Clarification: as explained with the disclaimer at 02:20, the number of scientists who believe or don't believe in God does not prove whether He exists or not. The goal of this video is just to show that science and religion can be compatible/coexist peacefully in practice.
Check out Thomas Woods' Catholic Church Builder of Civilization. It's a book and it was also made into a TV series. Episodes 2-4 are on the Catholic Church and science. Including one just on Galileo. Lots of misconceptions and popular history written by people that hate the Church.
lol. they definítely didn't believe in Yahweh. Most of them were agnostics and probably entered religion because it was synonymous with ethnicity back then.
But they are not compatible ... if one believes in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago ... and the other believes in a Bib band & inflation 13.8 billion years ago and Evolution. 4 billion years ago. You need to explain what Mankind ... will always believe in "the gods?" And Science is simply a Method (function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explained natural phenomena (functions) of the Universe(Functions) relying on fixed laws of Nature (functions) for repeatable experiments and to make predictions. The scientific Method is simply: 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Test & Predict 4. Conclude 5. Refine ( only if merit). The Hypothesis of Evolution by natural selection ... fails the scientific method. .. especially when it was common knowledge Natural selection only causes variation & adaptation within a species, which is what the Fossil records have only showed. But for over 300 years ... Christians have been using Machine Analogies to explain Creation by God. An Analogy is simply a well reasoned .. OBSERVATION .. not a proof. Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine analogies and includes Functions, Information, Intelligence & Mind .... to explain ... why everything is a Function that can only be made by an intelligence. Christians developed the sciences we have today, not atheists, Hindus or Muslims and are still the majority. But for over nearly 200 years ... Humanist Liberals like Charles Darwin .... successfully made the old Universe .. a science fact without actual evidence ... scientists to make their hypothesis based on a false origin of the Universe & Life ... and ... to regularly start from the Conclusion step and work back to find a hypothesis & data to prove this conclusion.
Science and religion can be compatible the same way apples and oranges are compatible. There's no conflict until you try to make an apple pie with those sunkist navels.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Science & Religion ... are Functions ... with information to exist & to function ... created by an Intelligence with a Mind & freewill. Anything with clear ... purpose, meaning, reason, rules & design ... is a Function.... and can only be made by an Intelligence. And Man .. will always believe in "the gods' & a spirit ... because Man is a Natural Intelligence with the Mind & intellect .. to always deduced from OBSERVATION .... that anything with clear purpose, meaning, rules & design ... can only be made by a intelligence. Not apples & oranges. Just ... Functions.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg
I was planning to include this in the video actually but the problem with many such quotes is that it's not clear whether the scientist actually said that :/
Yes, the intellectual tradition in Catholicism caught my attention and led me to conversion, baptism, and confirmation Easter 2023. It only took me 67 years. Better late than never.
If you haven't already, take a look at Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina for the first physicist to address the question of faith and reason.
Hello! You seem like the right person to ask something I've been wondering about for quite some time. In genesis light is created after a whole lot of water and indeed the whole planet was already existing. I can't be the only one to see a immediate problem with this?
Excellent summary of the information. Great job bringing it all together into something practical and applicable to our spiritual life. Congratulations on 100 videos!
Our parish of traditional Catholics is full of engineers, lawyers, doctors, and researchers. There is a wonderful integration. This is not something I saw in Protestant circles
There is nothing to be shame of if a church is not full of professionals, for God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
You do realize the traditional Catholics of Europe ... is the prophesied AntiChrist ...putting Man's authority ahead of God.... Man's ways ahead of God's ways ... and alone with Islam (False Prophet) killed millions of Jews & Christians for not taking the number of the Beast and heresy for 1260 years ... until it was fatally wounded by .... the rise of Atheism/Humanism with the French Revolution. This is why the BS Evolution was readily accepted. And it was Catholic Priests who invented the BS of a 7 year tribulation where the Antichrist & False Prophet will arise with a one world government when any halfwit knows the Papacy & Caliphates killed millions of Jews & Christians for over 1000 years. This is why we Christians kept on saying .... the Crusaders & Inquisition ... has nothing to do with God ... but simply evil men ( or Anti-Christs).
Once again, Thank you for this Elisabeth! Congratulations on your 100th video and 10,000 subscribers! This is such an educational video and a great resource for people to use when exploring the relationship between faith and science. Personally I've never really understood why people see that there is a great conflict between the two. As you rightly say, they are simply two different ways of understanding Reality. Again Professor John Lennox can be very helpful here. He has written that recent research in the area of microbiology has revealed a depth of precision that cannot reasonably be answered by mere random chance. The most logical conclusion is that the precision has to have been created by a greater Intelligence i.e. God. Also you have been greatly blessed by your parents! This is such a thing to be treasured. God bless you in all that you do! 😃🙏
As explained in the book and in the video, when religious people reject science we can't expect scientistst to be religious. So in the case of people who reject science for the sake of creationism I understand why some people see a conflict beween science and religion. God bless you too!
By doing that you provide a false dichotomy - what if aliens brought life to earth. What if meteors brought life to earth? And what does it say about that God (or Gods, who knows). May be He decided to do other things. Maybe He likes to see His creatures suffer. Even if Lennox were right it doesn't bring the Christian God any closer.
Wrong. The Bible clearly states a 6 day creation about 6000 years ago. Not 13.8 billion years ago and life evolving over 4 billions years. Science is simply a method (function) created by Man (intelligence0 to explain natural phenomena (functions) of the Universe( function) relying on fixed laws of nature (functions). Just like Liberals now running the the Free world .... Atheists have seized control Science ... claiming it belongs to them .... and all Theists especially those pesky Christians rely on faith .. .in fairy tales & sky daddies ... not the facts & science. This has always been about God vs Man. Both have freewill ... to think & do good or evil ... but only God is Holy and can only think & do good ... where as Man ... must choose to follow & obey God .... or ... Man.
This is the most wonderful video I have ever watched on UA-cam. Our host dealt with the most important questions in life, questions that almost never get asked on other blogs, in film, theatre, television, or print. It was a curious thing how I heard her giving answers, the same answers that I discovered years ago. She reminded me of the reason why I studied so hard years ago was to find answers to my questions. Thank you! BRAVO!❤🎉😂
What amazes me more than the scientists mentioned is that a woman from the west even believes in G-d. And it's even more amazing a woman with almost arian looks. The arians are sons of Magog, they have cyan eyes and golden hair, sons of the fallen, nephillim. Germanic peoples were closely related to them as far as geography, but they are not sons of Magog giving a bit different phenotype such as green and not cyan eyes, or another tone of blond. if we consult statistics, women are more religious than men, yeah, when they are past 30, 40 years old, in the previous years western women are practically atheist. Or agnostic. So, it's amazing, it's the first time I see this, congrats! By the way, I'm israelite and we study in our community the topic of the arians because they are mentioned in different sources. Just Noah is described as some type of arian in the book of Enoch.
Greetings Lady Elizabeth, Thoughts :- -> Wonderful, Analytical Interpretation with Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on "Theology" and"Theosophical Science". -> Thanks for Your Valuable Insights. Good. With regards, Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Believe in a god is something different when in some ages were members to churches from youth. It was bad for your reputation saying you were non religious etc.
One myth I despise still being put around to this day is the myth that the Roman Catholic Church apparently suppressed Science in the Middle Ages when that's just blatantly untrue, the Middle Ages actually was the best period up to that point of scientific progress with agricultural engineering (windmills, advancement in tools), military technology (chainmail armor), and many more! This is not to mention there is an abundance of theologians whom were avid scientists who were very much in the church, also there's a darn patron of science in the Roman Catholic Church (St. Albert Magnus)! Before anyone says Copernicus or Galileo, those are myths that still prevail today when the reality is they were both theologians who were close with the church and even sponsored by the Pope in the case of Galileo. Galileo only got prosecuted because he was told to only treat heliocentrism as a hypothesis (as he wasn't proven correct until much after his death, he never proved it himself) also not to mention he was never burned at the age, he was prosecuted at old age, he died at old age, and he died all whilst in his lavish home. TLDR The World owes a debt to the Catholic Church, before anyone brings up flat earth Christians or whatnot, keep in mind these are radical protestants whom go against Catholic Church Doctrine to not interpret the Bible literally with St. Augustine once saying in the 5th Century that the age of the Earth is not important to Scripture.
When first summoned by the Roman Inquisition in 1616, Galileo was not questioned but merely warned not to espouse heliocentrism. Also in 1616, the church banned Nicholas Copernicus’ book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres,” published in 1543, which contained the theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. After a few minor edits, making sure that the sun theory was presented as purely hypothetical, it was allowed again in 1620 with the blessing of the church. The most unusual aspect of the proceedings was that the sentence was ordered to be widely publicized in scientific circles. The cardinals asserted that Galileo had always been orthodox in his belief concerning the cosmos and had never believed in or affirmed the heliocentric heresy.
You're right. They only acted to suppress the science they didn't like according to religious authority. Which doesn't exactly help your argument, since in regard to science no religious institution should ever have, or ever have had, any authority of any kind in the first place.
@@steveg1961 Not at all really. Galileo was debunked by the Scientists of his own day and cried when he couldn't teach his narratives that were proven false. He was never burned, he continued his works under house arrest at his luxurious Italian Home, he was never persecuted for Science but rather acting in bad faith after being told he could teach his theories as a hypothesis. Please. . . learn some nuance. Also the Catholic Church is responsible for so many brilliant minds from Roger Bacon, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Boetheius, Gregor Menedel, etc. . . "They shouldn't have had any authority of any kind in the first place!!!" Okay, source? Why? Why shouldn't an institution give greatness? Are you upset redditors didn't come up with everything known to man?
