June 02, 2005

The changing problems of science and religion

In the previous posting, I discussed some of the problems that arise is reconciling science and religion. These problems change with time as our understanding of science changes and the explanatory powers of science encompass more and more phenomena.

For example, in the pre-Copernican era, one could have had a model of God that is much harder to sustain in the light of post-Copernican scientific developments. This was because the universe then was seen as consisting of a spherical Earth located at the center of a finite universe and surrounded by a concentric rotating sphere in which the stars were embedded. (See Thomas Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution for a detailed history.) People thought that the stars were very small objects, and thus the outer sphere containing them could be quite nearby.

In that model, it was possible to think of the heavens as lying beyond this outer sphere and this provided a home for God and angels and so on. This model enabled people to envision without much difficulty how God could intervene in the events on Earth. All that was required was to imagine God as having pretty much the same powers as human beings did, but just more powerful and extensive. Thus God has more refined senses, sees better, hears better, is more powerful, travels faster, etc.

There are no major conceptual problems in believing this model. It was not hard to think of God in heaven actually seeing and hearing what was going on Earth, being able to send thunderbolts or other forms of signals from heaven to Earth, or even making a quick trip (either personally or by sending angels) to Earth. Believing that God intervened in everyday events was not that hard to conceive within the framework of a pre-Copernican cosmology.

But Copernicus' introduction of a heliocentric universe, and the more precise astronomical observations made possible by the invention of the telescope caused some serious problems for such early models, although the theological implications seemed to have taken some time to sink in.

As Kuhn points out (on page 193) in a passage I quoted in an earlier posting (p. 193):

When it was taken seriously, Copernicus' proposal raised many gigantic problems for the believing Christian. If, for example, the earth were merely one of six planets, how were the stories of the Fall and of the Salvation, with their immense bearing on Christian life, to be preserved? If there were other bodies essentially like the earth, God's goodness would surely necessitate that they, too, be inhabited. But if there were men on other planets, how could they be descendents of Adam and Eve, and how could they have inherited the original sin, which explains man's otherwise incomprehensible travail on an earth made for him by a good and omnipotent deity? Again, how could men on other planets know of the Savior who opened to them the possibility of eternal life? Or, if the earth is a planet and therefore a celestial body located away from the center of the universe, what becomes of man's intermediate but focal position between the devils and the angels? If the earth, as a planet, participates in the nature of celestial bodies, it cannot be a sink of iniquity from which man will long to escape to the divine purity of the heavens. Nor can the heavens be a suitable abode for God if they participate in the evils and imperfections so clearly visible on a planetary earth. Worst of all, if the universe is infinite, as many of the later Copernicans thought, where can God's Throne be located? In an infinite universe, how is man to find God or God man?

Most of those new problems are metaphysical. The last point is the one I want to focus on because it represents a physical problem and the one that is of most interest to me as a physicist. If the universe if infinite, then where does God exist? Since telescopes can now observe vast sections of the universe, it strains the imagination to think of God occupying some part of the physical universe because if God is made of the same kinds of stuff as other things in the universe, then how is it that our telescopes and other devices don't detect anything?

I am not sure (not being an expert of the history of theology) but it may be that it was to solve this problem that popular ideas about God being a non-material entity (and hence undetectable by telescopes) who is everywhere began to gain ground. That way, it was possible to overcome the time and space problems associated with having a material God who necessarily has to occupy the same physical space as us.

But this raises yet other problems. If God is non-material and occupying a non-material space that co-exists with our more familiar material world, then how can he/she interact with the material world to influence it? After all, if (say) God intervenes to change the course of natural events, then it must involve changing the behavior of tangible physical objects and this requires the application of forces to those tangible objects, and such forces fall within the realm of the physical world.

One solution is to forego all interventions by God except in the form of changing people's minds, and postulate that human beings possess a mind that is independent of the body, and thus occupies a space similar to or identical with that occupied by God. Thus communication within this 'spirit world' can take place between God and people. Such models allow for the concept of an after-life.

But this just shifts the problem one step away, and does not solve it. Because then we have the problem of understanding the mind-body relationship of each person and this has all the problems associated with the God-people relationship. If the mind exists independently of the body, then where does it exist? If the mind is a non-material entity, then how does it influence the body (which is material)? And so on. Such concerns were articulated by the mathematician-scientist-philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Note that Descartes posed these concerns after Copernican ideas had taken hold, when such problems would have acquired a sense of urgency, as the potentially vast size of the universe became known.

