The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
What sin? Smart ppl can be just as delusional as dumb ones. But their rationalizations can be much more sophisticated. Still rationalizations tho. And dummies like me can sometimes say things which turn out to be true. If it happens by accident, I should get no credit.
Science and engineering is just the study of the mechanisms of God's creative processes Faith, logic, reason, science are in complete harmony and unison
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Bobby y’all *just* moved to Texas from Los Angeles and there is an historic weather/ice event! Does our God have a sense of humor or what! I have many stories vis-à-vis this effect! Thank you for this post and God bless y’all as you discern His call!
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Amen to this video a thousand times over. As a Christian and as a scientist I love to learn and explore in all facets of my life including the bible and my faith. During my college days I was a Catholic girl at an Reformed presbyterian college who went to United Methodist Church at the time. I really did have to do research, investigations, and explore my faith. I have finally come to the faith that I am today from these experiences. I would not trade the difficulties of what I endured through tense questioning from peers and some times as much as discrimination from Protestants and Catholic alike. I did have some amazing professors during my time, I learned to think critically about everything and anything being told to me. I also learned to learn and experience as much as I can. Knowledge and experience will gain you wisdom. With my faith intertwined I will have Godly wisdom that the bible talks about, the one in Proverbs. The curriculum at Geneva is meant to show that as a human being we need to learn all the studies from the bible, to genetics to psychology, to sociology to embryology. It was my sophomore fall semester I learned the connection between faith and science. Great video.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Most amusing is those who say "I believe in science", but do not realize that the natural sciences are not self-proving. The scientific method is a product, not of "science", but of the Science of Philosophy. This same Science of Philosophy is what Saint Thomas Aquinas used to prove the existence of God in five different ways.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Oh my gosh I clicked on this video and the intro is quite literally what I have thought once I learned more about my faith in relation to past friends who have said this. Christianity and Science aren't mutually exclusive, they explain each other in a lot of cases.
One doesn't need faith to believe in science, but u need faith to believe in God. Science doesn't explain God, and Christianity doesn't explain science. U don't need to leave ur faith to accept science that at least is true.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
I cannot believe the double speak this guy delivers. Science is knowledge based on evidence and fact. Religious faith is belief without evidence and fact.
MORE PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THIS! As someone who works a lot with youth in the Church, this is such a good and necessary video. Thank you like always Ascension!
I love both!! I believe they are just two sides of the same coin. My faith inspires me to learn science and science in turn strengthens my faith. Because the more I learn science the more I see how amazing God's design is. Our divine purpose as human beings is to dominate, subdue and fill the Universe, the scientific method is simply the most powerful tool we have to accomplish that divine purpose. But unfortunately as history has shown we humans always pervert the blessings we are given and in this era people are only taking science as the objective truth, i.e: false God.
Everything need cause. So what is cause of god ? If you saying god don t have cause it is eternal you question first sentence and giving pool to think that not everything need cause. Let say that universe is eternal. But asume that god is the first cause why you think is christian god not muslim egyptain or (it is joke ) asgards from Star Gate sg-1 of goul'd ?
I say scientis proof only(i am 22 year studing eneginering so i can say soma about) that there was bin bang they still don t know what cause big bag. The two most theory i am close to is: 1. String theory(bit i am still asking what is the cause of string exist) 2 There universe is eternal in that sens (i will show you to it steps): 1 Big bang universe going to expand 2 time (very big amount of time) 3 Max point of expand universe it has maximum volume.( 4 Universe strating to colapsing (steps 3 and 4 four depend of how much matter is in universe (what we don t know )becouse gravity force must be enaught strenhgt to stop expanding universe) 5 Time 6 Universe back to its starting point 7 Go back to step 1 It kind like harmonic vibration or like loop in programing.
@Jackson not the big bang but supernova explosion (our sun) cretaed a protplanetary disk which all planet in our solar system are created(becauae of gravity).
@@loganmiller4806 , I know he is but science was made by people. God made nature and everything in it. Science is a method used to study it, not part of it on it's own.