@@matswessling6600 The reason for Copernicus going bye bye with his books was fear, Lutherans were making quick gains, the people that say the Catholic Church hated Copernicus and Galileo (even though they were patrons of them), the Lutherans hated them more and thus many saw Lutheran ideas as legitimate, the Catholic Church had to respond.
It's important to take into account some things: first depending on the scientist the view of god will be different, in the second place: none of them earned Nobels proving the existence of god. And there are scientists even religious who don't mix things, they understand that faith is one thing and science is something else. And what you said in the description pinned comment is right, the number doesn't prove, and i'd say even their personal believes because it's just that. And the goes to atheists Scientists. So people, use arguments! If you keep using the believe of others to say your Beliave is real, in real life debate you'll never win because now days much more people studie fallacies and can defend argument by their own. You'll be destroyed if you just use the excuse that a great scientist or a great philosopher intelectual agress with you. That's not real life guys. It's like in the christians movies where atheists are easily debunked.
Speaking of the Blessed Mother, I’d like to point out the wedding feast at Cana . When Mary asked Jesus to begin His public ministry, his response was “woman. It is not my time yet.” But at her insistence, the divine plan had changed the divine plan that had been in place for all eternity Changed because of this mother’s asking her son to help others. That’s pretty powerful stuff.
How did I just find this channel? I'm mad at the algorithm. Leaving a comment for others to find this. #catholic #christian #jesus #protestant #atheist #religion
hand him out a copy of the Summa Theologica where saint Thomas Aquinas advances his beautifully Theolog by doing QUESTIONS.... and hang that gentleman a list of the books of saint Albert the Great who researched and studied naturales sciences (Astronomy, Biology etc etc etc ) and added the famous quote of Chesterton: "what the Church asks us to remove when we enter a church is the hut not the head!" (if you know what I mean)
I must say Asking questions is actually what God wants us to do, you could think of the example of Adam being taught how to do sacrifices and at first he does it without questioning or knowing why, until an angel asks of him, "Why do you do these things?" there is a difference in following blindly and following with understanding
People believe what they are influenced to believe. Influence comes in many forms such as upbringing, education and the wider culture, but one of the most compelling forms of influence is the awareness that an idea has gained near-universal acceptance. Some ideas correspond to observable phenomena that can be investigated via reproducible experiments. Over the last few centuries our species has developed the scientific method as a way of obtaining near-universal agreement for ideas that can be investigated via reproducible experiments. Consensus is reached on the experimental side when multiple labs have replicated a particular set of results with sufficient statistical confidence. Consensus is reached on the theoretical side when a theory is demonstrated to have explanatory power, and is demonstrated to be consistent with the experimental results that are relevant to it. However some ideas do not correspond to observable phenomena that can be investigated via reproducible experiments. Supernatural ideas fall into this category, including the notion of a higher power such as God. Acceptance of these types of ideas falls short of being near-universal, as your table at 2:56 illustrates. These ideas are left to philosophy and theology to contemplate. So why are some scientists influenced to believe in a higher power, while others are influenced to restrict their beliefs to ideas that can be investigated by science? I think it shows just how susceptible people are to being influenced by others. The table at 2:56 clearly shows that for each of the questions posed in the study, there is a wide variation between cultures, and at 1:50 you quote the study authors summarising this by saying "The conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West". I have to say that the phrase "invention of the West" seems carefully chosen to be quite loaded because it may imply innovation or discovery, but it may also imply something artificially manufactured or contrived. A more neutral phrasing might be "recently developed characteristic of the West". But I accept that the purpose of the video is to make the case that the conflict perspective is misguided. I would recommend Robert Sapolsky's recent book "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will" for an in-depth discussion of how the behaviour of the human brain can be understood in terms of the sum total of the influences on it. I realise that not everyone will be receptive to this viewpoint.
The literature thing in the beginning doesn't surprise me. During that time, and even now ideological Atheist types are usually in the communications. It's just like you said, "the question of God's existence is not a scientific one but a philosophic one."
"a philosophic one" Seriously? Then why are religious believers still relying on primitive, barbaric "holy texts" written centuries and millenia ago by people who (1) didn't actually know what they were talking about, (2) made things up left and right about a god or gods that were complete fabrications, and (3) in the very things they made up were literally exposing their own particular primitive, barbaric cultural biases? Sorry, but I'm not buying the words you're using here. Tell me that Christian apologists today aren't merely using philosophy as just another vehicle from modern culture as a rhetorical tactic to shoehorn in the baggage of the religious beliefs built on some primitive "holy text" they believe in.
If you ask me John the Baptist is the greatest. Mary tried Jesus twice once when He turned water into wine and she tried to stop Him preaching at an event.
Elizabeth states that belief in God is philosophical rather than scientific. There is much to commend this view. However, The Apostle Paul wrote that philosophy cannot bring us to God. It is revelation through the preaching of the gospel brings us to faith. 1 Corinthians 1: 18-25. Blessings from a uk surgeon.
As I see it, Young Earth Creationists are among only a few scientists who question the scientific community's assumptions. They challenge the assumptions underlying methods such as radiometric dating, arguing that these methods are based on unverifiable assumptions about initial conditions, constancy of decay rates, and the structure of the galaxies in the early universe. What the Creation scientists predicted about the early universe has come to pass: mature galaxies in the earliest ages of the universe. Because of this, there is a push to move the universe's age, which most scientists believe is 13.5 billion years old, to 25 billion years old. I am not saying that this proves this or disproves that; maybe cosmic evolution is what most scientists say it is, but YEC scientists have made predictions that run counter to the scientific norm that has been proven true. They should not be dismissed as non-scientists, seeing that they are also making testable predictions that have been proven right.
@@HansBezemer Many, if not most, YEC scientists admit that they see the world by the light of God's World. And, as I said, they are not simply making claims; they are making testable predictions that run against the scientific groupthink of our day. While detractors may ignore them, they are being proven right. In this way, they are the Galileo Galilei, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Alfred Wegeners of our day.
@@HansBezemer Many, if not most, YEC scientists admit that they see the world by the light of God's World. And, as I said, they are not simply making claims; they are making testable predictions that run against the scientific groupthink of our day. While detractors may ignore them, they are being proven right. In this way, they are the Galileo Galilei, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Alfred Wegeners of our time.
Science has changed through the centuries. It may have been more reasonable for scientists to believe in God 400 years ago, when the sciences were in their infancy, than for scientists to believe in God now, when the universe is so much better understood.
the water cycle is mentioned in the bible long before science dicovered it. The idea of an expanding universe is in the bible as well. "God spreads out the heavens like a tent" The bible teaches that the universe had a beginning like the big bang theory suggests. Also, sea creatures were created first on day 5 this lines up with science findings that life began in our oceans.
@@michaelanderson4849 Formation of Water: In the early universe, shortly after the Big Bang, conditions were extremely hot and dense. As the universe expanded and cooled, subatomic particles combined to form atoms. Hydrogen and helium were the first elements to emerge. Hydrogen, in particular, played a crucial role. Water (H₂O) consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. These atoms formed well before the first stars ignited and produced light. Therefore, in terms of elemental constituents, water did exist before light. (so, the bible got this fact right also)
@@diamondlife-gi7hg There sure is. Water above "the heavens" is a bit problematic though. But more so is how water could exist (along with the whole planet) before light was created. That one is seriously problematic.
@@michaelanderson4849 Extraterrestrial Delivery: If Earth’s water didn’t originate during its formation, it must have been delivered later by extraterrestrial objects. Two main candidates are comets and asteroids: Comets: These icy bodies contain significant amounts of water. Models suggest that comets could have delivered enough water to account for Earth’s oceans. Asteroids: Some asteroids also harbor water. Their impacts could have contributed to Earth’s water content. The prevailing theory is that Earth acquired its water from water-rich planetesimals-either comets or asteroids-that made up a portion of its building blocks (from an online source)
I believe that many of the scientists who believe in God, believe in a Pantheist version, where the Universe Is God, and that all of us are just miniscule parts of that mysterious cosmic entity. This is what Einstein was talking about when he talked about "God". This is the form of God that I believe in.
I don't have any figures on scientists who believed in a pantheist God but Einstein explicitly said: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" Einstein, Albert (11 October 2010). Calaprice, Alice (ed.). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press. p. 325.