It should come as no surprise that I have no solution to this long-standing philosophical problem. I think once again people have to resort to Ockham's razor and each person will choose a position that satisfies him or her. I found that for me personally, using Ockham's razor resulted in my finding it "simplest" to dispense with the idea of God altogether.

The way that I have formulated these questions obviously reveals my physics background. I treat space and time as meaningful physical entities and so cannot easily absorb statements like "God is everywhere" without further exploration as to what that statement means. I am guessing that most people do not consciously consider these questions because either they do not occur to them or may shy away from them because of the discomfort they can cause.

But I am pretty certain that the readers of this blog are the kinds of people who would have thought about such questions and I am curious as to how you have resolved them to your own satisfaction. Perhaps if you have the time and the inclination, you might post your responses in the comments section.


On June 3 and 4, there will be a teach-in and public hearing on what happened during the last elections and what steps need to be taken to have true election reform. The sessions will be held at Antioch Baptist Church and Tri-C Metropolitan Campus. See here for more details.


Trackback URL for this entry is: The problem with parallel worlds
Excerpt: Fantasy writers like J. K. Rowling who want to interweave the magical with the ordinary face some serious challenges. As...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: November 3, 2005 07:30 AM


As a young cognitive psychologist, the Cartesian mind-body problem is a good window onto my own thoughts about God. If one were to posit that God acts through the minds or souls of men, somehow, then all my experiments would be a waste of time: if human behavior admits causes that can't eventually be traced to some underlying physical phenomenon, how can we ever hope to explain it satisfactorily? Studying thought is hard enough as it is without introducing the ineffable. :) Accordingly, although I am not a firm atheist - agnostic is closer - my profession compels me to take as axiomatic that the mind is material at bottom, and this definitely rules out Christianity, and probably many other religions as well. The assumption may be wrong, of course, but it is the only one that takes me anywhere experimentally.

Interestingly, I don't believe all of my colleagues solve this problem the same way. I was kind of startled when I realized this, because I had naively assumed that my own conclusions were the only reasonable ones for scientists in my field. Certainly no cognitive scientist publicly admits to being a dualist anymore; but of course the fact that no one admits to a belief doesn't mean that nobody holds it.

Posted by Erin on June 2, 2005 08:45 AM

I suppose my solution was to dispense of god altogether too. The sticking point for me was that I believed in the holiness of the bible and accepted it as absolute truth. After working that away from my foundation, everything else was much simpler for me to put together.

I am trying to imagine what my answer to your question would be if I was still christian. I think I would propose that god created our souls and that god exists in another dimension of some sort, perhaps without matter, at least as we understand it. Without matter, time does not exist and god could have existed forever and be everywhere, but this is all far beyond our comprehension. God is far to divine for our full understanding. Something like that. I think that is what I would have argued...

Posted by Aaron Shaffer on June 2, 2005 08:45 AM

Like the idea that god can only affect people's thoughts, my own journey through--and eventually out of--Christianity was marked by a series increasing separations between the physical world and how I perceived god's influence in it.From a childhood that began with a pre-Copernican world view in which god could easily infulence ordinary events, I finally came to see god as setting the universe in motion and then taking a strictly hands-off approach. At this point, I came to a realization similar to that at the end of the demon theory of friction mentioned on this site a few days ago. What was the difference between a universe created by a god who subsequently exercised no influence over it and a universe that simply existed, devoid of any supernatural creator? Though I was not aware of Ockham's razor, I decided that the simplest answer was that no god existed.

I suspect that many people follow a similar path in perceiving how god interacts with the world. I find it interesting that differing comfort levels with the idea of a purely physical world allow so many stopping points along the path.

Posted by John McElhinny on June 2, 2005 10:23 AM

I recall being taught in Sunday school that god was everywhere. My first question regarding that was "Then why do I have to go to church?" Thus I was well along the path towards atheism at an early age, and am not sure how I might have reconciled that concept with notions of how god works or what he/she/it might do in terms of interceding in the affairs of the planet. (Perhaps, a god could live in one of Stephen Hawking's 'branes' and cross the boundary into ours--thus being everywhere?)

