How do you reconcile your faith with the discoveries of modern science? I mean Biblical cosmology, at least in Genesis, views the earth as pretty much just land under a dome with the eternal waters of chaos surrounding it and the sun and moon and stars within the dome making that pretty much the whole universe. Later in early Christian times, under influence from the Greeks, Earth was seen as the center of everything with the seven planets (the moon, the sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) revolve around it in seven different layers. Later it was discovered that Earth and the other planets (except the moon) actually go around the sun and that's it's not a planet but a giant fusion reactor fire ball 1,300,000 times larger than Earth. Then it was discovered that actually there are many other solar systems out there besides ours, millions even billions or trillions! Then only in 1929 was it discovered that other galaxies besides our own exist, again possible millions and billions. Einstein's theories make it probable that the universe is infinite (though this doesn't make an infinite amount of matter) and there are probably trillions upon trillions of galaxies out there. On top of that numerous earth like planets have been discovered. On top of that quantum fluctuations predict a universe that can create itself out of nothing…. So seeing that we humans are extremely insignificant within the grand scheme of things and that actually we are not the center of it all how do you reconcile this with your faith?
Serious question
Other urls found in this thread:
arxiv.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
because i believe in the bible and the bible alone. unless its in the bible it isnt true. i reject all "science" and "history" and "math" because those are created by satan. now winnie the pooh off with your shit thread.
…
...
This is a troll right? Surely no one with an IQ above 120 takes this seriously.
I don't even like prots, but even I know they aren't THIS stupid.
Noah literally uses math to build the ark. Solomon uses math to build the temple. Jesus uses math to explain how many days he will be in heck.
Your question is actually a dozen different questions all folded into one another. I am tempted to skip all of your post aside from the last sentence, since that's what you wasted so many words trying to get to, but I will instead answer every sentence with a comment.
Faith, i.e., trust in God's Providence, is not in conflict with higher sensual faculties such as reason. To assert so is to make a category error. If, for example, it were true that faith and reason conflict, then pious people would not be able to use reason to construct language and write as I am doing now.
The people who wrote the Torah, i.e., the first five books of the Old Testament, were ancient Hebrews who spoke using metaphors and allegories, as well as via things they could observe to draw parallels. E.g., the Earth does indeed appear, when you are standing in a broad plain, like a flat surface topped by a dome. The fact that ancient people wrote what they saw should not be shocking or surprising. Accordingly, if I say that a road is "flat" would that be an error? Technically, not even flat surfaces are flat at the microscopic level—ultimately, this is all a question of semantics. It's like asking if a tree exists. Technically, "tree" is a made-up human sound.
Again, this is how it appears to be when your only tool of observation is literal, from-the-ground eyesight.
And almost everyone who made these discoveries was a devout Christian. The size of the universe is as relevant to religion as is the rotundity of a tomato. It's a footnote.
The universe cannot be infinite in dimension, as evidenced by red shift. It has a measurable size in three dimensions, albeit a large and expanding one. As for the number galaxies, again; it is as relevant to the existence of God as the number of insects.
So what? There are oak trees, and then there are pecans and pines and mahoganies. Diversity within Creation is a feature, not a "glitch" as you seem to presuppose.
According to what study? With what certainty? Don't do make of these arrogant "pop science" mistakes of finding a snippet of disembodied information and using it to support a tangential hypothesis.
Insignificant according to whom or what? In what way? Can't you see you've already decided on arbitrary standards for the designations of "significant" and "insignificant" and then applied them to this subject in order to justify your unbelief?
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. - Matthew 5:11
Yes, it's in the Bible. Those forms of math are proved by the Bible.
Couple things here.
First of all, generally speaking not all modern "discoveries" are legitimate such as the idea that sodomy is healthy, that human activity is about to destroy the planet or that genetic sexual dimorphism is a social construct. So we first need to appreciate that today's scholarship and academic consensus are generally subpar in many areas and can't be trusted to portray the truth.
Second, we need to understand that many "popular science" myths being promoted by those who write TV show scripts and movies are under the sway of talmudic philosophy and they often slant statistics and depictions to fit a presupposed idea of the universe that fits their ideology relying on confirmation bias.
Next, the cosmology of the Bible never implies the existence of a "dome" or of the world being a flat surface. The birds in Genesis 1 are said to fly "in the open firmament" of heaven. In other words, the firmament is generally the space between the ground level and the clouds (the waters above). It makes no sense to say this is a dome if there are birds flying "in" it. Maybe you were using a modern version? That, again, has been tampered with by academics over the past 100 or so years. Technically started in 1881 with Westcott and Hort.
Actually any non-inertial reference frame is as valid as any other. The Sun and solar system is also moving around the galaxy, so it's not at the center either. But if you define the Sun at rest in the center then you can describe the orbits as simple elliptical orbits. You can just as easily define the Earth in the center, you will just need more complicated equations to describe the motion of the planets and Sun relative to that.
"Planet" is a later term based on later definitions though. Also it was not described the same as the planets. So I really don't see where you got this claim, except maybe on some blog written by someone hard at work reinforcing their preconceived biases.
Yes, the current cosmological model does do this but there is no contradiction here.
Go back to point One and Two. Not everything you hear scholarship say is worthy to believe without any basis.
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
...
Interesting. In any case, I see no way this somehow precludes the existence of God. OP seems to imply quantum processes fill the role of God in Creation, yet this is another category error for, unlike quantum processes, God is outside Creation and by nature not positively discernible via ratio.
OP's problem seems to be epistemological/philosophical, not anything to do with physics or astronomy.
So than by your silly logic you ought to get rid of your smart phone and computer and leave the internet forever because it was made by math and science that was spawned from the devil and not from the Bible.
