The Modern Era Scientist don't help me, but I still have my faith in God

[JohnB445]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

 

[Bradskii]

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

Some people are simply pointing out that parts of the bible should not be read literally. That should not cause you to doubt your faith.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

Man's intellect, no matter how brilliant, is no match for God. Of course man is negative to God's word. It condemns him as a sinner, tells him that he is a fool to deny the existence of God, tells him that he will suffer eternal consequences for his rebellion against God. There is nothing new about this. Paul was a scholarly and intelligent man. Yet he counted all that he had learned as a Pharisee as rubbish compared to knowing Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:20

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

God placed in the Bible exactly what He wants us to know. Evolution is a desperate attempt to deny God as the Creator. Creation itself declares God's glory. Man is the pinnacle of God's creation, in spite of the fall. God will restore mankind to the glory that he was supposed to have from the beginning (Romans 8:30).

Either creatures evolved or God created. Theistic evolution is contrary to God's word. When God appeared to Job, He recounted His mighty power and wisdom as the Creator. (Job 39 & 40 etc.) The Bible uses words such as create, form and make. If someone denies the existence of God, then his only option is evolution. Science can be a wonderful tool for the betterment of mankind. However, once this age is over and the Kingdom of God is in place, science will be irrelevant.

 

[Petros2015]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.
However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

I don't think this even lists my personal favorite, Gerald Schroeder

Gerald Schroeder - Wikipedia
(but that's because he's Jewish, not Christian - still, loves his Torah like a Pentacostal loves their New Testament, and being Jewish, knows his Torah about 10x better)

Seek and ye shall find

 

[durangodawood]

...Either creatures evolved or God created.....

Does the Bible describe how God created the various plants and creatures? Like exactly how He devised and assembled the various parts and so on?

 

[ottawak]

Does the Bible describe how God created the various plants and creatures? Like exactly how He devised and assembled the various parts and so on?

As I remember, Genesis tells us that God said, "Let the Earth bring forth..." that is, let it happen naturely.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

He was not religious, but I don't know that Sagan was particularly negative about the Bible. As Bradskii points out, his problem was with a literal interpretation of it that makes the Bible into something it's not. As you say, there is no "statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans."

In Sagan's own words:

“The natural world around us shows that the Earth, for example, is about 4.6 billion years old, nothing like 6,000 years old. So a literal reading of the Bible is simply mistaken. It’s just wrong,” Sagan said. “As a work of science, it’s flawed. It’s the science of the Babylonians in the sixth century B.C., and we’ve learned something since then.”

If the Bible is a work of science, then it does indeed have flaws. But I don't think that's what the Bible is.

 

[inquiring mind]

As I remember, Genesis tells us that God said, "Let the Earth bring forth..." that is, let it happen naturely.

But, according to Genesis, He didn't say let the earth bring forth man.

 

[jayem]

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.
.

Your Pascal’s Wager belief is faulty. There are more than 2 choices. Suppose it turns out that Allah is the real and true God? Or that the Mormon god who lives on the planet/star Kolob is the actual sovereign deity of our world? As a non-believer, you could be in trouble. In fact, only about 1/3 of the world’s population accepts that the Judeo-Christian god is God. People have worshipped tens of thousands of different deities throughout history. Which one you choose is a matter of learning and acculturation. And ultimately, you just have to have faith that you made the right choice.

 

[partinobodycular]

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

The problem as I see it is the highlighted bit at the end. If there truly is an overarching "right or wrong"/"good or bad" then shouldn't I seek after that regardless of the highlighted bit? Isn't it nobler to do what's right simply because it's right, then to do it because of what one stands to gain by it?

Which do you think that God looks more favorably on, honestly admitting that one has doubts, or self righteously claiming that one doesn't? Personally, I choose to be honest, and leave any judgment for that honesty up to God.

 

[Rachel20]

The problem as I see it is the highlighted bit at the end. If there truly is an overarching "right or wrong"/"good or bad" then shouldn't I seek after that regardless of the highlighted bit? Isn't it nobler to do what's right simply because it's right, then to do it because of what one stands to gain by it?