I am intrigued by the idea that our notion of this judeo-christian-islamic god has changed over time. It seems to me that this god can currently be held to be both omnipotent and omniscient. To create the universe, intercede on man's behalf, and arrange for the image of christ (or Mary) to appear on a potato chip, one would need this type of infinite knowledge and power. Yet if such a deity existed, and was responsible for such things, why?

If you were such a being would you create all of this from matter? Would you simply imagine it into existence in your head? Would you really punish a whole species for eating an apple? I'd think an omniscient one's vast wisdom would obviate such pettiness. What would be the point? Additionally if the deity held such powers, then armageddon would be moot. There need be no final war, as Satan could not compete with omnipotence. So I guess I don't understand what the purpose of all of this would be from the deity's point of view. Would it help the football team whose players prayed the loudest? Remove boats for the Bermuda Triangle for kicks? Poke it's fingers into black holes because the gravitation feels cool? Miraculously cure people who write checks to the Reverend Ernest Angely?

But then again what of our view? Why does our species want or need a god? Is it to give us moral guidance? If so there are many other paths. Is it to explain creation? This is also not necessary if science holds the answers. (That which is still a mystery may be explained in the future by scientific theories we've yet to learn.) Is it to hold power over certain groups of people? To justify our position in the food chain? We've certainly seen gods invoked for both of those reasons. Or is it simply to reassure us and give us hope so we don't feel as though we are dependent solely on ourselves to survive?

Alas instead of coming up with potential reasons for how a god would interact I've merely come up with more questions regarding why.

Posted by Heidi on June 2, 2005 03:24 PM

I think the best analogy I've heard for describing God's interaction with the universe is that of a painter and a painting. God is the painter and the universe is his canvas. Just as you might look at a painting and say "that's a Van Gogh" I believe God expects us to examine the universe and say "that's God's handiwork." Of course the artists isn't himself in the painting. In the same way God isn't a part of this universe but he is a vital part of it. God must be continually painting or else the universe would cease to exist. So why did Van Gogh paint some sunflowers or a starry night? The same reason God did; because it pleased him to do it.
It surprises me to read that so many people believe God and science cannot coexist. It seems to me that science would be used to learn more about God, not to disprove his existence. After studying the most intricate details of a painting, one my come to a variety of conclusion about the nature of the artist but I doubt anyone would conclude that the painting painted itself.
People ask why does God work the way he does but does anyone wonder the same thing about scientific principles? We could just ask why gravity attracts to objects instead of repel them or why doesn't heat flow from cold to hot. We dont care why nature works the way it does, only how it works the way it does.
It is clear to me that God does not work the same way nature does. If God created nature and all of its rules which science hopes to study, does that mean he is bound by the same rules? I don't think he is. To switch analogies I'd say it's more like the "Matrix" where God isn't part of nature so he is free to bend the rules as he pleases. I hope this illustration paints a better picture of how God works.

Posted by Joe Felix on June 2, 2005 06:04 PM

I was also raised to believe in a Christian theology as a child. I was content with my beliefs until I decided to study the Mayan civilization for a school project. The Mayans, like many civilizations, were polytheistic and had gods for many different aspects of their lives. When I read this, I was absolutely shocked that they didn't believe in the Christian god and they hadn't even been exposed to Christianity. I had believed that my god was infallible. But why would god choose to enlighten and offer salvation to humans in Eurasia but not the Mayans?

Once I began to doubt my faith, I began to see inconsistencies in Christianity that should not exist if the bible were absolutely true. The bible often uses very ambiguous and general language to describe events such as creation. I realized that if the bible was trying to describe the big bang (which I accept to be a fair representation of the actual truth), it does so in a very awkward manner. If the omnipotent creator of the universe were to have a book written about how the universe was created, I would have to assume that the creator would ensure the accuracy of the text.

In response to Joe's post, I think the painting argument is a clever one. It does, however, have a critical flaw in that he assumes god is painting. Saying god is "painting the picture� of the universe is no explanation of god. It's just a justification of the assumption of a god who does not give evidence of its existence.

I also have a problem with his statement that “we don’t care why nature works the way it does, only how it works the way it does.� I think what Joe means is that he knows how, for example, how heat is transferred from a hot to a cold material, but is unable to explain why, at the deepest level, matter behaves in such a way to exhibit something like heat transfer. No one has a complete explanation of the fundamental happenings in the universe, so we must rely on observation and experience somewhat (which gives us the properties of some subatomic particles, values of universal constants, etc.). This does not rule out the possibility that a complete explanation is attainable, however.

