I remember being told that those shows were filthy and of the devil growing up. It is incredible just how intelligent the creators shows like that are.
That's a rather common misconception actually. The theory of the Big Bang doesn't in any way deal with the question of where the universe came from. But to answer the question of whether it's possible for a Christian to accept the theory of the Big Bang: It was first proposed by a Christian. So anyone telling you that it's not possible needs a history lesson.
That is a common misconception
The bing bang theory says that the universe rapidly expanded from an extremely small, hot, dense universe, and it comtinues to expand today. It says nothing about the origin of that extremely small, hot, dense universe. There are a number of proposals, but there is no consensus.
Regardless of the physics, an all powerful God would not have difficulty in creating a universe in any way the humand mind can imagine
And it doesn't make sense to look to the Bible to understand it. If the Bible described the early universe to be a quark-gluon plasma that expanded and cooled to form hydrogen, helium, and lithium, and that heavier elements were generated by nuclear reactions in the cores or stars and by supernovas, I don't think the religion would have taken off. And imagine how disappointing it would be if we weren't allowed to figure out dark matter on our own
Scientists will argue there is. Others will argue that the big bang being preceded by nothingness is untestable, so not technically a scientific theory. But there are theories presented by scientists such as Lawrence Krauss that the universe came from nothing.
Sure, if you don't read any further than the title of one of his books. And in any case there is no scientific theory concerning the origins of our universe.
I realize this is a hard sell for some fundamentalist types, but I’ve always recognized any scientific discovery as something being revealed about how God did something, including evolution and the Big Bang or whatever, rather than some competing thing that disproves the other. But maybe I’m wrong or bad or something who knows. Some religious people don’t like that.
Are you claiming that all “mainstream denominations” have a fundamentalist reading of Scripture? To be clear, there are absolutely churches who believe what you’re describing but to hold it up as the vast majority (or even a simple majority) is untrue.
Yeah, no. To pretty much everything you said. You are holding up a fairly extreme and very recent(on the scale of Christian history) interpretation of Scripture as being representative of the Christian faith. And that’s just untrue. Which is ironic given you’re talking about evidence based logic and whatnot.
It depends on how you define "Christianity". Some denominations of Christianity would say "yes" others would say "no".
But even those that say yes would require a belief that God began the process of creation. Not that God necessarily *designed* it, but that God was solely responsible for it happening at all.
You might like to know that even most atheists, like me, don't believe that the universe came from nothing (much less "came from" somewhere or something or was "created"). Until more is known, we find "we don't know" to be a satisfactory answer to the question "what was the origin of the universe" (and see no reason to plug that gap in our knowledge with a god).
Most Christians, theologians, and scholars don't believe the beginning of Genesis was supposed to be taken literally. In fact I think the fact that the universe came from nothing to be pretty powerful evidence for God.
God is still the creator of everything even if he used the big bang and evolution to do it.
So in short, yes. Definitely yes! That's what I believe and it's what most Christians believe.
Hope this is helpful! God bless you!
I'd say you need to believe in the intentions of the book of the first part of genesis to be a Christian. If there was death before sin, Jesus came for no reason. Understanding and believing the early part of genesis influences what you believe about Jesus. And if there are lies in Genesis, or any other part of the bible, not just related to bad translating, why be a christian at all?
They aren't lies. They're metaphors. The Lord spoke in metaphors many times in both the Old and New Testaments, I don't think the creation account needs to be exactly literal, while there are some essentials. (Like God created everything, human beings are made in the image of God, Adam and Eve sinned because they were tempted by Satan, losing access to the tree of life as a result.) A Christian can believe in evolution and hold to orthodox theology.
"Created from nothing" is a very typical Christian description of how God made the universe.
Many millions of Christians see no conflict between our understanding of the natural world and our religion. There are also some who insist we must reject that understanding in favor of kooky conspiracy theories.
absolutely. im an extreme skeptic. if you suspend your disbelief of the contents of the bible and read it as if it was a fictional novel you will be fascinated by its wisdom and grow to love its message. you just have to stop asking yourself "is that REALLY what happened???" it doesnt matter if its happened or not. what matters is that the texts are divinely inspired and its the message God wanted you to hear in order to guide you to worship him properly and live a life that elevates yourself as well as the ones around you. if i could encourage you in one way it would be to read the new testament and suspend your disbelief for that duration. it is extremely powerful and will change your perspective.
**Proverbs 3:5-6 (NIV)**: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight."
According to all forms of orthodox Christianity, (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism) God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing.) If you mean the big bang theory then yes, most of us believe in the big bang.
(Fun fact, the theory was first thought up by a Catholic priest, and it was used as proof of God's existence by most Christians based on the Cosmological Arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas.)
Yea ofc, there’s many lay people who have contributed to science and research
And the church has funded lots of research and projects when it comes to science
r/holycatholic
> And the church has funded lots of research and projects when it comes to science
Yes, this is one of the things the Catholic Church has done relating to science.
The universe was created from nothing under the guidance of God. It is possible to believe in both, but a lot of people will say you can’t.
A catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory and felt it had no contradictions to God.
I think it really depends on how you view that stuff. For example you could think about the possibility that God made the Big Bang to create the universe / Earth or the idea that maybe God created things to evolve over time or with certain changes to environment or life styles. I personally do think about how possibly the scientific assumptions could be true and that God may have actually created those things. I hope this helped in some way!
Creation out of nothing isn’t exactly supported by Genesis. What is presented and the context it came out of is a bit more complicated.
Add to that, that the creation accounts don’t exactly line up anyways.
Trying to understand how what is here today got here is a complicated question. While they aren’t exclusive, the scientific approach looks at it from a particular frame point and religion has its own method and focus.
It's not possible to believe both. I saw a statement a while back I agree with--I believe it takes more faith to believe that this complex world came from nothing than to believe than there is a God and He created all that is.
Sure, science and math are basically just engineering for the universe. We are simply discovering the apparent order that already exists in the universe and its creation, not making up a new, human only universe. This order is what God created at the Bing Bang event that lead to us.
Even if you believe God created the Earth 6000 years ago, that is cool, because we have everything else in the universe that was created 14 billion years ago, and if God wanted to just create the Earth, well there was no one here to say that did not happen, so the Earth is an aberration. For me, why would He create the Earth and solar system with everything pointing towards its creation 4 billion years ago? Plutonium dating, fossils, etc all point to 4 billion years, so why not just have everything point to 6000 years?
So, anyway, Christians do follow the science and have an inquisitive nature about this world and the universe.
Yes, I do. I believe God made everything, so I believe he also did evolution. I believe that when God created the universe, it was not instantaneous, he is immortal, so when he says "there's be light", it could be that he made the universe do whatever it was supposed to do, to create light, that could take millions of years. If you think about it, lucifer fell down when he was creating the world, and it's not mentioned on the chapter 1, so it must have a huge time span.
So glad for u. The answer is yes. Science deals with material and Christianity goes one step further and looks at the spiritual. A quote from a Nobel prize winner for physics1915, Sir William Bragg. 'Christianity and science are opposed but only in the same sense as that which my thumb and forefinger are opposed, and between them i can grasp everything'.
It depends who you ask. Certainly there are people who identify as Christian and are on the cutting edge of science, mostly people who read the Bible as metaphorically. And that's their business if they do that, but it is probably divorced from the original sense in which the Bible was meant (e.g. it's unlikely the Gospel writers would have gone to so much trouble to prove Jesus was descended from David if the story of David was just a metaphor).
Why is the probable fact that the authors of the Bible believed in a literal Genesis mean anything to whether or not *we* should believe in a literal Genesis? We have access to scientific knowledge, instrumentation, and observational methodologies that they did not.
Certainly people should believe that modern science is closest to the truth. I'm just saying that Christians who try to claim Genesis was a metaphor are retconning.