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth whatever it is out there, there must be something smarter than us human. Scientist are all agree, that dark energy cant be passed and in the end, it will make us unable to travel beyond our galaxy. While there are potentially, i am 100% sure, a smarter being, already did inter galactic travel. We called them angels. And the boss of those angels is God.
“From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped.” -Sir William H. Bragg
@@tomandrews1429 Scientists* can attempt to answer “should we”, but in attempting to answer that question, they invoke philosophy, more specifically, moral philosophy, which is distinct from science. Science is a collection of knowledge that draws conclusions based on testable observations. There are many things that are untestable. Is it *wrong* to kill a human without a reason? What constitutes a good enough reason? That question is not testable. Science describes aspects of the world/universe, but can’t make judgments-it would need to invoke morality/philosophy/religion/etc. &Don’t get me wrong, I love science. I have a degree in science (chemistry). Science (which includes scientists) however, can’t explain everything. This is why science needs branches of thought like philosophy/religion when attempting to answer the bigger questions in life that are not directly testable or observable.
@@despicableyou12 I disagree, I think we can observe or at least deduce whether we should kill a human without a reason without needing to invoke religion. We can plainly see that a society where people don't go around killing each other without reason will be worse off than one where people are peaceful. We don't need a God to know why that would be wrong. As for what constitutes a good enough reason, that takes a little more thought, but it can still be derived. This question though is not solved by appealing to religion. Choosing to following what a god tells us to do isn't necessarily in our best interest since we can't fully understand that god's values or intents. It's also made worse by the fact that most (all?) religions have deities where communication is complicated if not nonexistent, making any divine knowledge that deity might have useless to us humans.
Science: the study of God's creation. In my life my answer always reverts to the very beginning, inevitably their answer is we don't know. Yes, we do, it is God. They choose not to admit. I refuse to argue. I refuse to debate.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
I’m a professional and published microbiologist /scientist - for almost 30 years now. I’m also a practicing Catholic. The more science I learn the longer I study work in the field of microbiology, it’s science that confirms my faith. Science proves there is God. Period. I’m very passionately pro life and anti abortion. I approach pro abortion groups with science. You see, think they are on the side opposite of religion. They think that’s science. Using science as a common language we can show abortion is scientifically wrong. You can’t convert them with religion until you speak their language and show how science leads to God. It truly is impossible by the laws of this universe, physics, biology, chemistry etx that DEMAND there is a God. He, the creator, is the only entity that can create a Universe and bend the laws of said Universe. God says he’s the potter snd we are the clay. Dumbed down for us, I believe he’s saying “I made the universe, I placed you within it. Bound to the natural laws and limits of this universe” Science demands God exists. If one understands physics it takes more faith to say there is no God because you actually can’t say that snd say you believe in let’s say the laws of matter. If you can’t create or destroy energy - it only changes form, the Laws of Thermodynamics, then someone please explain how ANYTHING exists. The explanation by famed art heist physicist Stephen Hawking said it was such a small mathematical gap that it spontaneously created the Big Bang/Universe. You can’t say that and simultaneously believe in the laws of this universe you used in your math bc you just contradicted your own foundation. It’s inherently flawed because it’s based in faith to say it “just happend” since it conflicts basic observable laws of the universe Hard to explain in a post but I keep finding more science and how it proves what’s in the Bible. Revelations and dark matter and energy in physics is another example. It’s all right in the Bible and it’s actually mind blowing when you go thru all this pain and study to learn the science when we were already told. Very simply. Very succinctly. In His Book. The Bible.
Please publish these findings in a scientific journal and let it stand up to peer review instead of a 6 paragraph rant on youtube that no one in there right mind is gonna read
I’m not the sharpest bulb in the deck so this may be way out of place but I think most biologists, even if believers, would not say that science PROVES god. Also the reasons stated in ur post seem like the same ones we’ve heard over and over from many others for many years. I think some take what is on the extreme edge of understanding of even the brightest among us and act as if they understand it better than they do. Also, many philosophers disagree on many issues. Phil may have been A basis for science. That doesn’t mean it can reveal truths about nature the way science can. U could say that chemistry came from alchemy but who practices the latter any more?
