13 Oct 17
"Proof of God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance". Brilliant quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson. What he is saying here is that your belief cannot evolve with more wisdom. Every time we discover a new element or particle, it opens the 'door of mysteries' a little bit more. The 'belief' in God is stagnate, there have been no new sightings of divinity and nothing reveled by Him. He must look upon this universe with indifference or ignorance.
400 yrs ago we couldn't understand how the planets held their orbits- The Christians said, " It must be God's hand!" now we know how gravity and mass have a delicate relationship with these celestial objects.
In science there is a 'belief', that any new discovery needs to be confirmed and then proven to be either true or false. There is no, 'praying for it to come true', it either is, or isn't.
There is room for both faith and science in our lives but they will never have a slow dance at the church social.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
13 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarDefine 'God.'
If you are looking for evide nce of God, then look at life itself.
We have just as much evidence for the existence of God as we do for abiogenesis.
(I'm guessing the Christian God, right? And that the same evidence doesn't support say a Hindu God?)
13 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @xyyzThe thing is that there is more to God than the universe He put together in a few days, the same universe He holds together by the power of His Word. Nothing stops us from learning and growing in understanding withi or without having God in our lives.
"Proof of God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance". Brilliant quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson. What he is saying here is that your belief cannot evolve with more wisdom. Every time we discover a new element or particle, it opens the 'door of mysteries' a little bit more. The 'belief' in God is stagnate, there have been no new sightings of di ...[text shortened]... both faith and science in our lives but they will never have a slow dance at the church social.
Originally posted by @xyyzBut belief can and does "evolve with wisdom". Wisdom is NOT the same as intelligence.
"Proof of God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance". Brilliant quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson. What he is saying here is that your belief cannot evolve with more wisdom. Every time we discover a new element or particle, it opens the 'door of mysteries' a little bit more. The 'belief' in God is stagnate, there have been no new sightings of di ...[text shortened]... both faith and science in our lives but they will never have a slow dance at the church social.
Christians do evolve in their faith journey. We move from ignorance to truth, from worthlessness to salvation, with many steps in-between. Wisdom is the qualifier, not intelligence (even though intelligence is still required, wisdom is more important). Personal revelation IS a "thing".
Perhaps the "more-evolved" and "more wise" of us also have no problem accepting both faith and science as fact: two sides to the same coin, called "knowledge". They dance together quite well, thank you. Ignoring either side leaves us with only half the toolbox. "Ignore" IS the root of "ignorance", after all.
By the way, there is no "Proof of God". It's completely unnecessary and beyond the point.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a brilliant astrophysicist. But his toolbox is only half full, since he ignores faith. He should stick to astrophysics.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @xyyz
"Proof of God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance". Brilliant quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson.
II don't need mathematical proof for God's existence to know I am on the right track to have Christ completely wash my conscience from the stain of many sins, and empower me to live like Him. To have evidence that turning my heart over to Jesus Christ was the best decision I ever made does not require absolute proof in the same way of proving a mathematics formula.
What he is saying here is that your belief cannot evolve with more wisdom.
That's not true because the Christian is exhorted to GROW in the knowledge of God.
"But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 3:18)
Maybe you are following Neil Degrasse Tyson blindly.
The Christians in Colossi were GROWING in the full knowledge of God.
" ... walk worthily of the Lord to please Him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work and GROWING in the full knowledge of God." (Col. 1:10)
Maybe your high priest of Scientism, Neil Degrasse Tyson is out of his area of expertise, expecting you to follow him blindly.
The normal church life is a matter of people GROWING with the actual GROWTH of GOD within them in fact.
" ... holding the Head, out from whom all the Body, being richly supplied and knit together by means of the joints and sinews, GROWS with the growth of God." (Eph. 2:19)
We are commanded to grow up into Christ in all things.
"But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ." (Eph. 4:15)
Tell Neil Degrasse Tyson that his ignorant statement is contradicted by the Bible. Paul and his co-workers labored to present every man "FULL-GROWN" in Christ.