So either:
1) you are false flagging and doing a poor job at it
2) you really are that stupid and just a hypocrite
It's probably #1. Ignore him.
Sage for off-topic.
How do you reconcile atheism with the Big Bang and Red Shift?
Or insignificance compared to creation in general is only irrelevant honestly, as God is within all things and through all things and is infinite Himself, He can care and love for something this small. It's kind of cool actually.
Look at one of those size comparison videos of the known observable universe.
Meditate for about 10 seconds on how we have yet to find one planet with life aside from earth.
Wonder where the sixteen googolplex-quintillion other Earths are where everything is just a little bit different.
Think about how dumb multiverse theory is.
Rewind the video, watch it again. Think about this: We're it.
This universe is so big it's impossible to comprehend with a thousand minds, and we're it.
What does that imply?
You have to be a total brainlet to think any of this in anyway contradicts traditional biblical hermeneutics.
I leave the reconciliation work to the Jesuits.
Call me a heretic, but for me I never really bought into Adam and Eve at a literal level in the first place. I consider it more a foundation for the significance of obeying the Word of God in the first place, and a prime example of how sin can abuse our naivety.
The Universe is God's cosmos and reflects his order, power, and Beauty. If a medieval monk knew what we know about the Cosmos, he will fall on his knees in adoration of God
So would this confirm the first part of my post?
If something directly contradicts the Bible then I put it aside - simple as that. My answer to people who get all bent out of shape about that is "Who cares?". Whether I believe in evolution (I don't) or if I believe in flat earth (I don't) it changes nothing about me being a good citizen, a good father, or most importantly a good Christian.
Why, oh why would you ever fall for a fedora-tier interpretation of Biblical cosmology? Sage.
Faith instructs science not the other way round. The reason why natural sciences or lower sciences and governed by the sacred sciences like theology is because one is done by the fallible observations and reasonings of man and the other by the supernatural divine infallible revelation of God.
The earth is the centre of the universe and 7219 years old.
Food for thought.
en.wikipedia.org
None of what you posted contradicts scripture or tradition. Listen to Fr Ripperger on why the literal Genesis interpretation is the only acceptable one in our faith to God.
youtu.be
It's amazing how you historically illiterate slugs never cease to crawl out of the primal sea of ignorance of an educational cesspit you were fermented in to belch out the same rancid bilgewater of lies time and again as if it were some kind of novel profound wisdom. Were you even briefly acquainted with the actual academic history of science, as opposed to the childish fantasies scientists have constructed to boost their own egos and status in the eyes of the public, you'd know that the Earth in geocentric cosmology was seen as occupying a low point in the universe. Indeed in the Scholastic-Aristotelian cosmology the entire sublunar region was considered made of a cruder and corruptible matter, above the stars was the Third Heaven where saints and angels dwell, below the moon was lousy old Earth full of sinners, and lower still was Hell, occupying the actual center of the cosmology. But this delusion that being near the center of the cosmos was seen as some kind of exalted and lofty position in ages past is easily disproven by the merest familiarity with the source material from the time in question. You have no familiarity with it. You don't know history, you're a parrot who's been trained to repeat a few stock phrases bearing all the veracity of a Harry Potter novel.
Indeed actual historians of science find this idea that the geocentric cosmology exalted man and its demise demoted him as being so pernicious that a name for said lie has even been coined "The Demotion Myth". Beloved of Niel DeGrasse tyson fans the world over but detested by people who actually know what the heck they're talking about. The "Copernican System" didn't "demote" man, but had a leveling effect on the cosmos, elevating the Earth indeed to the equal of the stars, while putting the sun, in the words of Nicholas Cardinal Schönberg in his letter to Copernicus, at "lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe". Well later the idea of a heliocentric cosmos was scrapped, and indeed the term "heliocentric" was redefined as an act of deception to mask this break with Copernicus; redefined in a way "geocentrism" is not permitted to be.
I'll extend your history lesson further, to let you know that the current sense of the word "science" wasn't coined until the 19th century, and the associated concept doesn't extend back any further. Before then, "science" was a term with a much broader meaning, that could encompass mathematics and theology. The word "scientist" itself wasn't invented until the 19th century, and there was no similar concept in ages past. Copernicus and Galileo and Newton weren't "scientists", they were "philosophers", and when they applied philosopher to the "natural world", this was known as "natural philosophy".
What's true in "science" is whatever scientists agree is true. This goes back to Boyle's Experimental Philosophy, where the matter of "fact" was decided by consensus among experimental philosophers. Diving into the philosopher of science, we find the Quine-Duhem Thesis, Confirmation Holism, Underdetermination, the Graveyard of Theories, and a whole host of other concepts that render Scientific Realism untenable. There's not even such a thing as "science", as the persistence of the Demarcation Problem shows. But then understanding all this would require knowledge of the History and Philosophy of Science, which you lack.
In the end it is The Lord of Heaven (the sky, i.e. the place with all the stars above us) that is significant. God's love is significant enough that He reaches out to we insignificant sinners, to elevate us from our lowliness. *This is the traditional Christian view of the universe*. You are the one who thinks he's something special just for regurgitating stale lies like they're blinding epiphanies. You think being geocentric is a special status because you are an egocentrist who can't escape the gravity-well of his own pride.
Every single time a scientist opens his mouth I'm reminded of the summation of the Law, either for bad or good.
1) The physical can not and will never explain the metaphysical.
2) The scientific cosmovision is merely a product of the modern era. As such it will later get replaced by another spiritual and integral cosmovision.
3) Contemporary science is mostly based on forged data.
4) Scientificism is an ideology.
t. biology undergrad
Do you believe in the revelation? Yes or no? Do you believe God was born in the flesh out of a virgin?
What are those material questions compared to the Truth revelead?