I appreciate your words and I wish priests would take the time to share this viewpoint at mass. My experience with the Catholic church doesn't match the examples you shared of science being a part of the church. There are many elders in my church and family who believe asking a question about anything is the devil tempting us to question God. Pursuing a science degree was greatly frowned upon because of fears that I would be corrupted. It would be well served if science and how moral ethics in science could be presented as part of teaching curriculums in Catholic schools, or sunday schools across the whole world. (maybe it already is, but it wasn't when I went to school).
Thank you, Bobby! We can’t talk about this enough...JP II’s Faith & Reason helped keep me in the Faith when I was just out of college and feeling the tension between the two...great questions at the end👊🏻
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
GOD is okay with science and technology in aiding people such as cures and vaccines to prosthetics. GOD uses people to help people. On the side note: science is never constant and can be considered wrong as times marches on with it's advances. GOD is consistent and is never wrong no matter how much time passes. This is the big difference.
Most of us want to hear the truth and clear explanation of where our country is heading and current situation. At least I learned something today. Wish all the churches are waking up , before it’s too late.🙏👍
Thank you for saying this Bobby. It is so true. We got a new priest this year and he preached a sermon that all science and scientists were evil. I couldn't believe it. I'm struggling with trying to figure out how to continue to support my parish rather than switch parishes, but not expose my child to his preaching. (That isn't the only thing he goes against the teaching of the church on.) I keep having to remind myself that I should expect at least 1 out of 12 priests to not be good examples of teaching and discipleship. No wonder there are people who think that is what the church preaches. I don't know how he made it through seminary with that idea.
That is definitely not good. That is the last kind of polemics we need being revived. May be consider speaking to him and finding out more of his reasoning? If he is not the pastor, bring your concerns to his attention. If he is and he will not see reason, consider raising the concern respectful of the priest's place as your spiritual father and shepherd, to the bishop. Some good resources I could recommend is the work of Fr.Robert Spitzer's evangelization using scientific knowledge, Bishop Robert Barron's videos both on the dangers of scientism and the relationship between science and faith or reason and faith more generally. Look up examples and read about the contributions of Catholic scientists espescially if they are also clergy or religious. Such as Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics who was also famously an Augustinian friar and abbot, Fr.pLemaitre who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, or of course any mentioned in this video, or Fr.Coyne the late priest-astronomer who ran the Vatican Observatory. Or look at scientific studies of Eucharistic Miracles and miraculous healings, science has a long and much more intertwined history with Christ's Holy Church than many really appreciate. I have spent countless hours looking at apologetics in this area. If you need help, please do not hesitate to ask. And remember, prayer is a must here, pray for father, and pray for yourself and always be respectful and humble, docility to spiritual authority is a powerful virtue and spiritual discipline.
Thank you for the advice and resources. Unfortunately we are without a bishop at this time. He retired not long after this priest was moved to my parish. It is a small rural parish and therefore he doesn't have access to as many people thankfully. I've realized that prayer is what is required of me. I would just pray through his sermons if my child wasn't a new Christian with mental health issues. Instead at this point we are participating in virtual masses. I've already had a couple of conversations with him about his teaching that sacrifice is good as long as it doesn't actually make us uncomfortable or actually cost us anything and the pope is the authority unless he disagrees with him and then he's wrong. I think he has succumbed to the classic North American heresy of the unholy trinity of me, myself and I as god. I don't think that is countered with apologetics. The Lord is the only one who can shift that thinking. I can offer up prayer and sacrifice, access the sacraments elsewhere when we can, and hope for a miracle.
@@karenp4036 Whenever you do get a bishop, please do inform him. I am rather confused as to the situation and obviously I am no one in regards to the situation anyway.
Excellent video!!! I'd always loved sciencie. It surprised me the beuty and perfection of the creation so much that i can not see God's work behind of all.
For those who are looking for a logical approach to faith, there is a great book “I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist” by Giesler and Turek. GREAT book!!
Could you guys at ascension presents do a video about how to talk about evolution with other Catholics or really anybody who thinks that the creation story in the Bible is meant to be taken literally? I had a huge argument about this with a friend once and it wasnt fun at all :D
Most ppl just went to a bad church. These days, being a pastor is on Indeed. It used to be a calling. Sir, you have a calling. Let God use you for his Glory and do not succumb to fame and pleasure. Walk for God and 1day we will all walk together.
