jump to conclusions.

[Acriku]

Hell I didn't even see that question...

Question for Acriku, Miles: (do not dodge this please, answer it, even though I predict Acriku especially will dodge it. I predict this with 70% accuracy)

Many physicists, some nobel prize winners, have examined the evidence and conclude that God created the universe.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

How do you know they examined evidence? Their beliefs may be from childhood, and separate from their profession. Also, what evidence? The bible? No. Onotological arguments? No, unless they fail to see the fallacy in them.

So you are saying that if I become a wide-known scientist and win a nobel prise here and there, whatever I say or believe becomes more valid because of my successes? No.

[emprworm]

If creation is true, theism does not fall, it stands. Creation means that a supernatural being created the universe; hence theism. Miles, you surprise me. First you attempt to define creationism as believing in Genesis (when that isn't what it is at all), and then try to say that creation does not equal theism....??? huh? Dude, you may be good in biology, but in philosophy you are failing.

First of all, I did not define creationism, But go to ANY website that supports creationism and it will speak to the literal translation of genesis. Seems that everyone but you define it that way, but that's ok, I was accepting your definition, but was merely trying to prevent other readers from confusing your notion of creationism with the popular notion of creationism.

Creationists are theists but not all theists are creationists (by the popular definition). This is the point I was trying to make.

watch yourself.... just because you don't understand does not mean that my argument is failing.

and many of those quotes above are from astrophysicists who conclude that God is not such a far fetched idea. Even the great Stephen Hawking does not dismiss God. The notion of a supreme being unfounded? huh? Many physicists seem to disagree with you.

Don't confuse "not dismissing God" with believing in God. I don't dismiss God, as it is possible with as little as we know of the origin of the universe. Most scientists will take this position, but until there is real evidence to at least indicate his existence, I refuse to jump to conclusions. It is invalid to inject ANY explanation without evidence and especially to then proclaim it as absolute truth.

Question for Acriku, Miles: (do not dodge this please, answer it, even though I predict Acriku especially will dodge it. I predict this with 70% accuracy)

Many physicists, some nobel prize winners, have examined the evidence and conclude that God created the universe.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

Note the words "some" and "many". There are also many physicists and nobel prize winners who do not jump to that conclusion. Again, don't confuse "not dismissing" with "believing in" God. I simply find the origin of the universe discussion to be too incomplete to jump to conclusions.

this entire post in all its glory does nothing to change this:

some of the top physicists in the world have concluded that God created the universe based on the evidence....and even more recognize that such a theory is valid.

there is no need to muddy it up with irrelevant stuff. it is simply for what it is.

[emprworm]

Hell I didn't even see that question...

Question for Acriku, Miles: (do not dodge this please, answer it, even though I predict Acriku especially will dodge it. I predict this with 70% accuracy)

Many physicists, some nobel prize winners, have examined the evidence and conclude that God created the universe.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

How do you know they examined evidence? Their beliefs may be from childhood, and separate from their profession. Also, what evidence? The bible? No. Onotological arguments? No, unless they fail to see the fallacy in them.

So you are saying that if I become a wide-known scientist and win a nobel prise here and there, whatever I say or believe becomes more valid because of my successes? No.

how do you know that atheist scientists didn't reach their conclusions after they became atheists and their disdain of christianity fueled their atheistic conclusions? and how do you know those theistic scientists didn't make their conclusions based upon their work as scientists? I guess you'll have to read more about them then.

of course, I have no idea the life's history of those scientists, i just leave it to say that some of the top physicists in the world conclude in creation and state that it is not irrational to think so, given the evidence. simple as that.

[Acriku]

Again, I ask - what evidence? Perhaps they just realized that since there is no way to disprove something in the universe without a possible contradiction (being the general creator god, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian god), it might exist?

[exatreide]

Whats your point emp?

If I get twenty teachers together and they all say that they conclude the universe had to come from the big bang. Dose that mean all teachers feel that way? Basicly what I am saying is. WHO THE HELL CARES!

This thread is spam!