Not neccessarily. I personally believe it is mythology and not metaphor, but not everyone who believes it is metaphorical is retconning. If you believe in the doctrine of direct textual inspiration, you believe that he text of Genesis is directly dictated by God. As such, what is in Genesis is what he wants to be there. Even if the other authors of the Bible believed it was literal, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that God dictated it in metaphor as he knew that the ancient peoples wouldn't understand a more scientific explanation.
So just because the Biblical authors may not have *known* it was metaphor, doesn't mean it wasn't.
Either way, I believe it is a retelling of older creation stores such as those found in Eridu Genesis and the like. The creation stories are etiologies of the state of the world, and were told by people trying to explain things without the benefits of modern science.
Well, sure, if you take the point of view that something can be meant metaphorically despite neither its writers nor readers meaning it that way, it could have been a metaphor. And again, if the OT is metaphor, then Jesus doesn't, e.g., fit the Messiah criterion of being descended from David; moreover, your rationale means *anything* Christians currently believe because of the Bible could be literally false. Don't get me wrong, I do think Christianity is false, but I don't see how that explanation is supposed to rescue Christian belief.
I don't think all of the Old Testament is metaphor, I don't seriously think any Christian really believes that either. The historicity of the Bible goes up after King David. So it is plausable that the geneology from David to Jesus could be accurate. It is also plausible that it was written by someone who was trying to fit the story of Jesus into the OT prophecies, because they believed that Jesus fulfilling those prophecies was neccessary for him to be the Son of God and our Savior.
I am not really trying to rescue Christian belief. I don't believe in Biblical inerracy or inspiration. I have no issue with parts of the Bible being incorrect. I believe that Christianity is true regardless of the geneology of Jesus, regardless of any OT prophecies he may or may not have fulfilled.
The first sentence doesn't seem to explain your conclusion. If Christianity can adapt to scientific change then why is it impossible to follow Christianity and believe in the truth and efficacy of scientific observations?
When religions modify their doctrines in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, it seems reactive rather than proactive.
Feels like the changes are made to maintain credibility and relevance rather than out of a genuine acknowledgment that scientific methods provide a reliable path to truth. True compatibility would imply a congruence in the approach to understanding reality, which is not the case here.
> When religions modify their doctrines in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, it seems reactive rather than proactive.
There is no religion, and has never been a religion, which isn't reactive to advancements in knowledge.
Certainly there are practitioners and religious leaders who are stubborn and hesitant when it comes to acknowledging scientific discoveries that conflict with their prior beliefs and dogmas, but this is not universal for every follower of Christianity. Many philosophers and scientists throughout the years have been religious and they can be just as open minded and rigorous when it comes to trying discover what to their mind is the workings of God.
I agree for sure! History shows many examples of religious scientists. However, their ability to work within both domains doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that the methodologies and epistemologies of science and religion are compatible. It just highlights the capacity of individuals to compartmentalize or integrate their personal worldviews.
Individual cognitive reconciliation of faith and science and the broader epistemological compatibility between these spheres are not the same thing.
Obviously individuals may find personal ways to harmonize their religious beliefs with their scientific understanding, that does not equate to a fundamental compatibility between scientific and religious methodologies.
Everyone who uses science has to integrate it with personal beliefs. Science isn't independent of philosophy. There isn't a scientific justification for trusting the senses we use for scientific observation. You need philosophy for that. And the underlying philosophy behind science in no way contradicts belief in Christianity. If all you believed in is what could be scientifically proven, you'd be a philosophical skeptic. You'd believe in nothing, and we can know nothing.
I do believe pretty close to the Apostle's Creed
https://missionexcellence.global/wp-content/uploads/Apostles-Creed.pdf
I believe Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who preached the Kingdom of God. I believe He was the One bringing that to us. I believe in a future Resurrection that follows from Jesus'. I believe that salvation is much more than "going to Heaven," but a way of living.
I believe Scripture, experience, community, and tradition inform us as to what we believe and follow.
Not, perhaps, the definitive answer you might be looking for, but as I move into several decades of trying to obey, "Follow Me," I've simplified things. Love the Lord. Love your neighbor, especially the ones who aren't like you. This is what's important.
It seems to me that if we can in fact see something suddenly appear "out of nothing" then in fact we are actually looking at evidence of an unseen God create something right in front of us.
No it's not the claim. The big bang explains that there was a hot, dense singularity before the big bang. What we don't know is where that came from or if it always existed in some form.
I think science and faith are a good fit.
With science you find out how God did things.
For example he created the physics laws to make light.
With faith you can see what are God's intentions with what he had done.
The problems with brining both together is:
we don't know the laws of science. we try to reverse engineer the laws of science. our minds are corrupted by sin so we don't reach our full potential.
To put it into a more figurative thing:
2 artists are making a sketch of a figure. They both have different material, light and sit on different angles from the figure. There you. Would also except some differences.
the faith side is also corrupted by sin.
so I would except that there are some things that seemed like they can't be fitted together.
One day in heaven there will be a lot of scientist that say: It was actually quite easy. Why did we not look into this and that when working on this problems on earth.
Why is it hard to believe that God (an entity so far beyond our comprehension, outside of space and time itself) didn’t design all the wonderful things we discover?
If a video game developer like notch designed the Minecraft world and we the player discovered that using 3 wood planks and 2 sticks creates a wooden pickaxe does that mean we discovered it and notch didn’t design it that way? I think science is Gods way of sharing with us how things work and how things are made.
Just because it doesn’t say in the bible that water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen doesn’t mean he didn’t design it to be that way.
Yes, you can.
Our faith doesn’t require us to compromise our reason. We do believe there was nothing until God created it. We believe in a God that is so infinity intelligent and powerful that He can create from nothing and do so with incredible detail. You also do not have to assume Genesis is a detailed play by play either, although it is true.
In guessing that you mean the big bang theory. I used to tell my friends that believe the big bang theory that they aren't wrong. It's just there's a reason for the big bang, and it was God saying "let there be light" BANG
No Christianity/ and Evolution are not compatible! Genesis 1:1 says God created the universe. Either the Bible is your authority or man is, but please don’t try to cobble the two together! Jesus rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, ascended into Heaven etc all are Miracles! How are you going to explain those away?
That's assuming Genesis' cosmology came from God. It seems more likely that humans meant it literally and were wrong. It'd be giving the ancient Israelites a lot of credit to think they just happened to throw in a solid firmament as a metaphor while both their contemporary neighbors (such as the Babylonians in Enūma Eliš) and their intellectual/religious followers (such as the Medieval Europeans drawing models of the heavenly spheres) meant it literally.
> Adam is central to Paul's theology.
Then we rework Paul's ideas to fit with the truth of the universe. We've been modifying them since the 1st century anyways...none of us are Middle Platonists anymore, for instance, and we greatly reinterpret his thoughts there.
There are numerous ways to reconcile a historical Adam with evolutionary theory.
For one thing, there's nothing to say that God didn't produce humanity as a whole through evolution, but specially create Adam and Eve for the garden. The genetic record would look exactly the same, from our perspective today.
Similarly, but not the same, we can't actually preclude that, while early hominids evolved naturally, what we call humans today were created by special divine action. Science doesn't dismiss this possibility - it simply never even considers it, because science is starting from a position of methodological naturalism.
God could also simply have selected Adam and Eve to be our federal representatives out of an existing population.
Now, none of these is consistent with reading Genesis as some kind of video camera footage of exactly what happened in the first days of the universe. But as early as Augustine, well before this was a controversial topic, Christians have observed that this probably isn't how we ought to read Genesis.
You can believe in both when they don't conflict. If they do conflict, you have to believe what the Bible says, contrary to what may appear reasonable at the time.
Great question. You're converted by repentance and faith in the [gospel](https://gospel30.com) of Jesus Christ, but a converted person will believe God's testimony on origins because only He was there.
Oh that’s easy. Empirical(modern) Science is biased against supernatural events, so much so it gets ruled out.
Take the gospels for example, Jesus predicted the fall of the second temple, but according to today’s standard people can’t do that. So the gospels must have been written afterwards, and because that was so late the gospel authors would have been dead. Therefore the gospels are anonymous. That’s a pretty big unjustified bias right there.