Love this topic but am wondering why no one adresses the fact that it also goes the other way around, i.e. I know some Christians who think they have to reject science in order to have faith in God. Am I the only one out there who's encountered this? I used to be Protestant and I see that sort of thing a lot among fundamentalists. It mainly has to do with a belief that the theory of evolution contradicts the creation story in Genesis. But lately, I'm also seeing fundamentalist Christians declare that they're not going to get the COVID vaccine because God is in control of COVID and we shouldn't trust things that come to us from science. They feel they have to chose between trusting God with their lives and trusting a vaccine. How does one go about countering THAT sort of thing?
Why do you need to counter somebody's personal decision of what goes in their body? What happened to the free will God granted us? Maybe look at the fact that they're telling people to still wear mask and social distance after taking the vaccine as proof that it isn't the silver bullet people think it is. Maybe it will help older individuals not have such severe reactions when exposed to COVID but it's not going to stop the spread. It's more like the flu vaccine, not like the vaccines we get as kids to stop measles or polio.
It's more about the fact that they buy into the overall misperception that science and faith contradict each other but they are not coming from an atheist perspective rather from a faith perspective. That's what I'm trying to dialogue with here.
As in, it's not about whether or not people should be encouraged to get the vaccine but that the vaccine is fundamentally untrustworthy because it comes from the scientific world
Thanks for much for this information, in learnt about these priest scientist in my high school but non of the teachers ever told us that any of them was perist. Every good thing about the catholic, they try to suppress !
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Good that someone is adressing this point. God and sciences are not mutually exclusive, and I don't quite understand where this idea como from or how it originated. God and science go hand in hand. We have amazing things which God allowed us to have though science, especially when it comes to preserving life, saving it. There are bad things that come from science too. I think science can be a wonderful thing if used for good and for the love of God and mankind, to make us all better and not worse. Science is reason, God is the Mystery. It's alright to believe in human reason when we also know that there is a place for the Mystery, a place that human reason can't go. The best scientists know this.
Science and religion are mutually exclusive when it comes to determining truth. Science needs evidence to reach a conclusion, religion is satisfied with faith alone (without evidence).
@@tomandrews1429 All religion is based on pretty solid evidence, each with different interpretations. Religions don't use the scientific method for "proofs". Google Alfred Russel Wallace for science with some space given to the Mystery. You will be surprised to discover that he, along with Darwin, was one of the fathers of the theory of evolution. He and Darwin remained friends for life; both of them obviously agreed on evolution, but differed on what put life into motion in the first place, or the reasons for it.
@@tomandrews1429 The idea of God is based on solid evidence. Each individual religion has its spin on it. I'm not discussing particular religions but the idea of God in general.
@@rafaelzengo5534 Religion is more than just "the idea of God". Some religions don't even have God in them. But sure, what is the solid evidence that proves there is a God?
People who say they believe in science are not to be taken literally. Basically, their position is that they enjoy using science to justify their belief system and god. Science = Knowledge. Knowledge is mostly true. However, there is some knowledge which is not true or accurate.
Because we scientists pray so hard to God to have our scientific proposals accepted, then we pray to God to get funding to conduct the research and we beg God for good health & successful completion of our scientific research in a timely manner. So, if our scientific findings make you not believe in God, think twice.
@@susankeubar6175 I conduct research in the US and I have truly never prayed about it to God. Why should I return? How is God love when he drowns an entire planet because he was unhappy with how they were acting?
Science vs god is nonsense. Science is focusing on this word. If god exist and his haven science don t have acess to it and tool to explore it. I am atheist this is my opinion. If you have objections tell me.
Science is the pursuit of whys & hows 😂 using the most probable explanation for determining a phenomenon done by tests….of which can and must be able to be replicated by other scientists to determine if that explanation is valid or false.