"Christ ... Whom we announce, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man full-grown in Christ." (Col. 1:28)
Neil Degrasse Tyson should speak just for himself. Or he should stick to his area of knowledge - astronomy and not play theologian at least until he reads something in the New Testament.
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @suzianneI think if scientific analysis demonstrated conclusively that specific religious claims are false, religious myths in this context should be discarded and the findings of science should be accepted, regardless of one's religion. Till then, methinks they cannot dance at all😵
But belief can and does "evolve with wisdom". Wisdom is NOT the same as intelligence.
Christians do evolve in their faith journey. We move from ignorance to truth, from worthlessness to salvation, with many steps in-between. Wisdom is the qualifier, not intelligence (even though intelligence is still required, wisdom is more important). Personal rev ...[text shortened]... t. But his toolbox is only half full, since he ignores faith. He should stick to astrophysics.
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleThat's a mighty big IF, since God can not be proved OR disproved. However, yes, "the findings of science should be accepted, regardless of one's religion" BECAUSE faith and science DO dance so well together. One needs both to fully protect against "ignorance".
I think if scientific analysis demonstrated conclusively that specific religious claims are false, religious myths in this context should be discarded and the findings of science should be accepted, regardless of one's religion. Till then, methinks they cannot dance at all😵
Creationism does not negate the Big Bang nor cosmology nor evolution as a whole, and vice-versa. Those who claim they do are the ignorant. One needs answers to both questions: "how?" AND "why?". Ignoring either one is what contributes to ignorance.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou know that there are over a million gods in classic Hinduism?
Define 'God.'
(I'm guessing the Christian God, right? And that the same evidence doesn't support say a Hindu God?)
Here's a few - Shiva, Krisha, Kartikeya, Bá¹›haspati, Ganesha, Trimurti, Indra, Prajapati,
Vishnu, Rama, Garuda, Chandra, Brahma, Surya, etc. etc. ...
The 33 Million Gods of Hinduism. Why Hindus worship so many gods and goddesses is a real mystery for most people. In the West, where the mass majority of people are part of the Abrahamic faith tradition with one God, the concept of polytheism is nothing more than fantasy or mythology worthy of comic book material.Aug 6, 2012
https://www.google.com/search?q=million+gods+Hinduism&oq=million+gods+Hinduism+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7249j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @suzianneYes, G-d cannot be proved or disproved, we agree.
That's a mighty big IF, since God can not be proved OR disproved. However, yes, "the findings of science should be accepted, regardless of one's religion" BECAUSE faith and science DO dance so well together. One needs both to fully protect against "ignorance".
Creationism does not negate the Big Bang nor cosmology nor evolution as a whole, and vice-ver ...[text shortened]... ers to both questions: "how?" AND "why?". Ignoring either one is what contributes to ignorance.
Instead of Faith and Science however, the pair "Evaluation of the Mind & Science" works better for me when it boild down to "how and "why"; for I still cannot see, for example, how and by what means one could accept both the theory of the evolution and the story of the protoplasts as viable theories of reality (in case the case of Adam and Eve is not conceived as a metaphor) 😵
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleAs long as truth not assumptions are what we are passing off as facts.
I think if scientific analysis demonstrated conclusively that specific religious claims are false, religious myths in this context should be discarded and the findings of science should be accepted, regardless of one's religion. Till then, methinks they cannot dance at all😵
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonshipThey are all the same sonship, manifestations of the very same entity😵
You know that there are over a million gods in classic Hinduism?
Here's a few - Shiva, Krisha, Kartikeya, Bá¹›haspati, Ganesha, Trimurti, Indra, Prajapati,
Vishnu, Rama, Garuda, Chandra, Brahma, Surya, etc. etc. ...
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayIn some cases truth still consists merely of assumptions, viable or not😵
As long as truth not assumptions are what we are passing off as facts.
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleNo
They are all the same sonship, manifestations of the very same entity😵
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleTruth doesn't have to change where opinions and assumptions do.
In some cases truth still consists merely of assumptions, viable or not😵