@@BiblicalBookworm I am surprised by Einstein's quote since he said that he believed in Spinoza's God... ------------------- Yet, American philosopher and self-described panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza's philosophy as "classical pantheism" and distinguished Spinoza's philosophy from panentheism. ---------------------- ...so I am surprised that he didn't think he was a pantheist which seems almost indistinguishable from panentheism. (There are some lists, including Wikipedia that have him listed as a Pantheist)
One of the most laughable things ever is "you can't be a scientist and believe in God". Or "Religious people are narrowminded and unfit for science". When there are tons among greatest scientists that are believers (and even Catholic priests 😉) . Thank you for addressing the topic. ☺️
The issue is NOT "you can't be a scientist and believe in Lord Ganesha," and never was. Can people hold to ideas that actually conflict with one another in their own minds? Of course they do. There's a psychological term for this: compartmentalization. The problem occurs, in the context of the topic here, when the "compartmentalizing" breaks down. Here I'll just mention an extreme example of this: Young earth creationists. These people believe - because of the particular religious doctrines they believe in - that the universe and the earth have not existed for more than around 6,000 years. Which religious belief, according to a vast array of scientific facts we know about from geology, astronomy, and physics, is patently absurd. And yet there are a few (a very few, yes) scientists who have actually published some genuine scientific research in geology, astronomy, and physics (not having anything to do with supporting their young earth creationism beliefs, but on various other topics), who go around teaching that young earth creationism is "scientific" and "supported by real science," and engaging in all manner of totally anti-science rhetoric and disingenuous behavior to do so, as directly motivated by their particular religious beliefs. (Indeed, one of the standard rhetorical gimmicks young earth creationism pseudoscience promoters use is that young earth creationism is "scientific" because - oh, look! - these people with PhD's in geology, astronomy, and physics are young earth creationists. I'm not kidding here. This is not a straw man. They actually use this argument in their rhetoric.) You can't just sweep this problem under the rug. I have zero problems with professional scientists being religious believers in some religion. One of my favorite science professors (physical anthropology) was a devout Mormon, and in my opinion he did a great job teaching the subject. I have all kinds of problems when that "compartmentalization" breaks down. Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. They're fundamentally incompatible because their fundamental features directly contradict each other. Religion is connected to a person's particular culture, and how that got built into their psychology growing up, and how people use religious belief sociologically. The scientific process is literally foreign to this. The fact that religion and science CAN and DO coexist peacefully doesn't change this fact about them being fundamentally incompatible. Stephen Jay Gould used the term "non-overlapping magisteria" - which is rather highfalutin for my taste, but I get what he was talking about. But the problem, of course, is when religious believers "overstep their bounds" - which is often, especially in the United States, but also elsewhere. I honestly couldn't care less if someone wants to follow the Qur'an as some kind of "holy text" and believes that Muhammed was actually visited by an angel from Allah that told him what to write, and uses the writings in the Qur'an in some way to mold the manner in which he chooses to live. But the moment he starts making EMPIRICAL claims, then AUTOMATICALLY such claims are subject to scientific inquiry and examination. And if those claims are false, then they're false. Period. He can still believe them, of course, as he chooses to, but when he chooses to make empirical claims related to his religious belief, he has less than zero justification for complaining when other people critique those claims for being empirically false. The same with the Book of Mormon. The same with the Bible. The same with any other alleged "holy book." I've always said Gould was wrong - because there IS some overlap (which varies, of course, depending on the particular set of religious beliefs we're talking about). Which doesn't change the fact that religious believers can be very good scientists, or that science and religion CAN coexist peacefully. But when religious believers don't "stay in their lane," they have no business complaining when critics then challenge them on it.
The smartest scientists and doctors believe in God. It's obvious from a deep study of several things: fine tuning arguments of astronomy; fine tuning arguments of chemistry; fine tuning arguments of biochemistry. There is no "spontaneous" explanation for the human brain, eye, immune system, clotting system, protein synthesis system, flagella, etc. The best book on the subject is "Is atheism dead" by Eric Metaxas. James Tour Phd is the best you tuber for OOL (origin of life) topics. Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Lennox, etc are also very good. I am a Stanford, Harvard educated MD, and I can assure you that human physiology-biochemistry is so complex that God is the only reasonable explanation. Eg. the plasma membrane functions as an electric battery. The mitochondria splits the atom to generate energy. The hydrogen protons are pumped into the intramembranous space. The electrons are passed along a gradient of proteins on the inner mitochondrial membrane. The proton gradient is harvested to make ATP's.
Speaking of scientists who believe in god, none come more famous than Francis Collins, the physician-scientist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project. How he became a Christian is contentious. One popular explanation given is that while hiking in the Cascade Mountains, he encountered a frozen waterfall with three distinct parts-a symbolic representation of the Trinity. In that moment, his resistance dissipated, and he felt a great sense of relief, turning to Jeesus The other common school of thought is that he was convinced from reading the works of CS Lewis In the first instance, even a modern-day 8-year old would think it silly, stooopid even, to be convinced by comparing a 3-in-1 waterfall to the trinity. One could just as easily look at a three-pronged kitchen fork and conclude similar Then we have CS Lewis, the trilemma chump who couldn't even figure out there could be more options than just "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" This shows how even the most brilliant minds can often be swayed by silly reasons
Wheter they could convince you of God's existence or not, nobody needs to be convinced that they were really brilliant minds while if someone isn't brilliant, being atheist will never work a shortcut to be such 😁 today atheism is mainly a cheap trend for insecure people to claim that they are cool, superior , sort of ...God's existence isn't the topic tho, what you listed just confirms the video.
Science and religion are compatible: Christianity preaches values that, if correctly followed, are evolutionarily beneficial: - pro-natalism - orderliness and conscienciousness - development of one's intellect - loyalty to the own community - preaching the Gospel among non-believers, opening up a path towards community membership for outsiders of a different religion regardless of their race or nationality
That last statement about not questioning is so off base with Christianity is not even funny. We are to test its word, the bible says so to test everything with the word. Edit: you said the thing at the end lmao Good job!!!!
I'd like to share an observation of observable material evidence that points to the accuracy of Scripture in my video 'Begining of understanding " My claim is transmutation by electrical process (Lorentz Force in a magnetic field) of genetically superior creatures (Seraphim) My icon is a seraph kneeling for example and my channel is dedicated to giving examples of this
You remind of another person by the named Roy, He is a pasture in Las Vegas that was sentenced to life in prison, and was in and out prison a few times throughout his life, well during his last years in prison He read a lot of books and learn many different views from different wrighters, well God got him out prison when the covid pandemic was ats high. Well the reason I bring this up is do that relation of seeking knowledge in wrightten records and wanted to bring this up pasture here. He runs a youtube channel called old school bible baptist, is from dispensational side/view of the bible. He's one of the last students dispensational Christian Wrighter and teacher named Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Take a look into those two for I can say they have and will* benfit many people wether they are newly born again into The Body of Christ or have been for a while The Body.
Interesting is always where you choose the "cut-off" points. Theists like to go further back in time, because in those days it was not done to be an atheist. "International" is interesting too, because there are still plenty of places where you get the death penalty if you publicly abandoned your faith. Why Hindus, Jews or Muslims would support the Christian narrative in any way, shape or form is unclear to me too. Deists, for example, believe in an absent God - and feel it's ridiculous to worship Him or pray to Him. For what reason. Nobody picks up the phone.. Of course, atheists prefer "Leading scientists still reject God" from Nature (1998), because it suggests that the smarter you are, the less inclined you are to be a believer. It's the paper Neil Tyson Degrasse likes to quote in his public presentations. And in this way, by abusing statistics - everyone is right. And everyone is happy. The point is that these figures contribute exactly nothing to the debate at hand. In science, it is not that the majority is always right. It is the strength of your argument. Lots of religious scientists are "mild" in the sense they don't take the Bible literally, they accept "the big bang" and evolution. Stephen J. Gould even proclaimed that religion and science were "non-overlapping magisteria" - they had nothing to do with each other. Lots of scientists have very personal views on religion. They don't subscribe to the fundamentalist tendencies people using these figures tend to promote. I think some of them would even resist it. First and foremost because they entail a plethora of logical fallacies. "The call to authority" fallacy. "The bandwagon" fallacy. Things do not become true because certain people say of believe them. Thing become true, because people can *prove* them. I consider this method disingenuous - and an conscious attempt to cloud the minds of less educated, gullible people. They deserve better. If you have actual proof for God, provide it. If you haven't, enjoy your faith with dignity.
I agree that the fact that smart people say something doesn't prove its true. That's why I made the disclaimer at 02:20. The point of the video is to show that religion and science can coexist peacefully in practice
Tbh the video is not about scientific proof of God(s) existence. It's about the fact that science and religion aren't impossible companions. At many levels, from eclectic thinkers to proper clergy. I guess you know that a Catholic priest is the author of Big Bang Theory
Ex-catholic agnostic scientist here. I have no clue if a god exists. But at least I'm pretty sure it's not the Hebrew version of god. A closer look at the dogmas about Mary and transubstantiation made me give the church the finger and leave.
I think all this proves is that people who are highly specialized in science don't have a great deal of time to spend on philosophy. The majority of people are brought up to be religious, and to go against this programming takes deliberate effort. If all you do is focus on the work that will lead you to a Nobel prize, it's not hard to see why you'd simply stick to the belief you were assigned to at birth.
Any scientist that has had an NDE or had a psychedelic experience will not deny the reality of other states of being that transcend ours every day one, where heavens and hells came be experienced in a world where time as we know it does not exist but the oneness and dilution of self in rapture.
Regardless of how many scientists believe in a god of some description or other not a single one can produce any objective evidence whatsoever that any god exists. The inviolable essence of science is confirmation by objective evidence so to believe in a god a scientist must abandon the fundamental core tenet of science itself. That should tell you something about the relevance of scientists believing in god.
I love scientists, except the ones who do things like enable the threat nuclear annihilation, weaponize smallpox and anthrax, release viruses from labs, experiment on humans etc etc. However they are generally an inquisitive bunch, and many have done a lot of good. However, from what i have seen, atheist scientists are extraordinarily arrogant and are likely to make annunciations, and even pose as experts pertaining to things they know literally nothing about. Metaphysics, modal logic, philosophy of religion etc has some of the greatest minds in human history who have contributed, and people like Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrass Tyson etc etc, it is extremely clear, don't remotely understand.