You have no argument you are taking people out of context and qouting them. Your argument on this thread is lacking and on weak information. I dont really care if Hawkins dosnt belive in the big bang or evolution why should i? He isnt me, it dosnt effect his work. He is still a great scientist. I mean come bloodly on man! ::)

[SurlyPIG]

ace, you are exceedingly narrow minded. some of these are nobel prize winning physicists.

And Zamboe pointed out that some Nobel Prize winning Economists are against the war in Iraq. Does that make them right? I don't know. Does it mean I should believe what they say and automatically agree with them? HELL no. I'll stick with my freedom of thaught, thankyou. On matters in which I am sufficiently-informed, I have never placed much weight on what other people think. So I'll stick with what I think rather than blindly following the words of Dr. Christian McChristianson just because he has a nobel prize and three PhDs.

obviously you have some issues to deal with when it comes to brutally judging some of the most brilliant scientists in the world simply because you don't like their conclusions. Is acelethal calling stephen hawking a fool? many scientists condlue only after being a scientist. i once presented a list of several physicists in this category.

Wha?? How am I 'brutally judging' them? I never said a thing to the effect of calling them a fool, stop putting words in my mouth.

"many scientists condlue only after being a scientist"

LOL. So they were unbiased professionals who, upon viewing and reviewing all they know umpteen times, said "Hey! God created us! Better get to church!" I'll believe it when I see it.

They don't even sound that convinced themselves. I don't know how the heck you can possibly interpret Stephen Hawking's quote as saying that your God created life.

And just listen to this guy:

Arthur Eddington (British astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Fairly plausible? LOL sure sounds like "concludes the universe is created" Even I'VE said that it's plausible. Doesn't mean I'm going to go run to a priest and ask for forgiveness.

[emprworm]

many scientists condlue only after being a scientist"

LOL. So they were unbiased professionals who, upon viewing and reviewing all they know umpteen times, said "Hey! God created us! Better get to church!" I'll believe it when I see it.

all i will say is this: if you ever become a scientist, whatever conclusions you make about the universe will obviously fit well within your quote.

[emprworm]

[quote author=ExAtreides

[Acriku]

Empr, you have failed to provide the context in which each quote was taken from. Until you do, ex's claim stands. You have also failed to explain how you know these people concluded that god exists and created the universe. Otherwise, what would be the point? I am agnostic, I know a general god creator would be possible, but I don't conclude in this god.

[emprworm]

Empr, you have failed to provide the context in which each quote was taken from. Until you do, ex's claim stands. You have also failed to explain how you know these people concluded that god exists and created the universe. Otherwise, what would be the point? I am agnostic, I know a general god creator would be possible, but I don't conclude in this god.

WHat is the claim? Are you claiming that these scientists do NOT believe in creation by God? Is that your claim, Acriku?

again, i know its hard for you to stomach that some of the worlds top physicsts believe in God and agree that creation is a rational explanation for the universe. I understand your frustration and feelings of betrayal. How difficult it must be for someone who thought that creation scientists were just a bunch of fringe loonies....surely they wouldn't be the top, most well recognized scientists! It is painful, Acriku, I know. But if you cannot accept this, and want to continue walking around thinking "ooh, those scientists are really closet atheists...emprworm just took them out of context....I know they really don't believe that hokey pokey"...then fine. If that makes you feel better to be in denial, I'm happy for you.

the last thing I'm going to do is research things for you simply because you cannot digest the truth, or that it doesn't sit well with you. I am not going to explain to you HOW they conclude...why don't you read their journals and publications? Are you going to read any of their journals or publications? If the answer is "NO" then why do you say "You have also failed to explain how you know these people concluded that god exists and created the universe."? If you REALLY wanted to know how they reached their conclusions, you would be studying their journals even now. But you don't really care how they reached them do you?

The only failure here is from some young agnostics who don't want to accept that some of the worlds top scientists believe that the universe was created by God. If it makes you feel better to just blindly say "well they don't REALLY believe that he just took them out of context" then I'm happy for you. I've done my job.

