Posts
The planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws.
… This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. … And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems.
Not really a full proof, but an interesting meditation.
1 comment:
Could only come from God? Humm, could it be Isaac had assumed the antecedent?
Besides, Newton's law of gravity is obsolete. For one thing, it could not account for Mercury's orbit. Einstein's theory of relativity trumps Newton's law of gravity. You might even say gravity is relative to mass, (again, no god required).
Terrified of nuclear war, Einstein wrote a manifest of peace, in which you can find the quote:
"Remember your humanity, forget the rest." Religion is part of what he meant by "the rest."
Another quote from one of the most brilliant men to walk the planet: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Again, we can't balme ol' Isaac for his ignorant view of God causing gravity. He did not know about evolution or modern astronomy.
Now, to save your time, I realize you can find a bunch of scientists who try to marry their discipline to religion (i.e scientology).
However, science and religion are diametrically opposed. The former requires stringent testing and empirical proof, the later relies on the blind faith of its dogma.
The difference is exemplified by cancer treatments vs faith healing.
(Moreover, science has proven that those who believe in faith healing are being duped.)
I'm not saying science is perfect, because as I have already pointed out, there is no such thing as perfect. However, compared to the delusion and superstition of religion, science wins out by a land slide. And if you didn't agree (deep down inside), you'd head to the church instead of a doctor when ill.
Post a Comment