If it is a philosophical question, maybe a statistical analysis of religious philosophers would make sense. Personally, I am not a Christian. I am a Buddhist. Most of my colleagues here in Taiwan are either Buddhist or Taoist. I find Christianity to be a deeply amoral religion. Its view on slavery, its treatment of women, homosexuals, and now -especially- trans people, is horrific to me. However, I respect my Christian colleagues, and I certainly respect other religions and will even tolerate some of their unethical and prejudicial behavior to a certain extent, but I will not go out of my way to socialize with them.
If he was a real Christian, he'd have believed in talking snakes and donkeys. Or that water turns into wine without additives Just goes to show how even the most brilliant of minds can verge on absolute lunacy
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 The whole bible isn't even ment to be taken literally but most of it is figurative and this is true not just for the holy bible but also to the quran and gita or vedas P.S i'm a muslim
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 - Wait what do you mean by roman origins ? Because if your saying that it's fake ( NT ) then your wrong and there's evidence to prove it
When Lord Jesus was being tempted he had 2 choices to say yes or no but Jesus is amazing he was able to talk back at him and said get behind me satan do not tempt the Lord thy God so our thoughts can be tempted but we have choices to choose right or wrong and if Jesus died for us to redeemed the World the whole World should be giving thanks and coming to the truth so shouldn't everyone pray the Lord's Prayers or avoid praying and to say something back to that is choosing to be athiest. And if our brothers and sisters follow how the Lord prayer is used within the Church than we may be able to find others and they can choose a way to follow the Lord's prayer. In the Catholic Universal Christian Mother Church we pray the Lord's prayer before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ for Eternal life. I don't know how science would know about after life without God because with God all things are possible. Blessed Mother ask the Archangel Gabriel how can that be
@@BiblicalBookworm My mistake, I reviewed the video where I thought you had included it in a list of Catholic scientists and you had actually said Christian scientists. In any case, I would like to tell you that there cannot be two authorities, either it is science that has authority over your life or it is the Word of God. You must choose who is the highest authority that governs your life. Not just science, religions, your parents, the law of the country. You must decide what your maximum authority is, for example if the law of your country allows abortion that does not mean that that law dominates your life. If science says that life begins at birth or that people can be whatever sex they want, that doesn't mean that it governs your life. If Religion tells you to kneel to Mary and ask her for favors, that does not mean that you are going to do it. Who has authority in your life? For me it is the Word of God, outside of it there is only relativism. Since the Word of God is unalterable, everything else changes.
The book of Genesis has been in the world for around four millennia, which conveys that Adam and Eve obeyed Satan to pursue knowledge, over faithfulness to the Creator. Thus, they were banished from Eden, to be like God, by exercising their desire / purpose - knowledge. And, then die as warned in Genesis. Sadly, even Christians (all denominations) haven’t clarified the purpose of humans (their choice) on earth per Genesis 3, though denominations have established major universities of knowledge and science. Reading of the Holy Bible should be essential reading for Christians.
I mean i *kinda* do Its more of just a catalyst for... Oh. Then where did... God is a vector with no direction that is infinite. Not taht... Its impossible. So yeah, its confusing. But im not christian. Thats all you need to know.
If you study science with a secularist mindset that's how you going to interprite the science you are taught in school but if you do have religious belief that's how you going to interpret the science you learn in school, but it would be foolish to believe that the all the design and beauty we see around us came by chance, We must take Genesis literally because all through out the gospels Jesus interpret genesis literally he believe in a literal Adam and eve and also in John it said all things were made by Jesus christ, we cannot try to fit evolution into the bible it does not work, I believe the entire Bible is true and that the world is 6 thousands years old because both true science and the bible agree with each other
I’m tired of science videos giving all of the credit to mindless unguided matter. At some point you have to realize there’s something more than energy and matter since they cannot produce or direct themselves.
@@Sedgewise47I think what the op meant Is that most theists and former atheists don't believe in God as a result of logical argumentation but personal experience I fall into that camp
@@Sedgewise47 well I don't think a comment section is a good enough place for such an important and dear thing to my heart But if you're interested in hearing the story then here it is When I was young I was in my grandma's house She had been sick for quite some time now and my mom asked me to pray for her At the time I was deeply confused God always listened to my prayers but I had been praying for grandma for a while but he never answered I thought to myself that god wanted grandma to be with him in heaven And around that time she was supposed to go to the hospital for an operation The day before that I had a dream I was in heaven smiling and looking at her (grandma) Even though I don't remember exactly what I saw Then My mom woke me up for school And she asked me to pray for grandma and I told her that she is in heaven right now And he died that day It's a bit of a weird story and I don't blame you if you don't believe it And ironically even after all that I still managed to fall into mortal sin I am addicted to pornography And I frequently get myself in trouble Kinda makes me wonder why all of this happened to me of all people
It is highly likely that God exists. Demonic evil exists. The matrix of this universe and the events of this universe will synchronize with you like anything if you are the right person. It's almost non-stop. Based on this, I think I might be God. Have I antagonized the universe or has the universe antagonized me? It is hard to tell.
Obedience means: shut up, just compute. According to quantum practice, which is similar to the religious specially in monastic circles. It's like the royal road to enlightenment. To sink to the deepest core of our being. Obviously you're obeying an enlightened teacher..
Everybody believes in something, everybody has a god. No other gods before me Its our human nature, Eve(life) will always make some dudes feel like gods, like there is no God. People need to start studying the human nature properly
The bible is a great man-made book of man-made deep wisdom of many generations, nothing inspired by a god. There is zero evidence for any superntatural happening or character in the bible (and the quran). As a Deist I send you a lot human love :)
Life isn't democratic. What most people believe is not a measure of its veracity and doesn't change reality. "If you believe in things that you don't understand, Superstition ain't the way..." Stevie Wonder
You seem to think that a belief in God is just a way to fill in the inevitable scientific gaps and would be explained away in time. But religion is not a substitute for science; it's an attempt to answer what is behind the temporal realm (if anything). To assume that Stevie Wonder would be more insightful than Pasteur, Planck, or Einstein seems dubious at best.
@BillRemski I agree. That's why I made the disclaimer at 02:20 - how many scientists believe in God doesn't show whether God exists or not. And as explained starting at 07:15 faith and obedience should be based on understanding.
@@BiblicalBookworm By doing that you nullified the reason to make this video in the first place. If not for that reason - what other possible reason could you have to make such an argument?
Clarification: as explained with the disclaimer at 02:20, the number of scientists who believe or don't believe in God does not prove whether He exists or not. The goal of this video is just to show that science and religion can be compatible/coexist peacefully in practice.
Check out Thomas Woods' Catholic Church Builder of Civilization. It's a book and it was also made into a TV series. Episodes 2-4 are on the Catholic Church and science. Including one just on Galileo. Lots of misconceptions and popular history written by people that hate the Church.
lol. they definítely didn't believe in Yahweh. Most of them were agnostics and probably entered religion because it was synonymous with ethnicity back then.
But they are not compatible ... if one believes in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago ... and the other believes in a Bib band & inflation 13.8 billion years ago and Evolution. 4 billion years ago.
You need to explain what Mankind ... will always believe in "the gods?"
And Science is simply a Method (function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explained natural phenomena (functions) of the Universe(Functions) relying on fixed laws of Nature (functions) for repeatable experiments and to make predictions.
The scientific Method is simply:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Test & Predict
4. Conclude
5. Refine ( only if merit).
The Hypothesis of Evolution by natural selection ... fails the scientific method. .. especially when it was common knowledge Natural selection only causes variation & adaptation within a species, which is what the Fossil records have only showed.
But for over 300 years ... Christians have been using Machine Analogies to explain Creation by God. An Analogy is simply a well reasoned .. OBSERVATION .. not a proof. Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine analogies and includes Functions, Information, Intelligence & Mind .... to explain ... why everything is a Function that can only be made by an intelligence.
Christians developed the sciences we have today, not atheists, Hindus or Muslims and are still the majority. But for over nearly 200 years ... Humanist Liberals like Charles Darwin .... successfully made the old Universe .. a science fact without actual evidence ... scientists to make their hypothesis based on a false origin of the Universe & Life ... and ... to regularly start from the Conclusion step and work back to find a hypothesis & data to prove this conclusion.
Science and religion can be compatible the same way apples and oranges are compatible. There's no conflict until you try to make an apple pie with those sunkist navels.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Science & Religion ... are Functions ... with information to exist & to function ... created by an Intelligence with a Mind & freewill.
Anything with clear ... purpose, meaning, reason, rules & design ... is a Function.... and can only be made by an Intelligence.
And Man .. will always believe in "the gods' & a spirit ... because Man is a Natural Intelligence with the Mind & intellect .. to always deduced from OBSERVATION .... that anything with clear purpose, meaning, rules & design ... can only be made by a intelligence.
Not apples & oranges. Just ... Functions.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg
I was planning to include this in the video actually but the problem with many such quotes is that it's not clear whether the scientist actually said that :/
@BiblicalBookworm I guess with a quote by Heisenberg, you would expect a level of uncertainty.
"I've already depicted you as the Soyjak and me as the Chad," but as a quote. One more gulp gets you back to naturalism, I say.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243hey I see what you did there 😅
@@11kravitzn An interpretation like that is only a reflection of what's going on in your head.
Proverbs 31:26 "She opens her mouth in wisdom, and on her tongue is kindly counsel"
You are one of my FAVORITE Catholic videos ....thank you !!! Your insights about Our Lady are immensely amazing!