@Davidson-bn1tg “why” is a philosophical question and was the original purpose of religion. That was my message, regardless of how well it does answer it. Im an atheist myself, and yet I struggle to see what your point is, besides reiterating the tired “science is better than religion, and here is why…”
All religion is based off of astrotheology. It helps to know the true origins of what you believe in to make sure it is truly aligned with your priorities and values in life. Most would be surprised to learn the true origins of what they place so much of their blind faith in.
2:22 Science has given us a lot of good things. What has God given us. When he came to the world, he spends 33 years making miracles instead of teaching people how to make medicine. Bragged about his father's house(his own house). For a man that was born in a very poor home(placed in a manger) in the desert. He thought wine is what the world needed. I'm at the point where I will either take the stories in the bible as literature and not real or be disappointed with God for abandon us in the world full of diseases.
Same. Highly disagree with these theories and opinion. I have very unpopular beliefs. Besides the true origins of religion, people bypass the fact that arguing over their “right” gods and religions is exactly why Earth is divided, why the biggest corporations profit off of war and sickness, and in my humble opinion - why we have a rampant epidemic of hidden shame and guilt controlling the masses subconscious.
I am sure you will agree that science is considered a hard science. My position is that science is a "culture of evidence" based belief, whilst religion is a "culture of faith." "Religion and science are like oil and water. They might co-exist, but they can never mix to produce a homogeneous medium. Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. They disagree profoundly on how we obtain knowledge of the world. Science is based observation and reasoning from observation. Religion assumes that human beings can access a deeper level of information that is not available by either observation or reason. The scientific method is proven by its success. The religious method is refuted by its failure." Not my words but spoken by: Victor J. Stenger, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Hawaii
They say God is just an answer to those who want it all easy. But the truth is, the moment you come to know Him personally, u know you have to change your life. And that is not an easy answer.
For me, I don't believe that the case is that people find SO much truth in science that it makes religion less credible. I believe the people don't like the rules and responsibility and sacrifice of religion and fall back on science because science makes no moral or ethical claims on our lives. It's easier. The odd thing is that science and the laws of nature are far less forgiving than our loving God!
@@IONov990 gravity when you fall from a ladder. Momentum when you drive too quickly around an icy corner. The pain and damage make no accommodation for a person. God forgives 70 times 7 times and desires our happiness and joy. Gravity just is.
I bet you have not read the bible completely, and you are saying here that christianity supports science, there you go! read your bible first instead of making a wise person from yourself here, there tons of conflicts in your bible with science.
Every so-called biblical conflict or contradiction that I have seen proposed turned out to be nothing. I seriously doubt that you'll be the one to find a legit one but I'll give you two tries just for sport. I limit people to two because if your top two fail then 3, 4, 5 and 6 won't fare any better and I don't have the time or the patience to debunk your 300 dumbest arguments.
I'm a scientist doing a theology degree part-time and I find this one really hard. The worst part is having to listen to theology lecturers whose 'faith and reason agree' arguments are based on their ignorance of natural science and on speculative logic which is itself full of holes. and i am a catholic. science hasn't broken my faith, but studying theology very nearly does, because it requires me to really questions what my faith is built on rather than bumble along with it. the only conclusion i can come to is that i believe because i choose to believe, and i choose to believe because jesus gives me the best deal out of all deities/non-deities scenarios.
I believe most who say they believe in science are not saying they don't believe in the God as presented by man which is a human construct that uses an alleged infallible book as God's perfect word. All religions on earth are human constructs. Within Christianity itself there are more than 1000 denominations because of differences of interpretation. I personally believe in God with all my mind heart and soul but I didn't find God in any historical books, which is what the Bible is, but within myself and is vastly different than every man-made religion I've studied.
Which one is the only one to give us a detailed and historically accurate document on the creation of the earth and the rises and downfalls of humanity?
@@tacoenjoyer8623 Buddha and Mohammed were nothing more than Good teachers. They were ordinary human beings just like you and me. They themselves took notice of Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh, and the same God from the Bible that Christians believe in.
