<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Famous Scientists Who Believed in God</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/</link>
	<description>When your mind met your heart, they were fine in matters of faith</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:24:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Galant</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-136</link>
		<dc:creator>Galant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:44:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-136</guid>
		<description>The point of this article, it seems to me, isn&#039;t to prove the existence of God but rather it seeks to stand against the currently common and popular notion that science and belief in God are incompatible. Nothing less, nothing more. Can that point be accepted?

That they did not all share a common theology means nothing here.The men listed here are presented to show that one can have a valid scientific mind, an inquiring mind, honest, and a worthwhile scientist, and also believe in God. That might seem strange or even abhorrent to some, but never the less it offers the significant evidence of men who were are the cutting edges of their fields, who made deep and significant contributions to scientific method or knowledge, and who showed a harmony between that science and their faith. In some cases even that the excellence of, and motivation for, their science arose out of their faith. That is all this article seeks to show. It is worthy, I think, of at least some honest consideration.

As for those who would simply seek to dismiss this whole thing out of hand alleging that these men were either crazy, dim or greatly ignorant I would ask you to at least consider the possibility that they were not. Then from there what can you find as evidence as to whether these men were deficient in some way (which prevented their realisation of the truth of atheism) or that they were not and it must be accepted that it is possible for a happy, rational, scientifically minded human to also maintain a spiritual dimension to their view of life and the universe.

I wonder if the notion that science is married to atheism is exalted by many today because some do not want to believe in or accept the possibility of the existence of a God and science seems to offer the best alternate understanding of the universe where that dream can be a reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point of this article, it seems to me, isn&#8217;t to prove the existence of God but rather it seeks to stand against the currently common and popular notion that science and belief in God are incompatible. Nothing less, nothing more. Can that point be accepted?</p>
<p>That they did not all share a common theology means nothing here.The men listed here are presented to show that one can have a valid scientific mind, an inquiring mind, honest, and a worthwhile scientist, and also believe in God. That might seem strange or even abhorrent to some, but never the less it offers the significant evidence of men who were are the cutting edges of their fields, who made deep and significant contributions to scientific method or knowledge, and who showed a harmony between that science and their faith. In some cases even that the excellence of, and motivation for, their science arose out of their faith. That is all this article seeks to show. It is worthy, I think, of at least some honest consideration.</p>
<p>As for those who would simply seek to dismiss this whole thing out of hand alleging that these men were either crazy, dim or greatly ignorant I would ask you to at least consider the possibility that they were not. Then from there what can you find as evidence as to whether these men were deficient in some way (which prevented their realisation of the truth of atheism) or that they were not and it must be accepted that it is possible for a happy, rational, scientifically minded human to also maintain a spiritual dimension to their view of life and the universe.</p>
<p>I wonder if the notion that science is married to atheism is exalted by many today because some do not want to believe in or accept the possibility of the existence of a God and science seems to offer the best alternate understanding of the universe where that dream can be a reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Romans Inductive Bible Study Guide. &#124; 7Wins.eu</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>Romans Inductive Bible Study Guide. &#124; 7Wins.eu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-113</guid>
		<description>[...] Best Bible Reading System by Professor G. Horner &#171; Bible Reading GroupWriting Notes in Bibles and Books &#124; Scripture ZealotGroup Life 2008 - Heather Zempel &amp; Mark Batterson - Where Community Grows Best &#124; Will Johnston &#124; Mind Muse This is the Army, Mr. Jones!About &#171; gracecreed.comFamous Scientists Who Believed in God &#124; PALLAYI [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Best Bible Reading System by Professor G. Horner &laquo; Bible Reading GroupWriting Notes in Bibles and Books | Scripture ZealotGroup Life 2008 &#8211; Heather Zempel &amp; Mark Batterson &#8211; Where Community Grows Best | Will Johnston | Mind Muse This is the Army, Mr. Jones!About &laquo; gracecreed.comFamous Scientists Who Believed in God | PALLAYI [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irving</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Irving</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-90</guid>
		<description>&quot;Most of these were not scientists, because the term had not been coined until 1833. Those before them were natural philosophers. 

p.s. There is no need need for God to fit into science.&quot;

Wow, that was one of the most stupidest and irrelevent comments I&#039;ve read in my life. Sure the term wasn&#039;t coined until 1833 by William Whewell (a scientific historian and anglican priest) but those men were scientists. The word natural philosopher is the equivelent of scientist you uneducated moron. 