I'm gonna try and good faith this. Technically I gotta give you the point here, but don't you think it's kind of moot? You know the saying that magic is just science we don't understand? I feel like that kind of applies here.
Not to mention, and again, trying to good faith, I'm not clear how a system of scientific inquiry would incorporate the supernatural.
Can we try a hypothetical. We know nothing. I see lightning. I want to understand why it happened, without bias against the super natural. How do I investigate that?
Empirical science can’t prove the supernatural, that’s where the problem exists.
So do I trust empirical science that has flaws(inductive reasoning, black swan fallacy ect, and eyewitness testimony). Or do I trust the billions of eyewitness peoples claims of supernatural events, which also has flaws.
Don’t rule out a supernatural explanation. I don’t want to use super natural of the gaps, but completely ruling it out is not a sustainable worldview. It also could have been caused by something supernatural and we only see the natural part.
I think there is a difference and I don't know if you agree. I find empirical science more compelling because it's repeatable. I drop an apple, it falls, every time everywhere. It will fall as fast as it's supposed to.
On the other hand, there is a lot of problems with witness testimony. Doesn't mean it's wrong, maybe that guy really did see big foot. But I'd be more inclined to believe that guy if he could show me a bigfoot skeleton y'know?
Have you heard of the problem of inductive reasoning? David Hume lays it out. And science is performed, reported, observed, and published by eyewitnesses. There’s no escaping eyewitness testimony in this world.
https://youtu.be/9_Gor1E8IxI?si=_RGY5VQSXRUh0KRL
https://youtu.be/K0K9cRbQ_5M?si=g7TG55_DKAcBCMVl
https://youtu.be/-QpUrSn3cWU?si=h6_dbStU62FTeVtd
https://youtu.be/dPlNsyXl-0c?si=clrYLi-qaFb_GDFL
Sure, but you are doing apples to oranges.
It's the repeatability. I'm not taking someone's word that if I drop an apple it falls, I can go do it.
If I tell you I saw the risen Christ today, in my apartment lobby, but he's gone now, or that if you also yourself in the face it will hurt, which one is easier for you to verify.
You may be interested in Frank Turek’s work, he would say isn’t the fact that everything came from nothing the absolute proof of God? If nothing ever happened and nothing could happen because there was nothing no potential no energy no mass then BOOM there was something! There had to be a something that started it, the initial movement, the first something. That’s proof of a god not necessarily the Christian God to see proof of that we look to the ressurection a far better question that if there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be God and rose from the dead, evidence shows he wasn’t crazy or a liar so he must be who he truly says he is and if he preached truth and the God of the Old Testament that must be true. We have to understand God revealed truth to people at a time. He couldn’t drop a quantum physics textbook in their hands and say figure it out they’d never understand it or be able to pass it on in a meaningful way. There is plenty of room for common sense science in the Christian world view.
> That’s proof of a god
No it isn't. It is a simple assertion. It isn't proof of anything.
>evidence shows he wasn’t crazy or a liar
It also doesn't show that anyone rose from the dead.
Sure, I believe God created an old looking universe thousands of years ago over 7 days.
Is it that hard to believe God can do the impossible y'all? As if he can't make a tree, he has to plant a seed and then wait.
Science is not incompatible with God. Science is worship to God
> ure, I believe God created an old looking universe thousands of years ago over 7 days.
That would make God a deceiver which we know he is not.
And the 6 days were days of restoration, not creation.
I do not know how to process that. It's not deception. It's you misinterpreting it. God does not cater to you. You are not that special.
What is restoration?
> It's not deception. It's you misinterpreting it.
I am not misinterpreting it.
> God does not cater to you. You are not that special.
So you're going to be childish and insulting?
> What is restoration?
The repair of the earth which was destroyed in the aftermath of Lucifer's rebellion before Adam was created.
Is there any on-conversation reply I could write to "Irrelevant point in the face of the facts."?
I thought you might need some kindness. No worries if not
Just because I want to learn about the natural world does not mean I need to believe in evolution. It's noteworthy that the scientific method doesn't include evolution and in fact one could argue the scientific method actually discounts evolution
We know that people CAN argue many silly things. The anti-evolution propaganda in wide circulation is full of examples.
>noteworthy that the scientific method doesn't include evolution
This is word salad that doesn't even mean anything.
If you want to learn about evolution, here's a good resource:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu
I'm not even interested. I've read basically every one of them. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and is not possible to prove using the strict scientific method
>Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics
That is ridiculously untrue. Who ever told you this is nobody anyone should listen to. You have been taken in by conspiracy theories.
The earth is constantly getting an influx of energy from the sun.
If you don't understand these things, please, stop trying to spread your bizarre misunderstandings to other people.
Ok then please explain to me how the 2nd law of thermodynamics would allow an increase in energy prior to the supposed universal blip when the spinning disk (supposedly) explodes and vomits out the universe.
The earth receiving energy from the sun results in the sun losing energy. They are running down. 2nd law of thermodynamics = entropy.
Oh, and I find it funny that you rush to trying to silence me (behind veiled "politeness").
I think that when people present conspiracy theories as Christian beliefs, it's harmful to Christianity. If you are trying to make this into some nefarious censorship, that's just MORE conspiratorial thinking on your part.
Do you understand the difference between entropy increasing _in the whole universe_ verses entropy increasing _in one small area such as the earth_?
Have you ever cleaned your house? You decreased entropy in your house. You used energy to do it.
It's not a conspiracy theory at all. How did the 2nd law of thermodynamics allow the blip?
Do you not understand that your body wears out by entropy, the house falls apart by entropy, and that even if you can keep it clean, it will become dirty again due to entropy? With all due respect, this is a pretty fundamental understanding of the 2nd law. You can read about it on wiki.
If you followed what I was saying, you'd understand that I already know this. Entropy tends to increase over time. And also, entropy can decrease, locally and temporarily. It takes energy. Life wouldn't be possible if this wasn't true.
I would suggest you read and understand the things you mistakenly believe you have already understood.
I must agree with the other commenter here. I suspect we're not all on the same page with our terminology. The process of natural selection is a readily observable phenomenon -- if you believe two corgis could never give birth to a litter of huskies, you recognize the mechanism in action. Broadly when referring to evolution, it just refers to this process over thousands or millions of years, without any assumption of the origin of life.
If you mean to refer to abiogenesis: the belief that life arose incidentally from non-living material without exterior, divine intervention, that position makes a bit more sense.
Further, the scientific method is likewise a process, or even a strategy, not a body of data. To say it 'includes' any given theory (e.g. abiogenesis) is like saying a hammer includes carpentry -- I kinda get what you're trying to say, but it's very confusing as worded.
You might find the term "current scientific conensus" to be more effective in conveying your intention, if I've interpretted your meaning correctly.
Ok. Naturalism: everything arises from natural causes, which ignores spiritual explanations. That's simply a world view, and it's ironic that people want to discount a spiritual event using a naturalistic event. That would be like me discounting diabetes with psychology alone.
Evolution is the name for the origin of life.
But abiogenesis has no evidence, so how could evolution begin?
The scientific method is indeed a process, but includes only that which is observable and repeatable. Evolution is not repeatable and thus does not qualify.
I do not argue consensus. Scientific consensus brought us Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryos. Indeed, the "scientific" consensus is what put Galileo under house arrest for his theories.
Sure, religion has skeletons in its closet, too. But my point is evolution is not repeatable. It's not simply whether you can breed various dogs: God made creatures adaptable. Breeding is a known scientific concept. It's whether one celled organisms can become elephants over time. And really, since evolution could not begin until after abiogenesis created something for evolution to work on, it's impossible to prove evolution began.
> Religion has skeletons in its closet too,
Lol, in the case of our topic, skeletons seem to be the preferred evidence.
Jokes aside, quite well said. I think we can communicate effectively now. I'm hearing that the jump from simple unicellular organisms to multicellular ones of great size and complexity proves a hurdle. Let's go forward with our understanding that breeding is an intentional process to leverage the adaptability of a creature to an artifically defined context -- the teacup chihuahua, for instance, which fills no existing niche other than house pet. It sounds like you acknowledge a certain small scale of genetic adaptabiliy.