Along with asking deep questions about the fundamental nature of the universe, I think another important question to ask is: Why should god exist? I have been unable to find evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent creator, so I see no reason to believe in one, especially one who inspired an ambiguous book written some 2000 years ago.

Posted by Tom on June 3, 2005 04:56 PM

I find many of these comments quite interesting, and on some level, am a bit disturbed that the majority of the people who sounded off on this topic do not believe that God and science can coexist. I, like most of the people who've commented, began life being raised as a Christian. I never really questioned that belief until I came to college and realized that Christianity is full of gaping holes that I cannot ignore (especially the beliefs of the fundamentalist christians). It took me some time to realize that I simply didn't have enough information to answer my religious questions and was pretty much stuck with two options: Believe because I had been raised to believe, or Disbelieve because I had been raised to believe.

This is, incidentally, what prompted me to take Hebrew language classes, in the hopes that I could better understand the culture Jesus came from, and the original text of the bible (the translations into English frustrate me on many levels).

I rationalize (whether for good or ill) my belief in God in several ways. The first, and most concrete of these rationalizations (though in some ways, the most error-prone) is that I choose to believe God exists because I prefer to believe that there is a benevolent spirit watching out for me and providing me with assistance. I simply dislike the idea that man is alone in the mess he has made for himself so much that I would prefer to delude myself so that I can remain hopeful.

This does, however, lead to several problems such as the one Mano brought up about where God could possibly exist and still interact. But, this one is not too difficult to answer to my satisfaction (especially if you take into account my limited experiences with physics and astronomy). There are more things in heaven and in earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Many many years ago, it was unthinkable that the stars were anything more than pretty lights God put in the skies. More recently, it was unthinkable that there was anything more indivisible than an atom (hence the name). Even more recently, it was unthinkable that there was anything more indivisible than protons, electrons, and neutrons. We continuously believe that our science has shown irrefutably that we understand matter. We believe that we can see and understand everything. Perhaps one day, we'll figure out that Midichlorians exist or that God is a type of energy we are unable to detect. Who knows?

The inability to find God in this world/realm/dimension is utterly unsurprising to me when I consider the limited ability we have to detect things, and the limited understanding we have of why things work the way they do. We have even acknowledged that it is impossible to observe something without affecting it, and that it is impossible to know both when and where something is with a very large degree of accuracy. Why must we be able to see God in the here and now?

Perhaps, as was suggested, He exists on a brane, or even outside of one. Perhaps He exists as a manifestation of our beliefs (i.e. He's all in our heads). Perhaps we simply do not have the capability to answer this question with our current data. Perhaps we never will. I would not suggest that we stop looking for answers, even if the search were to end up being fruitless, but I must confess that I believe it plays into the fears and beliefs of those right-wing people who're trying to outlaw teaching evolution when the scientists themselves say that God and science cannot coexist and therefore you must choose science because we can see it and test it.

I think it would further the cause of science much more if it "played nicely" with religion, at least inasmuch as refraining from telling religion that it cannot exist. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Telling very religious people that they must choose between science and religion because the two cannot coexist is simply inviting them to exterminate science in order to preserve their strongly held beliefs.

Posted by Kari on June 3, 2005 09:51 PM

I just want to clarify: I didn't intend to claim that practicing science is incompatible with religious faith. I do, however, contend that for my particular science the existence of a soul would make the entire enterprise pointless unless you redefined "soul" to have a material basis. Which maybe some religions do - I'm not a religious expert by any means. :) But as far as I know, all branches of Christianity would call this heresy. Except maybe Unitarianism, which in the mind of many Christians is just a fancy word for heresy. ;)

I do believe that religious fervor and scientific fervor are, at their best, inspired by the same thing: a sense of wonder at the world we live in. In this sense, they are not incompatible.