[Acriku]

1. I have never stated nor implied that I have a problem with top scientists being theists.

2. Ex's claim that your quotes are out of context, if you read the post you would understand what claim I was referring to (just after saying until you bring the context in which the quotes were taken from...). Never trust a quote by itself. Just like I should not trust a verse from the bible by itself.

3. I only am skeptical to these quotes, is that so wrong?

[emprworm]

1. I have never stated nor implied that I have a problem with top scientists being theists.

2. Ex's claim that your quotes are out of context, if you read the post you would understand what claim I was referring to (just after saying until you bring the context in which the quotes were taken from...). Never trust a quote by itself. Just like I should not trust a verse from the bible by itself.

3. I only am skeptical to these quotes, is that so wrong?

no it is not wrong to be skeptical, but it is wrong to just claim that the quotes are a distortion and then say that claim is justified w/o proof. what justification do you have to say the quotes are distorted? You are saying "distorted until proven otherwise" is rediculous, and it is basically saying "emprworm is distorting quotes". Well fine...if you have that view, ok. BUt don't think for a second, I have the burden of proof. If you are claiming something isn't trustworthy...YOU....not me...has the burden of proof.

I presented the list of quotes. If you dispute them...it is your job to show they are errant. If you just want to "assume errant" until proven otherwise...then go right ahead.

[emprworm]

and, by the way...some quotes are so clear, that they are context in and of themselves. you don't need context when it comes to the Dixie Chicks quote given to a live London audience

"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

lol, I mean c'mon, how much clearer can you get? Are you now going to say that until I show the context to "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." ...t thait is rational to assume it is an errant quote until I (not you) prove otherwise?

ok, man, whatever suits you.

[emprworm]

do you need context when Fredereck Nietzche said "God is dead?" i think that pretty much accurately reflects Nietzche's view of God.

Lets play a little game. Here aer some quotes. They are all accurate quotes. I give you my word that I am quoting them to the best of my ability as to make sure the words are actually what was spoken:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - - Stephen Roberts

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

Gene Roddenberry

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

Robert Ingersoll

"I do think the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus... Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out."

Richard Dawkins (Interviewed in: Sceptic vol 3, no 4, 1995)

Now, these are all accurate quotes.

I believe it is reasonable to conclude that these men I quoted above do not believe in God, simply based on their quotes. Do we now be like Ex-Atreides and say "well those are out of context" until proven otherwise? I mean, cmon. What part of "I reject God" is out of context? Some quotes are fully independent of context and DONT NEED CONTEXT because they are that clear.

Anyone who looks at these atheist quotes and says I need to start showing context because they may actually be Christians taken out of context, needs to go back to English 101. No context needs to be shown.

But if you INSIST that they might be errant quotes...don't think for a second I'm going to look up their context for you. If you are going to claim they are wrong, its your job to do the research.

[Acriku]

"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." This could mean that Texas did something really bad, and they are ashamed for the president being from such a bad state. In context you can tell which interpretation that meant.

no it is not wrong to be skeptical, but it is wrong to just claim that the quotes are a distortion and then say that claim is justified w/o proof. what justification do you have to say the quotes are distorted? You are saying "distorted until proven otherwise" is rediculous, and it is basically saying "emprworm is distorting quotes". Well fine...if you have that view, ok. BUt don't think for a second, I have the burden of proof. If you are claiming something isn't trustworthy...YOU....not me...has the burden of proof.

If anybody is distorting anything, it is you distorting everything I say. I was talking about out of context, not distortion, the words are not changed - just specifically picked outside of the context.

I presented the list of quotes. If you dispute them...it is your job to show they are errant. If you just want to "assume errant" until proven otherwise...then go right ahead.

YOU got the quotes, how the hell am I suppose to know where you got them from? You took them, or stole them from another site, so you would be the one who is reasonably supposed to bring forth the context as well.

How do you know which quotes are so clear? Quotes like "There are three people standing in front of me." don't need context, but quotes like "...evolution is most likely false" or "Evolution seems to be wrong" NEED the context because then we can see what the person is talking about, and what the subject is. The quotes might continue such as "It is a common misconception that evolution is most likely false." or "Evolution seems to be wrong in the matter of us evolving from apes, but evolution isn't wrong because this isn't what happened."