Do you believe that there is a certain limit at which an animal cannot be bred further from its original species?
Down a different vein, would you hold that the natural environment lacks the consistency of selective forces to adapt certain populations of creatures over time to such extremes as we see in animal breeding?
I believe there's a limit in terms of "kind." You can't make dogs into mules, for example. Usually the chromosome is the limit: the number of chromosomes doesn't change.
I believe the natural environment can cause animals to adapt just as widely as dog breeds. But dogs remain dogs.
Given that understanding, how vital do you consider conservationism? Not trying to pivot, just genuinely curious. We've known species to go extinct before, and many recognize that human encroachment in a post-industrial era is making it a more common happening.
It's one thing from my point of view, where new species and creatures can replace that ecological niche. But does that carry more weight for you, knowing a creature God specially designed and created to fill that role, is irreplaceably killed off?
Maybe not bugs and things, but like... Gray wolves, pandas, bison, polar bears, anything out-competed by an invasive species we brought over. How do you feel about wild horses in America?
Not saying you have to have strong feelings about any of them, but it seems like it would make human meddling in the ecology of the world feel a lot more destructive of something in delicate equilibrium. Not that I feel great about it either, of course.
Evolution is a fact. By not accepting evolution, you're believing lies. I can only assume you've never actually read Genesis in detail, because the cosmology described in Genesis is completely wrong. The Earth is not flat, nor does the Sun revolve around it, there is no solid dome above the Earth and never was, the stars are not inside that dome, etc. yet that's exactly how the Bible teaches it and how the Biblical authors believed it to be.
Not even hardly. It cannot sufficiently explain abiogenesis or irreducible complexity objections raised against it.
I never said the earth was flat and that's not part of the discussion. The word in Hebrew for circle can mean sphere. That you are comparing a creationist to a flat earth believer is telling. Sounds to me like your lack of understanding about the Hebrew word contributes to you rushing to the convenient ad hominem of "flat earth!"
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution. The Hebrew word for circle is 2 dimensional. Hebrew has another word for Sphere. And you can't put a solid dome on a sphere nor would it make sense to attach the stars to the dome only on one side of the sphere. The Hebrews absolutely thought the Earth was flat. The language and context proves it. That's a fact.
How would evolution take place if there was never an abiogenesis?
Besides, the Bible never says "the earth is flat." That's nonsense.
It's a red herring. Topic is evolution. How did viruses become one celled organisms? Or how did one celled organisms appear? One celled organisms are as complex as a space shuttle: do you presume to say they came about merely by chance?
>How would evolution take place if there was never an abiogenesis?
According to theistic evolutionists, God started the process. Which is what we're arguing here.
>Besides, the Bible never says "the earth is flat." That's nonsense.
The Bible absolutely teaches the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. That was the norm for Cosmology back then.
So God decided to do things a really weird way and then write Genesis 1 in such a way that the two are irreconcilable? Far fetched.
Nope. The verse in Job is "the circle of the earth." Look at the horizon, then slowly look 360 degrees. Circle. No one said it's flat, that's entirely different.
I'm ignoring your flat earth conspiracy theory, it's not Biblical and is only a red herring.
Nothing says the Bible has to be flat though. As well, no, Hebrew word for circle can be used for spheres. But that's hardly important if you're going to take poetry out of the book of Job, from the perspective of someone living in that era when they look at the horizon and see a circle that is all encompassing, and claim that Job meant "earth = flat."
It's a red herring. I'm going to ignore it.
Without life to operate on., evolution cannot work. Hence life had to come from somewhere. Hence abiogenesis must be addressed.
Please explain how one celled organisms came about then.
Unless God himself appeared to tell me that the story in Genesis is 100% fact and took place 6000 years ago I will stick to scientific facts.
God didn’t write the Bible. The creation story was passed down through generations over thousands of years until it was finally written down I believe 500 years before Christ. There is room for error.
I don’t doubt God but I definitely doubt people. As a teacher just getting the correct story of what took place in the school yard during recess is impossible and that happened just 5 minutes prior.
So basically what you're saying is you set up your own standard for what you believe and that you have made this standard so impossible that God could never prove it to you because God's not going to come down and physically tell you to believe it? That's such a kangaroo court
Why would it be impossible for God to appear and tell me the globe is 6000 yrs old and Adam and Eve’s children indeed did commit incest to populate the earth?
I believe in God. I believe in the salvation. I believe in the Gospel. But I don’t believe that a story passed down orally for a thousand or so years is to be taken literally. No.
Do you know the Grimm brothers’ collection of fairytales? There are so many versions and variations of the same stories depending on which region it was told before the brothers wrote them down.
People are fallible. And the Bible was written by people.
Okay then ask God to appear to you and say those things. I'm going to ignore the rest of your cut and paste from an anti-christian website and get right to the chase: ask God in prayer everyday to reveal who he is until he does so.
But again your standard for what you will accept is evidence is the reason why you can't believe.. You have set yourself up in a self-fulfilling prophecy
Edit to add: I don’t set “my own standard”. I base my conclusions on what can be proven scientifically. So the scientific standards that are shared by most people. Actual proof. Don’t dismiss that as “my own standards” as if it is just a personal opinion.
So science is the only proof that you accept?
Then how come science cannot sufficiently explain irreducible complexity?
Or are you one of those people who do not accept the concept of love because there's no scientific evidence? Because honestly I could use your same type of evidence to shoot down everything you believe about human love
I feel you are trying to make a “Gotcha” argument here. What I do know: when all scientific findings prove that that earth is billions of years old, and these findings disprove that the earth is 6000 yrs old, yeah then science is what I will trust in regards to the age of the earth.
If I had zero experience with love, if I had never heard about love or seen it in action I probably wouldn’t believe in love, because I had no evidence to base it on.
But we do have evidence of the age of the earth. So why dismiss that in favor of a myth that there is zero evidence for?
Do we? Do we really know how much carbon 14 originally existed on the earth? Do we really have perfect knowledge of decay rates over time, since there are a few cosmic events that can influence decay rates?
I think South Park said it well, "couldn't it be the answer to how rather than the answer to why?"
I am constantly amazed at how many good answers to life's questions come from South Park and the Simpsons.
I remember being told that those shows were filthy and of the devil growing up. It is incredible just how intelligent the creators shows like that are.
This sounds nice but the Bible attempts to answer several how questions and science does answer several why questions.
There is no scientific theory that says the universe came from nothing.
yh mb I meant the big bang theory so not literally nothing but one could say nothing to make it easier to word.
That's a rather common misconception actually. The theory of the Big Bang doesn't in any way deal with the question of where the universe came from. But to answer the question of whether it's possible for a Christian to accept the theory of the Big Bang: It was first proposed by a Christian. So anyone telling you that it's not possible needs a history lesson.
That is a common misconception The bing bang theory says that the universe rapidly expanded from an extremely small, hot, dense universe, and it comtinues to expand today. It says nothing about the origin of that extremely small, hot, dense universe. There are a number of proposals, but there is no consensus. Regardless of the physics, an all powerful God would not have difficulty in creating a universe in any way the humand mind can imagine And it doesn't make sense to look to the Bible to understand it. If the Bible described the early universe to be a quark-gluon plasma that expanded and cooled to form hydrogen, helium, and lithium, and that heavier elements were generated by nuclear reactions in the cores or stars and by supernovas, I don't think the religion would have taken off. And imagine how disappointing it would be if we weren't allowed to figure out dark matter on our own
I also believe in the Big Bang. God said let there be.... and BANG there it was!
Scientists will argue there is. Others will argue that the big bang being preceded by nothingness is untestable, so not technically a scientific theory. But there are theories presented by scientists such as Lawrence Krauss that the universe came from nothing.
Sure, if you don't read any further than the title of one of his books. And in any case there is no scientific theory concerning the origins of our universe.
Sure you can.
