The two can exist harmoniously together without conflict.
Confirmation bias in the secular paradigm is the problem. Not the scientific data, which as you say, substantiates how all things are held together (in Him).
How has science impacted your perspective on the Hebrew Bible?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Confirmation bias in the secular paradigm is the problem. Not the scientific data, which as you say, substantiates how all things are held together (in Him).
Not exactly. You are applying this word with a very broad brush and demonstrating that you either wish to do so in order to make a point or, you really are not cognizant of the far narrower application.
Are you aware that Gnosticism was very active when Paul wrote his letters, including those to Timothy? Rather than attacking science, which did not exist then in the theatre in which we see it now, Paul was adderessing false variations of the gospel that
were circulating. It's ridiculous to use that verse/passage and attempt to say it applies to science. It had to do with false teaching
of esoteric knowledge, held by the Gnostis, which, is clearly evident in any actual study of the events of Paul's day. Much of what
Paul wrote had to do with correcting false doctrine and attacks on the gospel, salvation through Christ alone.
I'm not going to deal with the rest of what you wrote but you are bringing a misleading understanding to the word gnostic or gnosis and actual understanding of what Paul was writing here.
Yes. Assertions can be baseless and and are often made by people with an exaggerated opinion of themselves as you say. I do not care one single iota what you believe regarding creation, it's not salvic, but taking scripture and using it to suit yourself due to your desire to prove others wrong, is one of the reasons we have fruitless discussions in which nothing is ever settled and theads are repeated and arguements ensue.
Science is not babbling. I think God knows a thing or two about it since He is the One who created all things. I may just actually believe that more than those who proclaim Genesis is a history book. It is not.
I too enjoy my life in the sciences, for me it was the computer/chemistry sciences and my love of the study of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. For me insight on the its impact on my life and the lives of my family and friends. I would not be alive today but for the power of medical sciences and the grace of God.
I am deeply concerned that, based all available research, young people and young families are walking away from Christianity at an all time high rate. I know that there are a number of factors that are driving this retreat, but here I am probing at the anxiety they experience when their church orthodoxy puts them in intellectual cross roads with their education.
Many Christian dogmas are anti-science and anti-evidence based. They are quick to brand sciences that contend with their dogmas as "Satanic" thus leaving the young to choose between unsupportable dogmas or being essentially called satan worshippers. They ask educated intelligent young people to choose one over the other in a "my way or the highway" mentality. This is not the only reason Christianity in North America and Europe are losing our youngest and brightest, but it is one unnecessary reasons.
So, lets see if we can discuss this timely topic in a way that can be productive. Let's start by agreeing that science is neither true or false. It is simply a methodology of understanding data, testing it, validating it and evolving it. There is no static thing about science. There are strongly believed facts and conclusions about what science means for our lives but each day science is not what it was yesterday as discoveries and new data continuously tune the current understanding of our lived reality.
It is undeniable that we have massive blessings from the current function of the sciences. At the same time we also have massive blessings from our faith. Where our dogmas conflict with current science, let us contend with that tension in love and faith without fear.
Absolutely.
Recently I am more and more convinced that God not only created heaven and earth, He is sustaining us everyday.
So no worries, all is in His mighty control.
Well said. I like to think of my life as a voyage of discovery. Everyday I discover the work of God in my life and in the lives of others. Everyday I marvel at the impact for both the good and bad that comes from the sciences and their application. At the core, the instinct for religion and science are the same, the desire to discover more, to apply what brings value to life and to the lives of others. I know too that I will leave this life with incomplete knowledge but with complete faith.
Okay, this looks like a fun assignment.
Math - 2 + 2 = 4. T // 2 + 2 3. F
Chemistry - 1H + 2O = water. T // 1H + 2O = TNT. F
Physics - e = mc2. T // e = mc/2. F
Architecture - N (Not a hard science)
Medicine - N
Astronomy - T (This is what my Dad did) // Astrology F
Biology - All living things have the same nucleobases (A, T, C, G). T
Geology - earth is made of chemicals and shaped by physical forces. T
Nature - This is redundant with other hard sciences. N
Genetics - DNA in genes conveys physical traits from parents to their children. T
I believe God created both the physical and spiritual dimensions of reality, so my faith harmonizes both.
The connection I see is that belief is fallible/unprovable (2Cor. 5:7),
so we must love truth (2Thes. 2:10) and be open to learning new truth (1Ths. 5:21).
I share your concern about the un-Scriptural anti-scientific bias of many who claim to be Christians,
and as a teenager I experienced the doubt they caused until I read GW and realized they were wrong.
I trust that you noted my answers expressed agreement that science (like interpretation of GW) may be either true or false.
I find it reassuring that science views the universe as unique rather than oscillating,
and humanity as descended from one ancestor rather than evolving from all over the place,
because I believe God created the universe and directed the differentiation of creatures.