That brings up my nagging question how utilitarianism is even an ethics theory. I mean I get the gist, but like you, I see it as reasoning separate from moral reasoning (unless I'm misunderstinding you). In order to even think in terms of "right" vs "wrong", one would need to first know the difference, ie the knowledge of "good" and "evil". And so, Eve's reasoning is purely utilitarian before gaining that knowledge:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Genesis 3:6

 

[High Fidelity]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

The scientific process is at odds with the bible and many of its claims, it’s as simple as that.

There’s little evidence to support many claims in the Bible and plenty towards the contrary, but that’s only really an issue when everything is taken literally, and not simply as the interpretation of societal and scholastic opinion from thousands of years ago.

The Bible is not a scientific manual. Recognising that was an important step for me too.

 

[partinobodycular]

That brings up my nagging question how utilitarianism is even an ethics theory. I mean I get the gist, but like you, I see it as reasoning separate from moral reasoning (unless I'm misunderstinding you). In order to even think in terms of "right" vs "wrong", one would need to first know the difference, ie the knowledge of "good" and "evil". And so, Eve's reasoning is purely utilitarian before gaining that knowledge:

I wonder the same thing...I think. Prior to gaining the knowledge of good and evil how could Eve have made a choice between good and evil actions?

I try to imagine the dilemma slightly differently, in that that choice, for the first time, demonstrated that unlike all the other creatures that God had created Eve had the ability to reason out what was good and what was bad. She could understand the consequences of her actions, and she could consciously choose between them. She had evolved the ability to reason, and in that ability to reason lay the foundation for the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve's eyes were opened by the simple fact that for the first time they could understand the consequences of their actions, and would forevermore be forced to choose between them. The world had suddenly lost its idyllic innocence and they could never again go back to the Garden. To me it's not that that "original sin" changed the world so much as that original sin signified a change that had already occurred in us. We had gained the ability to reason, and we could never be innocent again.

To me, that's what the story of Adam and Eve is all about. It's about humanity evolving the ability to reason, to contemplate the consequences of their actions, and to always and forever be destined to have to choose between them. And we as their descendants share in that "original sin", not because of what we do, but because of what we are, we are creatures with the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

Academia breeds hostility towards fundamental Christianity.

It has a zero-tolerance for Biblical doctrine.

Yet ... while telling us to "leave our Christianity at the door" when we step into their arena, they have no qualms about stepping into ours to do DNA checks on wafers, or double-blind prayer tests, where they say praying to God is no different than praying to a milk carton.

They even claim they went and searched for evidence of a global Flood and found none.

But if you press them, they'll admit it was some 150 to 200 years ago they did that.

The truth is, they don't even know what to look for.

And yet, Christian-talk is off-limits on their property.

 

[Bradskii]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

Just a heads up on what some people might mean by 'academia'. They mean education and those who have been educated.

If you think that education or listening to those who have been educated might cause you to lose your faith then you'd best find a cave somewhere and remove yourself from society.

If, however, you think your faith is strong enough, then involve yourself in an investigation, the gaining of knowledge, honest argument and debate. Listen to those who agree with you. But most definitely search out and listen to those who don't. Test your beliefs against them.

Your faith may grow stronger.

 

[AV1611VET]

... honest argument and debate.

* cough * cough *

[pats chest]

 

[Bradskii]

* cough * cough *

[pats chest]

I'd actively encourage John to discuss matters with you. If he was having some doubts about his political affiliations then he'd need to investigate MTG's beliefs as well as Chuck Schumer's. In fact, if I was a Democrat then checking out MTG would be my first suggestion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd actively encourage John to discuss matters with you. If he was having some doubts about his political affiliations then he'd need to investigate MTG's beliefs as well as Chuck Schumer's. In fact, if I was a Democrat then checking out MTG would be my first suggestion.

MTG?

 

[Bradskii]

MTG?

Yes. Her. The one who isn't a Democrat.

 

[SkyWriting]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

Likely his views have changed a lot since then.