Posted by Erin on June 4, 2005 01:26 AM

Oh, boy, do I have a lot of material to which I can respond... Not coming from a Christian perspective but from a Jewish perspective, G-d was always an infinite being Who never took material form. If one looks at religious poetry from before the time of Copernicus, G-d is described as being infinite in time and undeterminable in space (though using much more beautiful language). That language, along with the Hebrew and Aramaic (portions of Daniel and Ezra IIRC) that form the Jewish Bible, is extremely difficult to translate; therefore, whenever possible, I prefer to read the original. Of course, my Hebrew isn't wonderful and my Aramaic is worse - but I know from the limited language skills I have that English cannot easily capture the meaning of these texts.
As far as the (perceived) conflicts between science and religion, especially Genesis, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides) wrote in A Guide for the Perplexed that, if a scientific discovery proved incompatible with the Bible, one needs to read the Bible more closely. This was written circa 1200 - significantly before Copernicus - but it means more now than it did then. For those interested in reconciling modern scientific theories with Genesis, I recommend Gerald Schoeder's book, Genesis and the Big Bang. Schroeder holds a Ph.D. in Physics - and, don't worry: he doesn't even mention Intelligent Design.
On the topic of Biblical literalism (or lack thereof), remember that Genesis had to be understandable to the Israelites of 3200 BCE, which was before the invention of algebra. So, if Moses had descended from Mt. Sinai and started reading: "In the beginning, G-d created a superatom of infinite mass and zero size, and then caused the atom to explode, creating a large quantity of free quarks at very high temperatures...", the Israelites would have deemed him a complete nutcase. The GR involved would have only hurt his cause. However, by writing that G-d created the Heavens and the Earth, with which the Israelites were familiar, they were much more receptive to His Laws - and the seeds of much of the modern world were planted.
Finally, Ockham's razor does not always hold true; for example, when humans are placed in a microgravity environment for a number of days, the body requires less blood volume. The body starts by excreting the unneeded liquid volume, but is then oversaturated with red blood cells. But, instead of destroying the cells, which would accomplish the goal, it engages in a complex process to curb the production of new red cells (a process with which I am not familiar) and thus causes the hematocrit, eventually, to return to normal.
I could likely write more - but I'll wait for more comments (either posted here or by e-mail) and then write more responses...

Posted by William Sherwin on June 5, 2005 02:32 AM

Like Erin, I didn't mean to imply that science can't co-exist with religion. I lost faith through broad-based questioning well before I was old enough to be pondering these issues through scientific inquiry. Yet many scientists are religious and seem quite capable of maintaining their beliefs while also using scientific methods for their work.

Kenneth Miller, who I've heard speak at Case, is a good example of such a scientist. He is a biologist at Brown and the author of "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" which you may find to be a worthwhile read.

I think there are as many paths to god(s) as to agnosticism or atheism, and we each must pursue what makes sense to us. As Mano implies, the act of examining your path and finding your own meaning is probably more important than which path you choose.

Regarding the broad discussion here, I think the only real conflict posed is that between the literal interpretation of biblical creation and evolutionary theory. But that interpretation is but one of many christian interpretations.

William's description of the more metaphoric/general concept of creation seems more in keeping with what I was taught in Sunday School. I think I got more hung-up on the question of why? Thankfully my mother has always been very patient!

While I may not believe, I think religion, philosophy, and science have all offered paths to guide us through our questions about life, the universe and everything. Sometimes these paths are separate, and sometimes they overlap, but overall I don't think they need to exclude one another.

Posted by cool on June 6, 2005 11:48 AM

I'm a rather odd interloper it seems--I'm a biblical scholar from a scientific family. As you can imagine I have thought a bit about the problem and hand. Without this stretching into an interminably long and boring post, I'll settle for the short version. I do believe in a god who not only created the world and still acts upon but also cares about that creation--including us. I believe that part of God's self-revelation is contained in the Bible. Specifically as a Christian I believe that the New Testament (or the Appendix as some of my Jewish friends call it) is meant to clarify rather than replace the revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures. This book--the Bible--is a book written by humans for humans under divine promptings to speak of the relationship between God and humanity. I don't think it's a science book, nor was it intended to be one. I don't look for a recipe for bran muffins in the phone book--just so I don't look for physics in Deuteronomy. So, to address a few particulars--

Where is God and how does God exist? Beats me--and it doesn't bother me. I think God does and have experiences of God in my life to confirm that. On a scientific level I can't explain it. There may well be an adequate scientific explanation but to me it is a mystery that I don't feel that I need an answer to.