@@tacoenjoyer8623 any religion besides the ones that believe in Jesus Christ are basically telling you to be good and that’s a good thing but when it comes to the Christian God it’s much more than just “being good”. They just want you to be comfortable with their words and not embrace the truth of life. I don’t want to judge or hate on them and I’m not, but Buddha and Mohammed are not the way to eternal life with God
The big bang and the fine tuning of the universe-Antropic Principle-DNA Code-Complexity of the Cell-Consciousness and the mind, are some examples of how science confirms the work of God, Catholics and Christians should not be afraid of science, they should embrace it as it is showing the complexity of life every day
No, just no. Right off the bat you’re defining your terms to fit your argument , you’re using strawman like I “believe” in science. The issue is epistemology. Faith is an epistemology that is at odds with science and it’s epistemology. People are complicated and can except two contradictory things, or incompatible ideas at a time. But the worldview that the epistemology of science presents is at odds with the worldview that the faith based epistemology presents. And the results of the process of science, the model that has been developed, is at odds with any religious received wisdom model. Time to accept one is man (not woman) made (religion) and one is humanities honest attempt in understanding itself and the world around us. Not to mention science doesn’t have to brainwash children before they are taught how to reason or think for themselves. Taught what to believe before given the reasons to believe, is backwards, and it goes without saying, antithetical to scientific reasoning.
Don't forget Einstein also said "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me"
@@tomandrews1429 also Einstein said physics aims to study the effect of things but not the cause. He believes the cause is caused by a higher power, i believe that higher power is God. this gives me peace of mind, if you don’t believe then stay miserable 🤷🏻♀️
@@ev1836 I'm quite happy actually without any God in my life. "but there’s so much to gain from believing" Not true. I might gain so much if I believe and your religion is true, but I see no good evidence that it is true so belief alone will get me nothing but a wasted life.
I agree! Science and religion are compatible! You can have both! I'm Catholic and I accept science, in fact I'm going into science when I get older. I see science as away to understand and study Creation. But there is one thing I want to point out, science is not a belief. When someone says "I believe in science", they are misinformed. Science is a tool that helps us study the natural world around us.
Why do you need to look "with the church" at some of the big questions? If the church is the answer to the questions, shouldn't that become obvious when looking for the answer? Why is the church necessary for any of this?
“Belief in science” is faith in inquiry and the scientific method to explain the world we live in, this is in stead of just believing or taking everything in the Bible seriously due to the lack of evidence in the existence of god. 😐
Thank you. I wish I understood this when my dad was alive. I’m grateful for the way you laid it out for us. Maybe it will help me walk beside someone in the future. Thank you😊
@ydkydgk2k Knowledge is a gift, like the gift of understanding, is ordained to the certitude of faith. Now faith consists primarily and principally in speculation, in as much as it is founded on the First Truth. But since the First Truth is also the last end for the sake of which our works are done, hence it is that faith extends to works from reason,your question makes it seem impartial.
@ydkydgk2k Then before i answer your question, consider the view, common among analytic philosophers, that the only sorts of truths there are are either those of natural science or those of conceptual analysis, so that philosophy must be oriented toward one or the other. Philosophers who think of their discipline as primarily devoted to conceptual analysis tend to fall either into a kind of rationalism or a kind of Kantianism, with predictable results. If they claim, as a rationalist would, that what they say about essences, causality, possible worlds, etc. reflects something about objective reality, their critics will say: How can mere conceptual analysis yield such momentous results? Why should reality conform to our concepts? If instead they say, a la Kant, that the results of conceptual analysis tell us only how we must think about reality, the critics will say: So what? Maybe we’re thinking about it the wrong way, and in particular in ways that reflect merely how natural selection or our cultural circumstances shaped our minds, rather than the way things really are. Those who hold instead that philosophy is an extension of natural science tend to fall into a kind of empiricism, or into a kind of Kantianism proceeding from the empiricist rather than rationalist direction. Their critics will say: Natural science has to be interpreted in either an instrumentalist or a realist way. If we read it the first way, then it doesn’t get us knowledge of the objective world, and we’re stuck with a riff on Humeanism. That’s essentially what logical positivism was, and it and other forms of antirealism are problematic in the usual well-known ways. If instead we read science in a realist way, then we are taking on board a substantive metaphysics. But