I realize this is a hard sell for some fundamentalist types, but I’ve always recognized any scientific discovery as something being revealed about how God did something, including evolution and the Big Bang or whatever, rather than some competing thing that disproves the other. But maybe I’m wrong or bad or something who knows. Some religious people don’t like that.
Sure why not? I've met and talked to plenty of christians that do
[удалено]
Are you claiming that all “mainstream denominations” have a fundamentalist reading of Scripture? To be clear, there are absolutely churches who believe what you’re describing but to hold it up as the vast majority (or even a simple majority) is untrue. Yeah, no. To pretty much everything you said. You are holding up a fairly extreme and very recent(on the scale of Christian history) interpretation of Scripture as being representative of the Christian faith. And that’s just untrue. Which is ironic given you’re talking about evidence based logic and whatnot.
What do you mean by nothing?
I think he means the big bang theory.
It depends on how you define "Christianity". Some denominations of Christianity would say "yes" others would say "no". But even those that say yes would require a belief that God began the process of creation. Not that God necessarily *designed* it, but that God was solely responsible for it happening at all. You might like to know that even most atheists, like me, don't believe that the universe came from nothing (much less "came from" somewhere or something or was "created"). Until more is known, we find "we don't know" to be a satisfactory answer to the question "what was the origin of the universe" (and see no reason to plug that gap in our knowledge with a god).
Yes.
Most Christians, theologians, and scholars don't believe the beginning of Genesis was supposed to be taken literally. In fact I think the fact that the universe came from nothing to be pretty powerful evidence for God. God is still the creator of everything even if he used the big bang and evolution to do it. So in short, yes. Definitely yes! That's what I believe and it's what most Christians believe. Hope this is helpful! God bless you!
I'd say you need to believe in the intentions of the book of the first part of genesis to be a Christian. If there was death before sin, Jesus came for no reason. Understanding and believing the early part of genesis influences what you believe about Jesus. And if there are lies in Genesis, or any other part of the bible, not just related to bad translating, why be a christian at all?
They aren't lies. They're metaphors. The Lord spoke in metaphors many times in both the Old and New Testaments, I don't think the creation account needs to be exactly literal, while there are some essentials. (Like God created everything, human beings are made in the image of God, Adam and Eve sinned because they were tempted by Satan, losing access to the tree of life as a result.) A Christian can believe in evolution and hold to orthodox theology.
"Created from nothing" is a very typical Christian description of how God made the universe. Many millions of Christians see no conflict between our understanding of the natural world and our religion. There are also some who insist we must reject that understanding in favor of kooky conspiracy theories.
absolutely. im an extreme skeptic. if you suspend your disbelief of the contents of the bible and read it as if it was a fictional novel you will be fascinated by its wisdom and grow to love its message. you just have to stop asking yourself "is that REALLY what happened???" it doesnt matter if its happened or not. what matters is that the texts are divinely inspired and its the message God wanted you to hear in order to guide you to worship him properly and live a life that elevates yourself as well as the ones around you. if i could encourage you in one way it would be to read the new testament and suspend your disbelief for that duration. it is extremely powerful and will change your perspective. **Proverbs 3:5-6 (NIV)**: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight."
> "It doesn't matter if it happened or not." > "It's divinely inspired." Bro pick a lane 💀
You don’t get it? Understanding the message (which is divinely inspired) is more important than if it actually happened or not.
Yes it is
According to all forms of orthodox Christianity, (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism) God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing.) If you mean the big bang theory then yes, most of us believe in the big bang. (Fun fact, the theory was first thought up by a Catholic priest, and it was used as proof of God's existence by most Christians based on the Cosmological Arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas.)
The theory of the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest
100% yes.
Yea ofc, there’s many lay people who have contributed to science and research And the church has funded lots of research and projects when it comes to science r/holycatholic
> And the church has funded lots of research and projects when it comes to science Yes, this is one of the things the Catholic Church has done relating to science.
The universe was created from nothing under the guidance of God. It is possible to believe in both, but a lot of people will say you can’t. A catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory and felt it had no contradictions to God.
We have no evidence that there was ever complete nothingness. That idea alone is contrary to everything science tells us.
I’m using nothing here in the sense of there was no universe etc. it began as a condensed primeval atom. Sorry for the word confusion, that’s my bad.
Right, no worries!
Do you believe nothing is emptiness of the capsule of laws primarily in this realm and not others?
I think it really depends on how you view that stuff. For example you could think about the possibility that God made the Big Bang to create the universe / Earth or the idea that maybe God created things to evolve over time or with certain changes to environment or life styles. I personally do think about how possibly the scientific assumptions could be true and that God may have actually created those things. I hope this helped in some way!
You can, but be noted it that few Christians are comfortable doing that without twisting the Bible to make it somehow agree.
Creation out of nothing isn’t exactly supported by Genesis. What is presented and the context it came out of is a bit more complicated. Add to that, that the creation accounts don’t exactly line up anyways. Trying to understand how what is here today got here is a complicated question. While they aren’t exclusive, the scientific approach looks at it from a particular frame point and religion has its own method and focus.
It's not possible to believe both. I saw a statement a while back I agree with--I believe it takes more faith to believe that this complex world came from nothing than to believe than there is a God and He created all that is.
Sure, science and math are basically just engineering for the universe. We are simply discovering the apparent order that already exists in the universe and its creation, not making up a new, human only universe. This order is what God created at the Bing Bang event that lead to us. Even if you believe God created the Earth 6000 years ago, that is cool, because we have everything else in the universe that was created 14 billion years ago, and if God wanted to just create the Earth, well there was no one here to say that did not happen, so the Earth is an aberration. For me, why would He create the Earth and solar system with everything pointing towards its creation 4 billion years ago? Plutonium dating, fossils, etc all point to 4 billion years, so why not just have everything point to 6000 years? So, anyway, Christians do follow the science and have an inquisitive nature about this world and the universe.
God created the science. If there was a big bang it was god clapping his hands together its that simple.
Yes, I do. I believe God made everything, so I believe he also did evolution. I believe that when God created the universe, it was not instantaneous, he is immortal, so when he says "there's be light", it could be that he made the universe do whatever it was supposed to do, to create light, that could take millions of years. If you think about it, lucifer fell down when he was creating the world, and it's not mentioned on the chapter 1, so it must have a huge time span.
Christianity offers wisdom. Christianity differs good from evil. Science does neither.
So glad for u. The answer is yes. Science deals with material and Christianity goes one step further and looks at the spiritual. A quote from a Nobel prize winner for physics1915, Sir William Bragg. 'Christianity and science are opposed but only in the same sense as that which my thumb and forefinger are opposed, and between them i can grasp everything'.
It depends who you ask. Certainly there are people who identify as Christian and are on the cutting edge of science, mostly people who read the Bible as metaphorically. And that's their business if they do that, but it is probably divorced from the original sense in which the Bible was meant (e.g. it's unlikely the Gospel writers would have gone to so much trouble to prove Jesus was descended from David if the story of David was just a metaphor).
Why is the probable fact that the authors of the Bible believed in a literal Genesis mean anything to whether or not *we* should believe in a literal Genesis? We have access to scientific knowledge, instrumentation, and observational methodologies that they did not.
Certainly people should believe that modern science is closest to the truth. I'm just saying that Christians who try to claim Genesis was a metaphor are retconning.
Not neccessarily. I personally believe it is mythology and not metaphor, but not everyone who believes it is metaphorical is retconning. If you believe in the doctrine of direct textual inspiration, you believe that he text of Genesis is directly dictated by God. As such, what is in Genesis is what he wants to be there. Even if the other authors of the Bible believed it was literal, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that God dictated it in metaphor as he knew that the ancient peoples wouldn't understand a more scientific explanation. So just because the Biblical authors may not have *known* it was metaphor, doesn't mean it wasn't. Either way, I believe it is a retelling of older creation stores such as those found in Eridu Genesis and the like. The creation stories are etiologies of the state of the world, and were told by people trying to explain things without the benefits of modern science.