In keeping with our theme of science....Before the eruption in 1980 Mt Saint Helens was 9,677 and after the eruption it was 8,363. Thus Mt Saint Helens did not form quickly. It was discovered at the original height in 1792.
I note with interest your math skills. Perhaps you are ready to claim the $1million prize if you can solve the Riemann Hypothesis.
As a chemistry fan perhaps you take on the Marcus Theory of Inverted Region. You might enjoy a shot at the String on Spool physics problem. As for astronomy, why not postulate on the Hubble Tension question of how fast our universe is expanding. On the purely theoretical side, what is your faith position on dark matter?
No, I did not inherit the math genes from my dad. I remember seeing something about the Riemann Hypothesis in his papers after his death.
The most I retained from my chemistry-physics HS year was that I sat at the rear of the class and could not see the chalkboard clearly,
which was when I realized that I needed glasses.
My favorite physics experiment was reading Gamow's "1,2,3 Infinity", which blew my mind!
Regarding astronomy, my Dad taught himself how to predict the orbits of satellites and became the go-to guy for that at Sandia Labs.
I refrain from theoretical speculation about dark matter and strings, mainly because it is over my head.
Dr Steven Hawking, theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist is the High Priest of religion of Science said,
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."
@biblestudent78 ,
How do you reconcile these two religions, Bible based Christianity and Science?
This is your concern.
"Many Christian dogmas are anti-science and anti-evidence based. They are quick to brand sciences that contend with their dogmas as "Satanic" thus leaving the young to choose between unsupportable dogmas or being essentially called satan worshippers."
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."
@biblestudent78 ,
How do you reconcile these two religions, Bible based Christianity and Science?
This is your concern.
"Many Christian dogmas are anti-science and anti-evidence based. They are quick to brand sciences that contend with their dogmas as "Satanic" thus leaving the young to choose between unsupportable dogmas or being essentially called satan worshippers."
Interesting/ironic that Hawking uses language implying personhood (create, self) to deny the divine Person.
Discovery via Hubble of ever-expansion contradicts the oscillating universe faith. Too bad he did not repent.
Gravity is a net woven by time and space.
God created everything out of nothing, you can get a little hint of that from observer effect, in quantum physics.
God created everything out of nothing, you can get a little hint of that from observer effect, in quantum physics.
Yes, including gravity and nothing, if there is such a thing. I find it impossible to imagine nothing.
Romans 1:18....unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
They did not want to retain God in their minds.
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
I have to correct myself.
I said that Hawking and atheist Carl Sagan are the High Priests of this religion of Science falsely so called.
I should have used the past tense. In the eyes of academia they still are their high priests, along with Dawkins and Darwin: However all of those men are dead. Jesus the Creator still lives forevermore.
Colossians 1: 14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The greatest tragedies are the countless multitudes who trusted these wicked leaders of their godless religion. People have a tendency to trust authority figures. If that's all they know from infancy to their twenties, most will believe the lies. I mock their leaders as the fools that the Bible calls them, just as Jesus mocked the religious leaders who led their followers away from the Savior. The tragedies are the multitudes in Hell.
@GWH,
My jr highschool science teacher made us listen to this entire Cosmos series. The teacher used his high priest Carl Sagan to convert us all to his stupid religion of atheism. My parents were robbed of tens of thousands of dollars to shove this trash into my brain instead of getting a true education that honored the Lord.
What do you think about being forced to pay the public fool system and libraries to push their false religion that sends everyone to Hell?
that's funny.I am thinking at the moment we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior, His blood enter into us, we are reborn, born again.
Or when holy spirit blow the wind to us, we repent and accept Jesus, then holy spirit enter into us, we are born again, a new person.
In quantum physics, object can enter into another object, superimposed.
In Science in the beginning they themselves begin at a misleading point in the creation by beginning with the big bang without explaining where the particles(photons) began in the first place. It's as if they would rather explain creation from the point of photon particles already existing prior to the big bang and hope none will ever ask them where the particles in e=mc2 came from that became the matter that was ejected during the big bang or what was the source of the fuel that created the heat in the first place. If there were light then there would exist particles(photons) and so E(energy/light) would equal mass squared because two particles traveling at the speed of light colliding with one another can and would form matter. The first building block of creation then would be light itself and if there is void and darkness there is then no light in it and no creation. In the first three verses of the Scriptures it does not make the mistake of beginning creation without light being the first source of creation instead it explains that there was void(no matter exist) and darkness(no light) and begins in the first three verses with the correct first building block of creation,light. https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm
My understanding is in the beginning, the first thing created is time, or time and space created together.
Then light enter into the time space net.
I am not sure light is created.
But light objects, as sun and moon were created in following days.
Then light enter into the time space net.
I am not sure light is created.
But light objects, as sun and moon were created in following days.