Thank you! I was so happy when that thought popped into my head during mass😃
Yes, the intellectual tradition in Catholicism caught my attention and led me to conversion, baptism, and confirmation Easter 2023. It only took me 67 years. Better late than never.
Welcome home! 🙏
If you haven't already, take a look at Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina for the first physicist to address the question of faith and reason.
Thank you for the recommendation!
Elisabeth! Congratulations, 100 videos is something to celebrate! Keep up the good work! God bless! 💐🥂😘❤
Thank you 😊
Appreciate you sis!
Thanks for your sharing
You're welcome 😊
Your parents sound like great people, God bless them!
They are! 😊
Great video
Thanks!
This is a beautifully informative video. I appreciate the intellectual approach to religion. I myself am a Catholic physicist. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, I'm glad you liked it! 😊
Hello! You seem like the right person to ask something I've been wondering about for quite some time. In genesis light is created after a whole lot of water and indeed the whole planet was already existing. I can't be the only one to see a immediate problem with this?
Excellent presentation. I’m glad that you’re a fellow Catholic. ✝️
1 Thessalonians 5:21: “But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
New subscriber here from Indonesia.. God bless
Welcome! God bless you too!
Great video.
My type of science guys, wonderful video Elisabeth. Great job as always keep up the great work! 🙏✝ God bless you!
Thank you! God bless you too!
One of my favorite videos by you so far. Keep up the good work!
Thank you! I tried my best to do something special for 10k subscribers and since it's also the 100th video. 😊
Excellent summary of the information. Great job bringing it all together into something practical and applicable to our spiritual life. Congratulations on 100 videos!
Thank you! 😊
One of the greats in science remarks, "The first sip of science makes you an atheist, but God is waiting for you at the bottom of the glass"
Our parish of traditional Catholics is full of engineers, lawyers, doctors, and researchers. There is a wonderful integration. This is not something I saw in Protestant circles
The anglican churches I have been to have all these professions attending.
There is nothing to be shame of if a church is not full of professionals, for God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
You do realize the traditional Catholics of Europe ... is the prophesied AntiChrist ...putting Man's authority ahead of God.... Man's ways ahead of God's ways ... and alone with Islam (False Prophet) killed millions of Jews & Christians for not taking the number of the Beast and heresy for 1260 years ... until it was fatally wounded by .... the rise of Atheism/Humanism with the French Revolution. This is why the BS Evolution was readily accepted.
And it was Catholic Priests who invented the BS of a 7 year tribulation where the Antichrist & False Prophet will arise with a one world government when any halfwit knows the Papacy & Caliphates killed millions of Jews & Christians for over 1000 years. This is why we Christians kept on saying .... the Crusaders & Inquisition ... has nothing to do with God ... but simply evil men ( or Anti-Christs).
Once again, Thank you for this Elisabeth! Congratulations on your 100th video and 10,000 subscribers!
This is such an educational video and a great resource for people to use when exploring the relationship between faith and science. Personally I've never really understood why people see that there is a great conflict between the two. As you rightly say, they are simply two different ways of understanding Reality.
Again Professor John Lennox can be very helpful here. He has written that recent research in the area of microbiology has revealed a depth of precision that cannot reasonably be answered by mere random chance. The most logical conclusion is that the precision has to have been created by a greater Intelligence i.e. God.
Also you have been greatly blessed by your parents! This is such a thing to be treasured.
God bless you in all that you do! 😃🙏
As explained in the book and in the video, when religious people reject science we can't expect scientistst to be religious. So in the case of people who reject science for the sake of creationism I understand why some people see a conflict beween science and religion.
God bless you too!
By doing that you provide a false dichotomy - what if aliens brought life to earth. What if meteors brought life to earth? And what does it say about that God (or Gods, who knows). May be He decided to do other things. Maybe He likes to see His creatures suffer. Even if Lennox were right it doesn't bring the Christian God any closer.
Wrong. The Bible clearly states a 6 day creation about 6000 years ago. Not 13.8 billion years ago and life evolving over 4 billions years.
Science is simply a method (function) created by Man (intelligence0 to explain natural phenomena (functions) of the Universe( function) relying on fixed laws of nature (functions).
Just like Liberals now running the the Free world .... Atheists have seized control Science ... claiming it belongs to them .... and all Theists especially those pesky Christians rely on faith .. .in fairy tales & sky daddies ... not the facts & science.
This has always been about God vs Man.
Both have freewill ... to think & do good or evil ... but only God is Holy and can only think & do good ... where as Man ... must choose to follow & obey God .... or ... Man.
This is the most wonderful video I have ever watched on UA-cam. Our host dealt with the most important questions in life, questions that almost never get asked on other blogs, in film, theatre, television, or print. It was a curious thing how I heard her giving answers, the same answers that I discovered years ago. She reminded me of the reason why I studied so hard years ago was to find answers to my questions. Thank you! BRAVO!❤🎉😂
Thank you for this heart-warming comment! 🤗🌹
This was a wonderful video!❤
Thank you!
Brava! Molto bene!
Grazie 😊
Your videos are amazing, Elizabeth!
I hope to see your 1000th video soon!
I'm glad to hear that! 😊
So graceful. Well done!
Thank you! 😊
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you!
Congrats on 100 videos and 10k subs! You're the best!
Thank you! 😊🌹
Excellent video
Thank you! 😊
What amazes me more than the scientists mentioned is that a woman from the west even believes in G-d. And it's even more amazing a woman with almost arian looks. The arians are sons of Magog, they have cyan eyes and golden hair, sons of the fallen, nephillim. Germanic peoples were closely related to them as far as geography, but they are not sons of Magog giving a bit different phenotype such as green and not cyan eyes, or another tone of blond. if we consult statistics, women are more religious than men, yeah, when they are past 30, 40 years old, in the previous years western women are practically atheist. Or agnostic. So, it's amazing, it's the first time I see this, congrats! By the way, I'm israelite and we study in our community the topic of the arians because they are mentioned in different sources. Just Noah is described as some type of arian in the book of Enoch.
Greetings Lady Elizabeth,
Thoughts :-
-> Wonderful, Analytical Interpretation with Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on "Theology" and"Theosophical Science".
-> Thanks for Your Valuable Insights. Good.
With regards,
Ranjith Joseph (R.J)
Thank you for sharing!
Hi creative vid
I almost never find channels of this type that are run by women, you make me feel proud
Keep going sis 💕
Thank you! I know, this is a male-dominated field
Now do a “scientists that believe in virtual particles evaporating black holes”
Believe in a god is something different when in some ages were members to churches from youth. It was bad for your reputation saying you were non religious etc.
One myth I despise still being put around to this day is the myth that the Roman Catholic Church apparently suppressed Science in the Middle Ages when that's just blatantly untrue, the Middle Ages actually was the best period up to that point of scientific progress with agricultural engineering (windmills, advancement in tools), military technology (chainmail armor), and many more! This is not to mention there is an abundance of theologians whom were avid scientists who were very much in the church, also there's a darn patron of science in the Roman Catholic Church (St. Albert Magnus)!
Before anyone says Copernicus or Galileo, those are myths that still prevail today when the reality is they were both theologians who were close with the church and even sponsored by the Pope in the case of Galileo. Galileo only got prosecuted because he was told to only treat heliocentrism as a hypothesis (as he wasn't proven correct until much after his death, he never proved it himself) also not to mention he was never burned at the age, he was prosecuted at old age, he died at old age, and he died all whilst in his lavish home.
TLDR The World owes a debt to the Catholic Church, before anyone brings up flat earth Christians or whatnot, keep in mind these are radical protestants whom go against Catholic Church Doctrine to not interpret the Bible literally with St. Augustine once saying in the 5th Century that the age of the Earth is not important to Scripture.
Church Militant created a documentary addressing your concerns: ua-cam.com/video/-xpVueJyjwc/v-deo.htmlsi=v4bugwcFf9XgoqDw
When first summoned by the Roman Inquisition in 1616, Galileo was not questioned but merely warned not to espouse heliocentrism. Also in 1616, the church banned Nicholas Copernicus’ book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres,” published in 1543, which contained the theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. After a few minor edits, making sure that the sun theory was presented as purely hypothetical, it was allowed again in 1620 with the blessing of the church.
The most unusual aspect of the proceedings was that the sentence was ordered to be widely publicized in scientific circles. The cardinals asserted that Galileo had always been orthodox in his belief concerning the cosmos and had never believed in or affirmed the heliocentric heresy.
You're right. They only acted to suppress the science they didn't like according to religious authority.
Which doesn't exactly help your argument, since in regard to science no religious institution should ever have, or ever have had, any authority of any kind in the first place.
@@steveg1961 Not at all really. Galileo was debunked by the Scientists of his own day and cried when he couldn't teach his narratives that were proven false. He was never burned, he continued his works under house arrest at his luxurious Italian Home, he was never persecuted for Science but rather acting in bad faith after being told he could teach his theories as a hypothesis.
Please. . . learn some nuance. Also the Catholic Church is responsible for so many brilliant minds from Roger Bacon, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Boetheius, Gregor Menedel, etc. . .
"They shouldn't have had any authority of any kind in the first place!!!" Okay, source? Why? Why shouldn't an institution give greatness? Are you upset redditors didn't come up with everything known to man?
@@matswessling6600 The reason for Copernicus going bye bye with his books was fear, Lutherans were making quick gains, the people that say the Catholic Church hated Copernicus and Galileo (even though they were patrons of them), the Lutherans hated them more and thus many saw Lutheran ideas as legitimate, the Catholic Church had to respond.