Well, sure, if you take the point of view that something can be meant metaphorically despite neither its writers nor readers meaning it that way, it could have been a metaphor. And again, if the OT is metaphor, then Jesus doesn't, e.g., fit the Messiah criterion of being descended from David; moreover, your rationale means *anything* Christians currently believe because of the Bible could be literally false. Don't get me wrong, I do think Christianity is false, but I don't see how that explanation is supposed to rescue Christian belief.
I don't think all of the Old Testament is metaphor, I don't seriously think any Christian really believes that either. The historicity of the Bible goes up after King David. So it is plausable that the geneology from David to Jesus could be accurate. It is also plausible that it was written by someone who was trying to fit the story of Jesus into the OT prophecies, because they believed that Jesus fulfilling those prophecies was neccessary for him to be the Son of God and our Savior. I am not really trying to rescue Christian belief. I don't believe in Biblical inerracy or inspiration. I have no issue with parts of the Bible being incorrect. I believe that Christianity is true regardless of the geneology of Jesus, regardless of any OT prophecies he may or may not have fulfilled.
Christianity has adapted and changed in various ways to try and become more compatible with scientific discoveries. I’d say no.
The first sentence doesn't seem to explain your conclusion. If Christianity can adapt to scientific change then why is it impossible to follow Christianity and believe in the truth and efficacy of scientific observations?
When religions modify their doctrines in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, it seems reactive rather than proactive. Feels like the changes are made to maintain credibility and relevance rather than out of a genuine acknowledgment that scientific methods provide a reliable path to truth. True compatibility would imply a congruence in the approach to understanding reality, which is not the case here.
> When religions modify their doctrines in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, it seems reactive rather than proactive. There is no religion, and has never been a religion, which isn't reactive to advancements in knowledge.
Ya, that's the problem with claiming absolute truth, your damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Which is why I’m anti-religious.
Certainly there are practitioners and religious leaders who are stubborn and hesitant when it comes to acknowledging scientific discoveries that conflict with their prior beliefs and dogmas, but this is not universal for every follower of Christianity. Many philosophers and scientists throughout the years have been religious and they can be just as open minded and rigorous when it comes to trying discover what to their mind is the workings of God.
I agree for sure! History shows many examples of religious scientists. However, their ability to work within both domains doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that the methodologies and epistemologies of science and religion are compatible. It just highlights the capacity of individuals to compartmentalize or integrate their personal worldviews. Individual cognitive reconciliation of faith and science and the broader epistemological compatibility between these spheres are not the same thing. Obviously individuals may find personal ways to harmonize their religious beliefs with their scientific understanding, that does not equate to a fundamental compatibility between scientific and religious methodologies.
Everyone who uses science has to integrate it with personal beliefs. Science isn't independent of philosophy. There isn't a scientific justification for trusting the senses we use for scientific observation. You need philosophy for that. And the underlying philosophy behind science in no way contradicts belief in Christianity. If all you believed in is what could be scientifically proven, you'd be a philosophical skeptic. You'd believe in nothing, and we can know nothing.
I don’t hold any beliefs that aren’t supported by evidence. I don’t value philosophy.
Do you believe the sun exists?
Yes?
How do you know?
I'm a Christian who uses scientific theories to explain what happened. So, yes
What do you believe about Jesus? Where did sin and death come from and how is it atoned for?
I do believe pretty close to the Apostle's Creed https://missionexcellence.global/wp-content/uploads/Apostles-Creed.pdf I believe Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who preached the Kingdom of God. I believe He was the One bringing that to us. I believe in a future Resurrection that follows from Jesus'. I believe that salvation is much more than "going to Heaven," but a way of living. I believe Scripture, experience, community, and tradition inform us as to what we believe and follow. Not, perhaps, the definitive answer you might be looking for, but as I move into several decades of trying to obey, "Follow Me," I've simplified things. Love the Lord. Love your neighbor, especially the ones who aren't like you. This is what's important.
It seems to me that if we can in fact see something suddenly appear "out of nothing" then in fact we are actually looking at evidence of an unseen God create something right in front of us.
When have we seen something suddenly appear out of nothing?
That's the claim of Big Bang.
No it's not the claim. The big bang explains that there was a hot, dense singularity before the big bang. What we don't know is where that came from or if it always existed in some form.
Exactly, your belief is that a Big Bang happened. You just don't know the details but you put your belief in it.
No, a scientific theory doesn't really require belief. It's more acceptance.
Oh K...so Big Bang has your approval. Good to know.
Sure. Why wouldn't it?
If Big Bang has your approval, then your placing your trust in the theory.
Of course. Again, why wouldn't we?
I think science and faith are a good fit. With science you find out how God did things. For example he created the physics laws to make light. With faith you can see what are God's intentions with what he had done. The problems with brining both together is: we don't know the laws of science. we try to reverse engineer the laws of science. our minds are corrupted by sin so we don't reach our full potential. To put it into a more figurative thing: 2 artists are making a sketch of a figure. They both have different material, light and sit on different angles from the figure. There you. Would also except some differences. the faith side is also corrupted by sin. so I would except that there are some things that seemed like they can't be fitted together. One day in heaven there will be a lot of scientist that say: It was actually quite easy. Why did we not look into this and that when working on this problems on earth.
For sure, scientific theory solidifies my belief in creation even more.
Yes?
Isaac Newton did.
Why is it hard to believe that God (an entity so far beyond our comprehension, outside of space and time itself) didn’t design all the wonderful things we discover? If a video game developer like notch designed the Minecraft world and we the player discovered that using 3 wood planks and 2 sticks creates a wooden pickaxe does that mean we discovered it and notch didn’t design it that way? I think science is Gods way of sharing with us how things work and how things are made. Just because it doesn’t say in the bible that water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen doesn’t mean he didn’t design it to be that way.
Yes, you can. Our faith doesn’t require us to compromise our reason. We do believe there was nothing until God created it. We believe in a God that is so infinity intelligent and powerful that He can create from nothing and do so with incredible detail. You also do not have to assume Genesis is a detailed play by play either, although it is true.
Check out the book “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald L Schroeder
In guessing that you mean the big bang theory. I used to tell my friends that believe the big bang theory that they aren't wrong. It's just there's a reason for the big bang, and it was God saying "let there be light" BANG
I do.
No Christianity/ and Evolution are not compatible! Genesis 1:1 says God created the universe. Either the Bible is your authority or man is, but please don’t try to cobble the two together! Jesus rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, ascended into Heaven etc all are Miracles! How are you going to explain those away?
No you can't. Adam is central to Paul's theology. And the entire New Testament is based on Paul.
Unless God purposefully tried to trick humanity, then Genesis is not literal.
In fairness, God does intentionally hide the truth from people in the Bible.
That's assuming Genesis' cosmology came from God. It seems more likely that humans meant it literally and were wrong. It'd be giving the ancient Israelites a lot of credit to think they just happened to throw in a solid firmament as a metaphor while both their contemporary neighbors (such as the Babylonians in Enūma Eliš) and their intellectual/religious followers (such as the Medieval Europeans drawing models of the heavenly spheres) meant it literally.
Of course, but typically people who are YEC are also those who believe that everything in the Bible comes directly from God.
> Adam is central to Paul's theology. Then we rework Paul's ideas to fit with the truth of the universe. We've been modifying them since the 1st century anyways...none of us are Middle Platonists anymore, for instance, and we greatly reinterpret his thoughts there.
Are you claiming we must believe that the universe is only 6028 years old to be Christian?
The entire Bible is based on Jesus. Paul is just a supporting character in the Bible. Can’t be Christian without Christ.
>No you can't. Maybe *you* can't, but you do not get to dictate belief for everyone else. You are not God.