[emprworm]

again, if you are going to challenge these:

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

Robert Ingersoll

"I do think the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus... Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out."

Richard Dawkins (Interviewed in: Sceptic vol 3, no 4, 1995)

If you are going to challenge that those quotes are actually from theists....burden of proof YOURS. They are pretty clear on their own.

[Acriku]

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."[4]

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."[9]

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."[10]

Roger Penrose (British mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."[18]

Arthur Eddington (British astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."[20]

The point is, I can't possibly know if they are theists or not. That is, without the context it is taken from. Maybe not even then. For you to say that all of the scientists conclude in god because they accept it as a possibility is absurd. That is what you are doing, and that is what I disagree with. Also with the point of this thread, I have no idea. It seems to me it actually helps the opposing argument, that such a large majority of other scientists have not made such quotes, so using your "rationality" it backfires on you.

[emprworm]

you didn't read what I said, did you Acriku? let me say it again, read carefully:

some of the world's top scientists conclude that the universe was created by God, and others at least acknowledge that creation is a rational explanation.

[Acriku]

Who cares if they accept the possibility? They only do so because it is impossible to disprove something to exist (with a few exceptions on contradictions). Some are theists. Your point? Beliefs go deeper than knowledge sometimes...

[emprworm]

my point is nothing other than what it was in the beginning. i don't need to repeat it. people keep reading into it more than what it says. (you wont see any of these scientists calling theism irrational or against the evidence)

[Acriku]

Or are you making a thread for no reason? I think so.

And if you are going to say the point was the conclusion you made, that conclusion is totally false. Being a possibility does not make it a rational position. Unicorns are a possibility just as god is, is unicornism a rational position?

[emprworm]

"Or are you making a thread for no reason? I think so. "

lol, this is coming from the author of babies in hell, and mother theresa = evil threads? ha ha

ok, man.

I'm just here to dispell the high school propoagted myth that science and religion are incompatible. WHen I went to high school, i would have been fascinated to know how many famous scientists saw creation as a viable means to explaining the universe.

in fact, those scientists that are NOT theists who still conclude that theism is a rational explanation are the strongest witnesses of all, since they have no personal biases. For a non-theist to come out and say that "well...looks like God may have indeed created it after all. Thats where the evidence is pointing." is a very STRONG statement indeed since he has no biases and is simply stating where the evidence points him.

[Acriku]

You have no idea if they do not have any personal biases. Scientists aren't demi-gods empr, be reasonable. They are human beings, susceptible to childish beliefs just as anybody else. Being a top-notch biologist suddenly makes me an expert in medical practices? No.

My previous threads certainly have a purpose. To discuss matters I find interesting to point out, and to test them. You post here a series of quotes, and conclude that creationism is a rational position. I dispute that, because you are assuming way too many things.

Highschool has nothing to do with anything about religion and science. Religion and science can be both mutually exclusive and not mutually exclusive - it depends on the religion and it depends on the science. Also, religion is NOT theism, do not interchange them as if they are one and the same. Fundamentalist christianity is mutually exclusive with science. But, liberal christianity can be paired with science, provided that there is no literal translation of genesis.

For a non-theist to come out and say that "well...looks like God may have indeed created it after all. Thats where the evidence is pointing." is a very STRONG statement indeed since he has no biases and is simply stating where the evidence points him.

The key word is may. Also, the evidence can be interpreted any way possible, so there is no stiraghtforward path. If atheists find evidence pointing towards god, then perhaps they need to rethink their rationale. These scientists may interpret the evidence however they wish, but it itself is certainly nothing to build off of.

[emprworm]

Also, religion is NOT theism, do not interchange them as if they are one and the same. Fundamentalist christianity is mutually exclusive with science. But, liberal christianity can be paired with science, provided that there is no literal translation of genesis.

huh? Theism is belief in God. How is that not religion? But hey, I like what you are saying, cuz that means we can teach it in school!!

and fundamentalist christianity is mutually exclusive with science? how so?