It's important to take into account some things: first depending on the scientist the view of god will be different, in the second place: none of them earned Nobels proving the existence of god. And there are scientists even religious who don't mix things, they understand that faith is one thing and science is something else. And what you said in the description pinned comment is right, the number doesn't prove, and i'd say even their personal believes because it's just that. And the goes to atheists Scientists. So people, use arguments! If you keep using the believe of others to say your Beliave is real, in real life debate you'll never win because now days much more people studie fallacies and can defend argument by their own. You'll be destroyed if you just use the excuse that a great scientist or a great philosopher intelectual agress with you. That's not real life guys. It's like in the christians movies where atheists are easily debunked.
Speaking of the Blessed Mother, I’d like to point out the wedding feast at Cana . When Mary asked Jesus to begin His public ministry, his response was “woman. It is not my time yet.”
But at her insistence, the divine plan had changed the divine plan that had been in place for all eternity Changed because of this mother’s asking her son to help others.
That’s pretty powerful stuff.
How did I just find this channel? I'm mad at the algorithm. Leaving a comment for others to find this.
#catholic #christian #jesus #protestant #atheist #religion
Thank you! Sharing on social media etc also helps 🤗
Me alegro que seas creyente, seguro que has leido la Biblia te felicito por ello
hand him out a copy of the Summa Theologica where saint Thomas Aquinas advances his beautifully Theolog by doing QUESTIONS....
and hang that gentleman a list of the books of saint Albert the Great who researched and studied naturales sciences (Astronomy, Biology etc etc etc )
and added the famous quote of Chesterton:
"what the Church asks us to remove when we enter a church is the hut not the head!" (if you know what I mean)
I just want to add
Sonoluminescence: "Let there be light"
I must say Asking questions is actually what God wants us to do, you could think of the example of Adam being taught how to do sacrifices and at first he does it without questioning or knowing why, until an angel asks of him, "Why do you do these things?" there is a difference in following blindly and following with understanding
People believe what they are influenced to believe. Influence comes in many forms such as upbringing, education and the wider culture, but one of the most compelling forms of influence is the awareness that an idea has gained near-universal acceptance.
Some ideas correspond to observable phenomena that can be investigated via reproducible experiments.
Over the last few centuries our species has developed the scientific method as a way of obtaining near-universal agreement for ideas that can be investigated via reproducible experiments. Consensus is reached on the experimental side when multiple labs have replicated a particular set of results with sufficient statistical confidence. Consensus is reached on the theoretical side when a theory is demonstrated to have explanatory power, and is demonstrated to be consistent with the experimental results that are relevant to it.
However some ideas do not correspond to observable phenomena that can be investigated via reproducible experiments.
Supernatural ideas fall into this category, including the notion of a higher power such as God. Acceptance of these types of ideas falls short of being near-universal, as your table at 2:56 illustrates. These ideas are left to philosophy and theology to contemplate.
So why are some scientists influenced to believe in a higher power, while others are influenced to restrict their beliefs to ideas that can be investigated by science?
I think it shows just how susceptible people are to being influenced by others.
The table at 2:56 clearly shows that for each of the questions posed in the study, there is a wide variation between cultures, and at 1:50 you quote the study authors summarising this by saying "The conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West". I have to say that the phrase "invention of the West" seems carefully chosen to be quite loaded because it may imply innovation or discovery, but it may also imply something artificially manufactured or contrived. A more neutral phrasing might be "recently developed characteristic of the West". But I accept that the purpose of the video is to make the case that the conflict perspective is misguided.
I would recommend Robert Sapolsky's recent book "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will" for an in-depth discussion of how the behaviour of the human brain can be understood in terms of the sum total of the influences on it. I realise that not everyone will be receptive to this viewpoint.
The 4th commandment is the one about the Sabbath. The one to honor your parents is the 5th commandment.
It could be that Catholics and Protestants ordered the commandments differently. In Catholicism its the 4th
The literature thing in the beginning doesn't surprise me. During that time, and even now ideological Atheist types are usually in the communications. It's just like you said, "the question of God's existence is not a scientific one but a philosophic one."
"a philosophic one"
Seriously?
Then why are religious believers still relying on primitive, barbaric "holy texts" written centuries and millenia ago by people who (1) didn't actually know what they were talking about, (2) made things up left and right about a god or gods that were complete fabrications, and (3) in the very things they made up were literally exposing their own particular primitive, barbaric cultural biases?
Sorry, but I'm not buying the words you're using here.
Tell me that Christian apologists today aren't merely using philosophy as just another vehicle from modern culture as a rhetorical tactic to shoehorn in the baggage of the religious beliefs built on some primitive "holy text" they believe in.
@@steveg1961 Dweeb.
You should be a prof. You'll get to ask questions for a living. And people will respect you for that. :)
God willing I will be a prof one day. You just guessed my dream job 😊💫
If you ask me John the Baptist is the greatest. Mary tried Jesus twice once when He turned water into wine and she tried to stop Him preaching at an event.
Elizabeth states that belief in God is philosophical rather than scientific. There is much to commend this view. However, The Apostle Paul wrote that philosophy cannot bring us to God. It is revelation through the preaching of the gospel brings us to faith. 1 Corinthians 1: 18-25. Blessings from a uk surgeon.
As I see it, Young Earth Creationists are among only a few scientists who question the scientific community's assumptions. They challenge the assumptions underlying methods such as radiometric dating, arguing that these methods are based on unverifiable assumptions about initial conditions, constancy of decay rates, and the structure of the galaxies in the early universe. What the Creation scientists predicted about the early universe has come to pass: mature galaxies in the earliest ages of the universe. Because of this, there is a push to move the universe's age, which most scientists believe is 13.5 billion years old, to 25 billion years old.
I am not saying that this proves this or disproves that; maybe cosmic evolution is what most scientists say it is, but YEC scientists have made predictions that run counter to the scientific norm that has been proven true. They should not be dismissed as non-scientists, seeing that they are also making testable predictions that have been proven right.
Could be. It just appears a lot like they're motivated by their religious beliefs and not by the desire to objectively do science :/
@@BiblicalBookworm I think you are right, but they are not blinded by their faith. Instead, they use their faith as a guide.
@@williambillycraig1057 Which is usually called "bias". We believe this, let's find some proof for it.
@@HansBezemer Many, if not most, YEC scientists admit that they see the world by the light of God's World. And, as I said, they are not simply making claims; they are making testable predictions that run against the scientific groupthink of our day. While detractors may ignore them, they are being proven right. In this way, they are the Galileo Galilei, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Alfred Wegeners of our day.
@@HansBezemer Many, if not most, YEC scientists admit that they see the world by the light of God's World. And, as I said, they are not simply making claims; they are making testable predictions that run against the scientific groupthink of our day. While detractors may ignore them, they are being proven right. In this way, they are the Galileo Galilei, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Alfred Wegeners of our time.
Do you believe in God? Yes. Do you go to church every week? No. So do you really believe in God? Not enough to go to Church, no.
Science has changed through the centuries. It may have been more reasonable for scientists to believe in God 400 years ago, when the sciences were in their infancy, than for scientists to believe in God now, when the universe is so much better understood.
the water cycle is mentioned in the bible long before science dicovered it. The idea of an expanding universe is in the bible as well. "God spreads out the heavens like a tent" The bible teaches that the universe had a beginning like the big bang theory suggests. Also, sea creatures were created first on day 5 this lines up with science findings that life began in our oceans.
There's also depiction of water above "the heavens" and liquid water existing before light.
@@michaelanderson4849 there's also water vapor in our atmosphere.
@@michaelanderson4849 Formation of Water:
In the early universe, shortly after the Big Bang, conditions were extremely hot and dense. As the universe expanded and cooled, subatomic particles combined to form atoms.
Hydrogen and helium were the first elements to emerge. Hydrogen, in particular, played a crucial role.
Water (H₂O) consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. These atoms formed well before the first stars ignited and produced light.
Therefore, in terms of elemental constituents, water did exist before light. (so, the bible got this fact right also)
@@diamondlife-gi7hg There sure is. Water above "the heavens" is a bit problematic though. But more so is how water could exist (along with the whole planet) before light was created. That one is seriously problematic.
@@michaelanderson4849 Extraterrestrial Delivery:
If Earth’s water didn’t originate during its formation, it must have been delivered later by extraterrestrial objects.
Two main candidates are comets and asteroids:
Comets: These icy bodies contain significant amounts of water. Models suggest that comets could have delivered enough water to account for Earth’s oceans.
Asteroids: Some asteroids also harbor water. Their impacts could have contributed to Earth’s water content.
The prevailing theory is that Earth acquired its water from water-rich planetesimals-either comets or asteroids-that made up a portion of its building blocks (from an online source)
I believe that many of the scientists who believe in God, believe in a Pantheist version, where the Universe Is God, and that all of us are just miniscule parts of that mysterious cosmic entity. This is what Einstein was talking about when he talked about "God".
This is the form of God that I believe in.
I don't have any figures on scientists who believed in a pantheist God but Einstein explicitly said: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" Einstein, Albert (11 October 2010). Calaprice, Alice (ed.). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press. p. 325.
@@BiblicalBookworm I am surprised by Einstein's quote since he said that he believed in Spinoza's God...
-------------------
Yet, American philosopher and self-described panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza's philosophy as "classical pantheism" and distinguished Spinoza's philosophy from panentheism.
----------------------
...so I am surprised that he didn't think he was a pantheist which seems almost indistinguishable from panentheism.