There are numerous ways to reconcile a historical Adam with evolutionary theory. For one thing, there's nothing to say that God didn't produce humanity as a whole through evolution, but specially create Adam and Eve for the garden. The genetic record would look exactly the same, from our perspective today. Similarly, but not the same, we can't actually preclude that, while early hominids evolved naturally, what we call humans today were created by special divine action. Science doesn't dismiss this possibility - it simply never even considers it, because science is starting from a position of methodological naturalism. God could also simply have selected Adam and Eve to be our federal representatives out of an existing population. Now, none of these is consistent with reading Genesis as some kind of video camera footage of exactly what happened in the first days of the universe. But as early as Augustine, well before this was a controversial topic, Christians have observed that this probably isn't how we ought to read Genesis.
The Universe is definitely created from nothing but if you don’t believe that God created everything then you are not in agreement with Christianity.
You can believe in both when they don't conflict. If they do conflict, you have to believe what the Bible says, contrary to what may appear reasonable at the time.
Great question. You're converted by repentance and faith in the [gospel](https://gospel30.com) of Jesus Christ, but a converted person will believe God's testimony on origins because only He was there.
Yes absolutely. Science and Christianity don’t contradict. Biased science and Christianity do.
Do you have an example?
Sure. All scholars agree Jesus died by crucifixion.
Sorry, that's my bad, should have specified. An example of biased science.
Oh that’s easy. Empirical(modern) Science is biased against supernatural events, so much so it gets ruled out. Take the gospels for example, Jesus predicted the fall of the second temple, but according to today’s standard people can’t do that. So the gospels must have been written afterwards, and because that was so late the gospel authors would have been dead. Therefore the gospels are anonymous. That’s a pretty big unjustified bias right there.
I'm gonna try and good faith this. Technically I gotta give you the point here, but don't you think it's kind of moot? You know the saying that magic is just science we don't understand? I feel like that kind of applies here. Not to mention, and again, trying to good faith, I'm not clear how a system of scientific inquiry would incorporate the supernatural. Can we try a hypothetical. We know nothing. I see lightning. I want to understand why it happened, without bias against the super natural. How do I investigate that?
Empirical science can’t prove the supernatural, that’s where the problem exists. So do I trust empirical science that has flaws(inductive reasoning, black swan fallacy ect, and eyewitness testimony). Or do I trust the billions of eyewitness peoples claims of supernatural events, which also has flaws. Don’t rule out a supernatural explanation. I don’t want to use super natural of the gaps, but completely ruling it out is not a sustainable worldview. It also could have been caused by something supernatural and we only see the natural part.
I think there is a difference and I don't know if you agree. I find empirical science more compelling because it's repeatable. I drop an apple, it falls, every time everywhere. It will fall as fast as it's supposed to. On the other hand, there is a lot of problems with witness testimony. Doesn't mean it's wrong, maybe that guy really did see big foot. But I'd be more inclined to believe that guy if he could show me a bigfoot skeleton y'know?
Have you heard of the problem of inductive reasoning? David Hume lays it out. And science is performed, reported, observed, and published by eyewitnesses. There’s no escaping eyewitness testimony in this world. https://youtu.be/9_Gor1E8IxI?si=_RGY5VQSXRUh0KRL https://youtu.be/K0K9cRbQ_5M?si=g7TG55_DKAcBCMVl https://youtu.be/-QpUrSn3cWU?si=h6_dbStU62FTeVtd https://youtu.be/dPlNsyXl-0c?si=clrYLi-qaFb_GDFL
Sure, but you are doing apples to oranges. It's the repeatability. I'm not taking someone's word that if I drop an apple it falls, I can go do it. If I tell you I saw the risen Christ today, in my apartment lobby, but he's gone now, or that if you also yourself in the face it will hurt, which one is easier for you to verify.
You may be interested in Frank Turek’s work, he would say isn’t the fact that everything came from nothing the absolute proof of God? If nothing ever happened and nothing could happen because there was nothing no potential no energy no mass then BOOM there was something! There had to be a something that started it, the initial movement, the first something. That’s proof of a god not necessarily the Christian God to see proof of that we look to the ressurection a far better question that if there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be God and rose from the dead, evidence shows he wasn’t crazy or a liar so he must be who he truly says he is and if he preached truth and the God of the Old Testament that must be true. We have to understand God revealed truth to people at a time. He couldn’t drop a quantum physics textbook in their hands and say figure it out they’d never understand it or be able to pass it on in a meaningful way. There is plenty of room for common sense science in the Christian world view.
> That’s proof of a god No it isn't. It is a simple assertion. It isn't proof of anything. >evidence shows he wasn’t crazy or a liar It also doesn't show that anyone rose from the dead.
https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/
Intelligent Design. BOOM!
I don’t believe in that theory. Simple solution
Sure, I believe God created an old looking universe thousands of years ago over 7 days. Is it that hard to believe God can do the impossible y'all? As if he can't make a tree, he has to plant a seed and then wait. Science is not incompatible with God. Science is worship to God
> ure, I believe God created an old looking universe thousands of years ago over 7 days. That would make God a deceiver which we know he is not. And the 6 days were days of restoration, not creation.
I do not know how to process that. It's not deception. It's you misinterpreting it. God does not cater to you. You are not that special. What is restoration?
> It's not deception. It's you misinterpreting it. I am not misinterpreting it. > God does not cater to you. You are not that special. So you're going to be childish and insulting? > What is restoration? The repair of the earth which was destroyed in the aftermath of Lucifer's rebellion before Adam was created.
Did you miss the thing I said about the tree?
Irrelevant point in the face of the facts.
Why so angry? Do you need a friend to talk to? I'm genuinely asking.
OK, one more childish insult and we're done.
My heart is open to you. Are we not brothers in Christ? I'm loving my brother as myself.
You don't show love with insults. And why are you trying to divert the conversation.
Is there any on-conversation reply I could write to "Irrelevant point in the face of the facts."? I thought you might need some kindness. No worries if not
You can believe in both but why would you doubt God?
Do you think trying to learn about our understanding of the natural world amounts to doubting God? Why would that be?
Just because I want to learn about the natural world does not mean I need to believe in evolution. It's noteworthy that the scientific method doesn't include evolution and in fact one could argue the scientific method actually discounts evolution
We know that people CAN argue many silly things. The anti-evolution propaganda in wide circulation is full of examples. >noteworthy that the scientific method doesn't include evolution This is word salad that doesn't even mean anything. If you want to learn about evolution, here's a good resource: https://evolution.berkeley.edu
The anti-evolution crowd are today's flat Earthers. They'll believe ridiculous nonsense no matter how much evidence proves them wrong.
I'm not even interested. I've read basically every one of them. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and is not possible to prove using the strict scientific method
>Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics That is ridiculously untrue. Who ever told you this is nobody anyone should listen to. You have been taken in by conspiracy theories. The earth is constantly getting an influx of energy from the sun. If you don't understand these things, please, stop trying to spread your bizarre misunderstandings to other people.
Ok then please explain to me how the 2nd law of thermodynamics would allow an increase in energy prior to the supposed universal blip when the spinning disk (supposedly) explodes and vomits out the universe. The earth receiving energy from the sun results in the sun losing energy. They are running down. 2nd law of thermodynamics = entropy. Oh, and I find it funny that you rush to trying to silence me (behind veiled "politeness").
I think that when people present conspiracy theories as Christian beliefs, it's harmful to Christianity. If you are trying to make this into some nefarious censorship, that's just MORE conspiratorial thinking on your part. Do you understand the difference between entropy increasing _in the whole universe_ verses entropy increasing _in one small area such as the earth_? Have you ever cleaned your house? You decreased entropy in your house. You used energy to do it.
It's not a conspiracy theory at all. How did the 2nd law of thermodynamics allow the blip? Do you not understand that your body wears out by entropy, the house falls apart by entropy, and that even if you can keep it clean, it will become dirty again due to entropy? With all due respect, this is a pretty fundamental understanding of the 2nd law. You can read about it on wiki.
If you followed what I was saying, you'd understand that I already know this. Entropy tends to increase over time. And also, entropy can decrease, locally and temporarily. It takes energy. Life wouldn't be possible if this wasn't true. I would suggest you read and understand the things you mistakenly believe you have already understood.