Next, there is no need for God in Science of course, science is the study of nature and its laws not about origins. Science doesn&#039;t deal with that, and there is a wide misconception among the common people that it does, i.e. you.

-Irv</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Most of these were not scientists, because the term had not been coined until 1833. Those before them were natural philosophers. </p>
<p>p.s. There is no need need for God to fit into science.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wow, that was one of the most stupidest and irrelevent comments I&#8217;ve read in my life. Sure the term wasn&#8217;t coined until 1833 by William Whewell (a scientific historian and anglican priest) but those men were scientists. The word natural philosopher is the equivelent of scientist you uneducated moron. </p>
<p>Next, there is no need for God in Science of course, science is the study of nature and its laws not about origins. Science doesn&#8217;t deal with that, and there is a wide misconception among the common people that it does, i.e. you.</p>
<p>-Irv</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Deem</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Deem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 21:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-60</guid>
		<description>I wonder where this list came from?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder where this list came from?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dustin</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Dustin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-53</guid>
		<description>It is atrocious that there are those that put science and the belief in God at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Great article!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is atrocious that there are those that put science and the belief in God at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Great article!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 22:29:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-50</guid>
		<description>This is a great list. Thanks for posting it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a great list. Thanks for posting it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a.k.satsangi</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>a.k.satsangi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 10:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-48</guid>
		<description>According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2.  According to this relationship of Energy and Mass
1 kg mass of any matter is equivalent to 9 x 10^16 J of energy.

Does it mean that, 

Mass of any matter is Condensed Form of Energy and Energy is Diffused Form of Mass of any matter ?

A question may also arise what existed before the creation of the Universe Energy or Mass ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, E=mc^2.  According to this relationship of Energy and Mass<br />
1 kg mass of any matter is equivalent to 9 x 10^16 J of energy.</p>
<p>Does it mean that, </p>
<p>Mass of any matter is Condensed Form of Energy and Energy is Diffused Form of Mass of any matter ?</p>
<p>A question may also arise what existed before the creation of the Universe Energy or Mass ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jezzgroom</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>jezzgroom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 18:17:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-47</guid>
		<description>cmooon most of them on the list lived in middle ages...they HAD TO believe in God :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>cmooon most of them on the list lived in middle ages&#8230;they HAD TO believe in God <img src='http://www.pallayi.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A.K.Satsangi</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>A.K.Satsangi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 10:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-46</guid>
		<description>Based on E=mc^2, can it be said that mass is the ‘potential state’ of matter and energy is the ‘kinetic state’ of matter and just multiply mass with c^2 you will get huge amount of energy and divide energy by c^2 you get very small amount of mass OR some other factors/ mechanisms are essential for these conversions ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Based on E=mc^2, can it be said that mass is the ‘potential state’ of matter and energy is the ‘kinetic state’ of matter and just multiply mass with c^2 you will get huge amount of energy and divide energy by c^2 you get very small amount of mass OR some other factors/ mechanisms are essential for these conversions ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wcuprof</title>
		<link>http://www.pallayi.com/2009/05/04/famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/comment-page-1/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>wcuprof</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 06:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pallayi.com/?p=44#comment-45</guid>
		<description>Aaron, your argument (below) is as pointless as Joe&#039;s original argument since it uses the same logic. 



Aaron =) wrote:
May 6th, 2009 at 7:08 am

&quot;Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one&#039;s intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one&#039;s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious . . .&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aaron, your argument (below) is as pointless as Joe&#8217;s original argument since it uses the same logic. </p>
<p>Aaron =) wrote:<br />
May 6th, 2009 at 7:08 am</p>
<p>&#8220;Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one&#8217;s intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one&#8217;s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious . . .&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