(There are some lists, including Wikipedia that have him listed as a Pantheist)
What was *also* werner heisenberg?
One of the most laughable things ever is "you can't be a scientist and believe in God". Or "Religious people are narrowminded and unfit for science". When there are tons among greatest scientists that are believers (and even Catholic priests 😉) .
Thank you for addressing the topic. ☺️
The issue is NOT "you can't be a scientist and believe in Lord Ganesha," and never was.
Can people hold to ideas that actually conflict with one another in their own minds? Of course they do. There's a psychological term for this: compartmentalization.
The problem occurs, in the context of the topic here, when the "compartmentalizing" breaks down.
Here I'll just mention an extreme example of this: Young earth creationists. These people believe - because of the particular religious doctrines they believe in - that the universe and the earth have not existed for more than around 6,000 years. Which religious belief, according to a vast array of scientific facts we know about from geology, astronomy, and physics, is patently absurd. And yet there are a few (a very few, yes) scientists who have actually published some genuine scientific research in geology, astronomy, and physics (not having anything to do with supporting their young earth creationism beliefs, but on various other topics), who go around teaching that young earth creationism is "scientific" and "supported by real science," and engaging in all manner of totally anti-science rhetoric and disingenuous behavior to do so, as directly motivated by their particular religious beliefs. (Indeed, one of the standard rhetorical gimmicks young earth creationism pseudoscience promoters use is that young earth creationism is "scientific" because - oh, look! - these people with PhD's in geology, astronomy, and physics are young earth creationists. I'm not kidding here. This is not a straw man. They actually use this argument in their rhetoric.)
You can't just sweep this problem under the rug.
I have zero problems with professional scientists being religious believers in some religion. One of my favorite science professors (physical anthropology) was a devout Mormon, and in my opinion he did a great job teaching the subject.
I have all kinds of problems when that "compartmentalization" breaks down. Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. They're fundamentally incompatible because their fundamental features directly contradict each other. Religion is connected to a person's particular culture, and how that got built into their psychology growing up, and how people use religious belief sociologically. The scientific process is literally foreign to this. The fact that religion and science CAN and DO coexist peacefully doesn't change this fact about them being fundamentally incompatible.
Stephen Jay Gould used the term "non-overlapping magisteria" - which is rather highfalutin for my taste, but I get what he was talking about. But the problem, of course, is when religious believers "overstep their bounds" - which is often, especially in the United States, but also elsewhere. I honestly couldn't care less if someone wants to follow the Qur'an as some kind of "holy text" and believes that Muhammed was actually visited by an angel from Allah that told him what to write, and uses the writings in the Qur'an in some way to mold the manner in which he chooses to live. But the moment he starts making EMPIRICAL claims, then AUTOMATICALLY such claims are subject to scientific inquiry and examination. And if those claims are false, then they're false. Period. He can still believe them, of course, as he chooses to, but when he chooses to make empirical claims related to his religious belief, he has less than zero justification for complaining when other people critique those claims for being empirically false. The same with the Book of Mormon. The same with the Bible. The same with any other alleged "holy book."
I've always said Gould was wrong - because there IS some overlap (which varies, of course, depending on the particular set of religious beliefs we're talking about).
Which doesn't change the fact that religious believers can be very good scientists, or that science and religion CAN coexist peacefully. But when religious believers don't "stay in their lane," they have no business complaining when critics then challenge them on it.
The smartest scientists and doctors believe in God. It's obvious from a deep study of several things: fine tuning arguments of astronomy; fine tuning arguments of chemistry; fine tuning arguments of biochemistry. There is no "spontaneous" explanation for the human brain, eye, immune system, clotting system, protein synthesis system, flagella, etc. The best book on the subject is "Is atheism dead" by Eric Metaxas. James Tour Phd is the best you tuber for OOL (origin of life) topics. Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Lennox, etc are also very good. I am a Stanford, Harvard educated MD, and I can assure you that human physiology-biochemistry is so complex that God is the only reasonable explanation. Eg. the plasma membrane functions as an electric battery. The mitochondria splits the atom to generate energy. The hydrogen protons are pumped into the intramembranous space. The electrons are passed along a gradient of proteins on the inner mitochondrial membrane. The proton gradient is harvested to make ATP's.
what about our native beliefs here in australia..they have been current for 50 000 years..don't they count for anything ?
Do you have figures for Scientists that have died for believing the wrong god?
Speaking of scientists who believe in god, none come more famous than Francis Collins, the physician-scientist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project. How he became a Christian is contentious.
One popular explanation given is that while hiking in the Cascade Mountains, he encountered a frozen waterfall with three distinct parts-a symbolic representation of the Trinity. In that moment, his resistance dissipated, and he felt a great sense of relief, turning to Jeesus
The other common school of thought is that he was convinced from reading the works of CS Lewis
In the first instance, even a modern-day 8-year old would think it silly, stooopid even, to be convinced by comparing a 3-in-1 waterfall to the trinity. One could just as easily look at a three-pronged kitchen fork and conclude similar
Then we have CS Lewis, the trilemma chump who couldn't even figure out there could be more options than just "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord"
This shows how even the most brilliant minds can often be swayed by silly reasons
Wheter they could convince you of God's existence or not, nobody needs to be convinced that they were really brilliant minds while if someone isn't brilliant, being atheist will never work a shortcut to be such 😁 today atheism is mainly a cheap trend for insecure people to claim that they are cool, superior , sort of ...God's existence isn't the topic tho, what you listed just confirms the video.
St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas, ora pro nobis
I was given the truth to all of this, the greater mind generates Gods, deities, spiritual entities, stories, I know this as I was trained by God
Science and religion are compatible: Christianity preaches values that, if correctly followed, are evolutionarily beneficial:
- pro-natalism
- orderliness and conscienciousness
- development of one's intellect
- loyalty to the own community
- preaching the Gospel among non-believers, opening up a path towards community membership for outsiders of a different religion regardless of their race or nationality
you can also believe in Leprechauns..but how does that alter day to day activity on earth
That last statement about not questioning is so off base with Christianity is not even funny.
We are to test its word, the bible says so to test everything with the word.
Edit: you said the thing at the end lmao
Good job!!!!
Is it mean of me to point out that Newton was an Arian?
I'd like to share an observation of observable material evidence that points to the accuracy of Scripture in my video 'Begining of understanding "
My claim is transmutation by electrical process (Lorentz Force in a magnetic field) of genetically superior creatures (Seraphim)
My icon is a seraph kneeling for example and my channel is dedicated to giving examples of this
Thanks! Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Thank you for your support! ⚘
You remind of another person by the named Roy, He is a pasture in Las Vegas that was sentenced to life in prison, and was in and out prison a few times throughout his life, well during his last years in prison He read a lot of books and learn many different views from different wrighters, well God got him out prison when the covid pandemic was ats high. Well the reason I bring this up is do that relation of seeking knowledge in wrightten records and wanted to bring this up pasture here. He runs a youtube channel called old school bible baptist, is from dispensational side/view of the bible. He's one of the last students dispensational Christian Wrighter and teacher named Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Take a look into those two for I can say they have and will* benfit many people wether they are newly born again into The Body of Christ or have been for a while The Body.
Believing in God is the easy. Believing in a personal God is another story.
I think believing in a self created universe and inorganic molucules turn into life take as much faith as believing in God
Interesting is always where you choose the "cut-off" points. Theists like to go further back in time, because in those days it was not done to be an atheist. "International" is interesting too, because there are still plenty of places where you get the death penalty if you publicly abandoned your faith. Why Hindus, Jews or Muslims would support the Christian narrative in any way, shape or form is unclear to me too.
Deists, for example, believe in an absent God - and feel it's ridiculous to worship Him or pray to Him. For what reason. Nobody picks up the phone..
Of course, atheists prefer "Leading scientists still reject God" from Nature (1998), because it suggests that the smarter you are, the less inclined you are to be a believer. It's the paper Neil Tyson Degrasse likes to quote in his public presentations. And in this way, by abusing statistics - everyone is right. And everyone is happy.
The point is that these figures contribute exactly nothing to the debate at hand. In science, it is not that the majority is always right. It is the strength of your argument. Lots of religious scientists are "mild" in the sense they don't take the Bible literally, they accept "the big bang" and evolution. Stephen J. Gould even proclaimed that religion and science were "non-overlapping magisteria" - they had nothing to do with each other.
Lots of scientists have very personal views on religion. They don't subscribe to the fundamentalist tendencies people using these figures tend to promote. I think some of them would even resist it. First and foremost because they entail a plethora of logical fallacies. "The call to authority" fallacy. "The bandwagon" fallacy. Things do not become true because certain people say of believe them. Thing become true, because people can *prove* them.
I consider this method disingenuous - and an conscious attempt to cloud the minds of less educated, gullible people. They deserve better. If you have actual proof for God, provide it. If you haven't, enjoy your faith with dignity.
I agree that the fact that smart people say something doesn't prove its true. That's why I made the disclaimer at 02:20. The point of the video is to show that religion and science can coexist peacefully in practice
Tbh the video is not about scientific proof of God(s) existence. It's about the fact that science and religion aren't impossible companions. At many levels, from eclectic thinkers to proper clergy. I guess you know that a Catholic priest is the author of Big Bang Theory
@@elleanna5869 Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.
@@HansBezemer evidence for what? God's existence? It's not the topic, once again
@@elleanna5869 If you are going to bring up big bang and LeMaitre I wonder why you omit Friedman, Robertson and Walker?
The universe operates on a bunch of non-random laws. People who believe in God believe those laws were put there intentionally.