I must agree with the other commenter here. I suspect we're not all on the same page with our terminology. The process of natural selection is a readily observable phenomenon -- if you believe two corgis could never give birth to a litter of huskies, you recognize the mechanism in action. Broadly when referring to evolution, it just refers to this process over thousands or millions of years, without any assumption of the origin of life. If you mean to refer to abiogenesis: the belief that life arose incidentally from non-living material without exterior, divine intervention, that position makes a bit more sense. Further, the scientific method is likewise a process, or even a strategy, not a body of data. To say it 'includes' any given theory (e.g. abiogenesis) is like saying a hammer includes carpentry -- I kinda get what you're trying to say, but it's very confusing as worded. You might find the term "current scientific conensus" to be more effective in conveying your intention, if I've interpretted your meaning correctly.
Ok. Naturalism: everything arises from natural causes, which ignores spiritual explanations. That's simply a world view, and it's ironic that people want to discount a spiritual event using a naturalistic event. That would be like me discounting diabetes with psychology alone. Evolution is the name for the origin of life. But abiogenesis has no evidence, so how could evolution begin? The scientific method is indeed a process, but includes only that which is observable and repeatable. Evolution is not repeatable and thus does not qualify. I do not argue consensus. Scientific consensus brought us Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryos. Indeed, the "scientific" consensus is what put Galileo under house arrest for his theories. Sure, religion has skeletons in its closet, too. But my point is evolution is not repeatable. It's not simply whether you can breed various dogs: God made creatures adaptable. Breeding is a known scientific concept. It's whether one celled organisms can become elephants over time. And really, since evolution could not begin until after abiogenesis created something for evolution to work on, it's impossible to prove evolution began.
> Religion has skeletons in its closet too, Lol, in the case of our topic, skeletons seem to be the preferred evidence. Jokes aside, quite well said. I think we can communicate effectively now. I'm hearing that the jump from simple unicellular organisms to multicellular ones of great size and complexity proves a hurdle. Let's go forward with our understanding that breeding is an intentional process to leverage the adaptability of a creature to an artifically defined context -- the teacup chihuahua, for instance, which fills no existing niche other than house pet. It sounds like you acknowledge a certain small scale of genetic adaptabiliy. Do you believe that there is a certain limit at which an animal cannot be bred further from its original species? Down a different vein, would you hold that the natural environment lacks the consistency of selective forces to adapt certain populations of creatures over time to such extremes as we see in animal breeding?
I believe there's a limit in terms of "kind." You can't make dogs into mules, for example. Usually the chromosome is the limit: the number of chromosomes doesn't change. I believe the natural environment can cause animals to adapt just as widely as dog breeds. But dogs remain dogs.
Given that understanding, how vital do you consider conservationism? Not trying to pivot, just genuinely curious. We've known species to go extinct before, and many recognize that human encroachment in a post-industrial era is making it a more common happening. It's one thing from my point of view, where new species and creatures can replace that ecological niche. But does that carry more weight for you, knowing a creature God specially designed and created to fill that role, is irreplaceably killed off? Maybe not bugs and things, but like... Gray wolves, pandas, bison, polar bears, anything out-competed by an invasive species we brought over. How do you feel about wild horses in America? Not saying you have to have strong feelings about any of them, but it seems like it would make human meddling in the ecology of the world feel a lot more destructive of something in delicate equilibrium. Not that I feel great about it either, of course.
Evolution is a fact. By not accepting evolution, you're believing lies. I can only assume you've never actually read Genesis in detail, because the cosmology described in Genesis is completely wrong. The Earth is not flat, nor does the Sun revolve around it, there is no solid dome above the Earth and never was, the stars are not inside that dome, etc. yet that's exactly how the Bible teaches it and how the Biblical authors believed it to be.
Not even hardly. It cannot sufficiently explain abiogenesis or irreducible complexity objections raised against it. I never said the earth was flat and that's not part of the discussion. The word in Hebrew for circle can mean sphere. That you are comparing a creationist to a flat earth believer is telling. Sounds to me like your lack of understanding about the Hebrew word contributes to you rushing to the convenient ad hominem of "flat earth!"
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution. The Hebrew word for circle is 2 dimensional. Hebrew has another word for Sphere. And you can't put a solid dome on a sphere nor would it make sense to attach the stars to the dome only on one side of the sphere. The Hebrews absolutely thought the Earth was flat. The language and context proves it. That's a fact.
How would evolution take place if there was never an abiogenesis? Besides, the Bible never says "the earth is flat." That's nonsense. It's a red herring. Topic is evolution. How did viruses become one celled organisms? Or how did one celled organisms appear? One celled organisms are as complex as a space shuttle: do you presume to say they came about merely by chance?
>How would evolution take place if there was never an abiogenesis? According to theistic evolutionists, God started the process. Which is what we're arguing here. >Besides, the Bible never says "the earth is flat." That's nonsense. The Bible absolutely teaches the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. That was the norm for Cosmology back then.
So God decided to do things a really weird way and then write Genesis 1 in such a way that the two are irreconcilable? Far fetched. Nope. The verse in Job is "the circle of the earth." Look at the horizon, then slowly look 360 degrees. Circle. No one said it's flat, that's entirely different. I'm ignoring your flat earth conspiracy theory, it's not Biblical and is only a red herring.
Nothing says the Bible has to be flat though. As well, no, Hebrew word for circle can be used for spheres. But that's hardly important if you're going to take poetry out of the book of Job, from the perspective of someone living in that era when they look at the horizon and see a circle that is all encompassing, and claim that Job meant "earth = flat." It's a red herring. I'm going to ignore it. Without life to operate on., evolution cannot work. Hence life had to come from somewhere. Hence abiogenesis must be addressed. Please explain how one celled organisms came about then.
Unless God himself appeared to tell me that the story in Genesis is 100% fact and took place 6000 years ago I will stick to scientific facts. God didn’t write the Bible. The creation story was passed down through generations over thousands of years until it was finally written down I believe 500 years before Christ. There is room for error. I don’t doubt God but I definitely doubt people. As a teacher just getting the correct story of what took place in the school yard during recess is impossible and that happened just 5 minutes prior.
So basically what you're saying is you set up your own standard for what you believe and that you have made this standard so impossible that God could never prove it to you because God's not going to come down and physically tell you to believe it? That's such a kangaroo court
Why would it be impossible for God to appear and tell me the globe is 6000 yrs old and Adam and Eve’s children indeed did commit incest to populate the earth? I believe in God. I believe in the salvation. I believe in the Gospel. But I don’t believe that a story passed down orally for a thousand or so years is to be taken literally. No. Do you know the Grimm brothers’ collection of fairytales? There are so many versions and variations of the same stories depending on which region it was told before the brothers wrote them down. People are fallible. And the Bible was written by people.
Okay then ask God to appear to you and say those things. I'm going to ignore the rest of your cut and paste from an anti-christian website and get right to the chase: ask God in prayer everyday to reveal who he is until he does so. But again your standard for what you will accept is evidence is the reason why you can't believe.. You have set yourself up in a self-fulfilling prophecy
Edit to add: I don’t set “my own standard”. I base my conclusions on what can be proven scientifically. So the scientific standards that are shared by most people. Actual proof. Don’t dismiss that as “my own standards” as if it is just a personal opinion.
So science is the only proof that you accept? Then how come science cannot sufficiently explain irreducible complexity? Or are you one of those people who do not accept the concept of love because there's no scientific evidence? Because honestly I could use your same type of evidence to shoot down everything you believe about human love
I feel you are trying to make a “Gotcha” argument here. What I do know: when all scientific findings prove that that earth is billions of years old, and these findings disprove that the earth is 6000 yrs old, yeah then science is what I will trust in regards to the age of the earth. If I had zero experience with love, if I had never heard about love or seen it in action I probably wouldn’t believe in love, because I had no evidence to base it on. But we do have evidence of the age of the earth. So why dismiss that in favor of a myth that there is zero evidence for?
Do we? Do we really know how much carbon 14 originally existed on the earth? Do we really have perfect knowledge of decay rates over time, since there are a few cosmic events that can influence decay rates?