Erin--mind/body thing;
Christianity has no official dogmatic anthropology except for the belief in an immortal soul. The most standard ancient understanding was tripartite--humans are composed of body, mind, and soul. That is, soul and body were understood to be distinct. Interestingly enough, the idea of a disembodied immortal soul is Platonic rather than Christian. The Hebrew/Jewish position (please correct me if I'm wrong, William)has never posited this; soul and body are always intertwined. A biblical Christianity (as opposed to later philosophical speculation) holds that very same Jewish view. The resurrection spoken of in Scripture and the Creeds is not one of souls but very specifically of bodies (thus also souls and minds).

Ockham's razor--
Ockham was a Scholastic and that means he was a logician. The razor works great for logical problems. It also works well for specific problems. For broadly systemic questions (like, is there a god or many gods), though, there are simply too many variables to wield it effectively.

So, that's the short version of my take on it.

Posted by Derek on June 9, 2005 04:12 PM

One note--it has to be said, I don't believe in ID. Additionally, I think that it's both bad science *and* bad religion to suggest that God regularly interferes in the material world simply because there is no clear explanation. If one reads the biblical record historical--and only parts of it are meant to be take that way--God seems to prefer to act rather spectacularly and to violate the aws of creation only for very specific occasions in order to leave no doubt who was responsible. Furthermore these events (Red Sea, Flood, etc.) are unique and non-repeatable events and therefore outside the scope of proper investigation (given the whole predictability rule mentioned elsewhere here). Since we can't access them, we will never really know for certain what happened--or if the happened--form an empirical perspective. More important in my book is what these miracles or reported miracles reveal about God's compassion for humanity.

Posted by Derek on June 9, 2005 04:35 PM

The idea of the soul (or "neshama" in Hebrew) is expressed but, obviously, poorly-understood. In some Midrashic literature, the soul is described as leaving the body upon death to go to G-d but, of course, no one really knows. We do believe, however, that when we are redeemed, we will be resurrected in our own bodies. However, at least from my understanding, Judaism is loathe to deal with subjects like this that cannot be understood outside of Heaven; therefore, in matters of this nature, I recommend that questions be directed to a competent Higher Authority - from Whom we will likely not hear for some time.

Posted by William Sherwin on June 15, 2005 04:13 PM

I don't think most scientists believe science precludes religion, though it is admittedly difficult to reconcile with beliefs in an interactive god(s). As Mano points out, if God interacts with people/things/whatever, at some point something happens in the physical world which we should be able to (theoretically, if not practically) observe and attempt to explain. Kari's explanation for this seems comparable to Mano's example of precluding intervention except in the mind: it only shifts the problem another step away, but it doesn't address the underlying issue.
If, on the other hand we assume God created the universe and the laws governing it, knowing (as we can't) the exact starting state, he should be able to deduce the final outcome of every part of it, thus allowing him all the control he likes from the start only. This view creates no conflicts between science and religion, but the implications on fate versus free will are too disturbing for most people to accept.

Joe's painter analogy I don't think works when applied to science at all, though, unless one believes the painting was completed before time began, and everything was set from there. It doesn't address how a living god would interact with people or any other part of the universe, which is where the scientific dilemma comes in.

Posted by Tom Trelvik on June 16, 2005 11:52 AM

The above comments are all very thoughtful. As I have said before, I don't think it is useful to make blanket statements as to whether science and belief in God are compatible or not. Many scientists (maybe even a majority) are religious. Others are atheists.

It all comes down to what questions are important for you to be answered when developing a personal philosophy of life.

What I would like to see is a society where people are allowed to explore these questions without fear and be able to arrive at any answer that is comfortable to them personally, and not feel that they are "wrong". So they might end up as Christians, or Wiccans, or Pagans, or Hindus or atheists or whatever.

I believe that what we believe is a private matter and not the concern of others. It is what we do that might concern others.

Posted by Mano Singham on June 27, 2005 12:52 PM

please can you RECONCILE the Religious belif on RAPTURE and the law of gravity.please i need it before sonday.

Posted by Jacob on March 7, 2008 03:43 PM

The world of science is full of conceptual ideas,and religion full of blind faith. But both ultimately end up knowing we are that one thing we seek to find, we are the oneness, the spirit and the living truth.

Posted by Rudi on November 7, 2010 06:19 AM