Ex-catholic agnostic scientist here. I have no clue if a god exists. But at least I'm pretty sure it's not the Hebrew version of god. A closer look at the dogmas about Mary and transubstantiation made me give the church the finger and leave.
Please help me to understand what you mean
@@richardwatterstan Sure! But you'll have to be a bit more specific about what you don't understand.
I think all this proves is that people who are highly specialized in science don't have a great deal of time to spend on philosophy. The majority of people are brought up to be religious, and to go against this programming takes deliberate effort. If all you do is focus on the work that will lead you to a Nobel prize, it's not hard to see why you'd simply stick to the belief you were assigned to at birth.
Any scientist that has had an NDE or had a psychedelic experience will not deny the reality of other states of being that transcend ours every day one, where heavens and hells came be experienced in a world where time as we know it does not exist but the oneness and dilution of self in rapture.
Regardless of how many scientists believe in a god of some description or other not a single one can produce any objective evidence whatsoever that any god exists. The inviolable essence of science is confirmation by objective evidence so to believe in a god a scientist must abandon the fundamental core tenet of science itself. That should tell you something about the relevance of scientists believing in god.
I love scientists, except the ones who do things like enable the threat nuclear annihilation, weaponize smallpox and anthrax, release viruses from labs, experiment on humans etc etc. However they are generally an inquisitive bunch, and many have done a lot of good.
However, from what i have seen, atheist scientists are extraordinarily arrogant and are likely to make annunciations, and even pose as experts pertaining to things they know literally nothing about.
Metaphysics, modal logic, philosophy of religion etc has some of the greatest minds in human history who have contributed, and people like Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrass Tyson etc etc, it is extremely clear, don't remotely understand.
If it is a philosophical question, maybe a statistical analysis of religious philosophers would make sense. Personally, I am not a Christian. I am a Buddhist. Most of my colleagues here in Taiwan are either Buddhist or Taoist. I find Christianity to be a deeply amoral religion. Its view on slavery, its treatment of women, homosexuals, and now -especially- trans people, is horrific to me. However, I respect my Christian colleagues, and I certainly respect other religions and will even tolerate some of their unethical and prejudicial behavior to a certain extent, but I will not go out of my way to socialize with them.
The greatest scientist of all time was not only a scientist but also a bible scholar an Alchemist and a devout christian
His name was sir isaac Newton
If he was a real Christian, he'd have believed in talking snakes and donkeys. Or that water turns into wine without additives
Just goes to show how even the most brilliant of minds can verge on absolute lunacy
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 The whole bible isn't even ment to be taken literally but most of it is figurative
and this is true not just for the holy bible but also to the quran and gita or vedas
P.S i'm a muslim
@@theguyver4934 Of course. I don't take any of it literally. In fact, I can demonstrate its Roman origins and why it was written (the NT)
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 - Wait what do you mean by roman origins ?
Because if your saying that it's fake ( NT ) then your wrong and there's evidence to prove it
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 yes we all know the weird conspiracy theories about it. History is just a wholly different thing. Enjoy your hobby, tho 😅
Jesus Christ of Nazareth..
When Lord Jesus was being tempted he had 2 choices to say yes or no but Jesus is amazing he was able to talk back at him and said get behind me satan do not tempt the Lord thy God so our thoughts can be tempted but we have choices to choose right or wrong and if Jesus died for us to redeemed the World the whole World should be giving thanks and coming to the truth so shouldn't everyone pray the Lord's Prayers or avoid praying and to say something back to that is choosing to be athiest. And if our brothers and sisters follow how the Lord prayer is used within the Church than we may be able to find others and they can choose a way to follow the Lord's prayer. In the Catholic Universal Christian Mother Church we pray the Lord's prayer before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ for Eternal life. I don't know how science would know about after life without God because with God all things are possible. Blessed Mother ask the Archangel Gabriel how can that be
Im an atheist will I become prisoner in the hell's jail?
Sr Isaac Newton was Anglican, not catholic
According to Wikipedia he was a Nontrinitarian Arian. Did I say in the video that he was Catholic?
@@BiblicalBookworm My mistake, I reviewed the video where I thought you had included it in a list of Catholic scientists and you had actually said Christian scientists.
In any case, I would like to tell you that there cannot be two authorities, either it is science that has authority over your life or it is the Word of God. You must choose who is the highest authority that governs your life. Not just science, religions, your parents, the law of the country. You must decide what your maximum authority is, for example if the law of your country allows abortion that does not mean that that law dominates your life. If science says that life begins at birth or that people can be whatever sex they want, that doesn't mean that it governs your life. If Religion tells you to kneel to Mary and ask her for favors, that does not mean that you are going to do it. Who has authority in your life? For me it is the Word of God, outside of it there is only relativism. Since the Word of God is unalterable, everything else changes.
The book of Genesis has been in the world for around four millennia, which conveys that Adam and Eve obeyed Satan to pursue knowledge, over faithfulness to the Creator. Thus, they were banished from Eden, to be like God, by exercising their desire / purpose - knowledge. And, then die as warned in Genesis. Sadly, even Christians (all denominations) haven’t clarified the purpose of humans (their choice) on earth per Genesis 3, though denominations have established major universities of knowledge and science. Reading of the Holy Bible should be essential reading for Christians.
Adam and Eve obeyed Satan in the garden... Really? When reading the text it says nothing about any satan.
I mean i *kinda* do
Its more of just a catalyst for...
Oh. Then where did...
God is a vector with no direction that is infinite.
Not taht...
Its impossible.
So yeah, its confusing. But im not christian. Thats all you need to know.
If you study science with a secularist mindset that's how you going to interprite the science you are taught in school but if you do have religious belief that's how you going to interpret the science you learn in school, but it would be foolish to believe that the all the design and beauty we see around us came by chance, We must take Genesis literally because all through out the gospels Jesus interpret genesis literally he believe in a literal Adam and eve and also in John it said all things were made by Jesus christ, we cannot try to fit evolution into the bible it does not work, I believe the entire Bible is true and that the world is 6 thousands years old because both true science and the bible agree with each other
so to be good at science I must become Christian?
Obviously no
I’m tired of science videos giving all of the credit to mindless unguided matter. At some point you have to realize there’s something more than energy and matter since they cannot produce or direct themselves.
Really? We can observe matter creating matter all the time. And energy is a property of stuff. Not somerhing in itself.
@@michaelanderson4849 Let me see you charge your phone with an equal or lesser amount of charge.
One doesn't really "believe" in God, one knows God through observation and relationship.
🤔?(!)…
@@Sedgewise47I think what the op meant Is that most theists and former atheists don't believe in God as a result of logical argumentation but personal experience
I fall into that camp
@@kiroshakir7935
Notwithstanding envy being a deadly sin, this seems such an enviable experience…
@@Sedgewise47 well
I don't think a comment section is a good enough place for such an important and dear thing to my heart
But if you're interested in hearing the story then here it is
When I was young I was in my grandma's house
She had been sick for quite some time now
and my mom asked me to pray for her
At the time I was deeply confused
God always listened to my prayers but I had been praying for grandma for a while but he never answered I thought to myself that god wanted grandma to be with him in heaven
And around that time she was supposed to go to the hospital for an operation
The day before that I had a dream
I was in heaven smiling and looking at her (grandma)
Even though I don't remember exactly what I saw
Then My mom woke me up for school
And she asked me to pray for grandma and I told her that she is in heaven right now
And he died that day
It's a bit of a weird story and I don't blame you if you don't believe it
And ironically even after all that I still managed to fall into mortal sin
I am addicted to pornography
And I frequently get myself in trouble
Kinda makes me wonder why all of this happened to me of all people
@@kiroshakir7935 The problem is he was clearly just trying to sound smart, however the Bible uses the term believe in all over the place.
It is highly likely that God exists. Demonic evil exists. The matrix of this universe and the events of this universe will synchronize with you like anything if you are the right person. It's almost non-stop. Based on this, I think I might be God. Have I antagonized the universe or has the universe antagonized me? It is hard to tell.
Obedience means: shut up, just compute.
According to quantum practice, which is similar to the religious specially in monastic circles. It's like the royal road to enlightenment. To sink to the deepest core of our being. Obviously you're obeying an enlightened teacher..
Everybody believes in something, everybody has a god.
No other gods before me
Its our human nature, Eve(life) will always make some dudes feel like gods, like there is no God.
People need to start studying the human nature properly
The bible is a great man-made book of man-made deep wisdom of many generations, nothing inspired by a god.
There is zero evidence for any superntatural happening or character in the bible (and the quran).
As a Deist I send you a lot human love :)
Life isn't democratic. What most people believe is not a measure of its veracity and doesn't change reality. "If you believe in things that you don't understand, Superstition ain't the way..." Stevie Wonder
You seem to think that a belief in God is just a way to fill in the inevitable scientific gaps and would be explained away in time. But religion is not a substitute for science; it's an attempt to answer what is behind the temporal realm (if anything). To assume that Stevie Wonder would be more insightful than Pasteur, Planck, or Einstein seems dubious at best.
@BillRemski I agree. That's why I made the disclaimer at 02:20 - how many scientists believe in God doesn't show whether God exists or not.
And as explained starting at 07:15 faith and obedience should be based on understanding.
@@BiblicalBookworm By doing that you nullified the reason to make this video in the first place. If not for that reason - what other possible reason could you have to make such an argument?
@@HansBezemer As explained in the video - the point of the video is to show that religion and science can be compatible in practice