then the history of scientific revolutions and Kuhnian points about the social nature of science raise questions about how objective such a metaphysics can be. Maybe it gives us knowledge only of how the scientific community conceptualizes reality rather than how it really is - which is essentially a riff on Kantianism. Interestingly, if you’re someone working in analytic metaphysics who thinks that we can get a more robust metaphysics than the critics of conceptual analysis suppose, or if you’re someone working in philosophy of science who think that natural science does give us something in the way of old-fashioned metaphysics, there is a good chance that you are a neo-Aristotelian who has made your way out of the box the early moderns put us in. (I have in mind people like Molnar, Martin, Mumford, et al. in the first case, and Cartwright, Ellis, Bhaskar, et al. in the second.) Anyway, the conceptual analysis/natural science dichotomy is essentially a riff on the logical positivists’ dichotomy between analytic propositions and empirically verifiable propositions, which was in turn a riff on Hume’s dichotomy between relations of ideas and matters of fact (“Hume’s Fork”). And it is no more defensible than those ancestors are. (See pp. 139-51 of Aristotle’s Revenge for detailed discussion.) Other echoes of the rationalist/empiricist false dichotomy arise in discussions of arguments for God’s existence and for the immateriality of the mind. For the ancients and medievals, First Cause arguments can get us from premises about the empirical world, by way of strictly demonstrative reasoning, to a conclusion about an absolutely necessary cause outside the world. I’ve defended such arguments myself. But if you’re a Humean, no such argument is possible. If you’re starting from the empirical world, you can only ever get probabilistic conclusions and you can’t conclude to anything that exists of metaphysical necessity. The most you might be able to construct by way of an empirically-based natural theology is a Paley-style inductive argument that gets you at best to a kind of demiurge rather than to the God of classical theism. On the other hand, if you are going to provide a strict demonstration of a truly necessary being, then you are going to have to reason a priori. But that only gives you at most knowledge of the relations between concepts, rather than of objective reality. This is the inspiration for Kant’s influential view that the cosmological argument ultimately depends on the ontological argument, and therefore fails given that the latter argument does. Contemporary criticisms of First Cause arguments to the effect that they are dubious scientific hypotheses, or that all necessity is merely the logical necessity that holds of the relation between concepts but tells us nothing about objective reality, reflect this broadly Humean way of carving up the conceptual territory. Meanwhile, arguments for the immateriality of the mind like Richard Swinburne’s or W. D. Hart’s, which appeal to conceivability or to possible worlds, are essentially rationalist in spirit, and problematic for the reasons that rationalism in general is. And it seems to be commonly supposed that if an argument for immateriality isn’t of this sort, then the only other thing it could be is a kind of quasi-scientific inductive hypothesis. But arguments for the immateriality of the intellect of the kind Thomists would give fall into neither of these categories.
It's not that everything but science is irrational, it's just that science is the best way we have to determine what is rational and what isn't. Religion absolutely doesn't do that or there wouldn't be different religions, or different denominations within the religions, or different schools or thought within the denominations within the religions, or different ideologies within different churches within the schools of thought within the denomination within the religions, or different beliefs by the different people within the different churches within the different schools of thought within the different denominations within the different religions...
@@kennethrussell1320 They certainly do. As we all know Darwin made up a Theory of Evolution. This happened after he had gathered evidence for over 20 years.
@Davidson-bn1tg Darwin didn't start with a hypothesis. He just loved collecting, then wondered at what he found . Then asked himself a question... How ?
Per former Harvard professor of Marketing and MIT graduate Roy Schoeman. Science methodology teaches us to look at the data, formulate a hypothesis and then check the data to see if it is true. When data contradicts the hypothesis then one discards the first and comes up with a second until the data and idea match. MIT culture is that religion was created in the middle centuries to explain things beyond their understanding. Now is the age of true science and only therein we can find reality. MIT refuses to examine any of the tons and tons of concrete scientific data supporting Catholicism. There is Lourdes with its ongoing medically observed and verified miracles, Fatima with the spinning sun falling to earth witnessed by 50-70 thousand people, some of whom were atheists or communists and present only to laugh at the Christian believers. There is the shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Jesus that modern science is incapable of duplicating. There is the tilma of St. Juan Diego; made of cactus fibers that only last around 20-30 years before completely rotting away but still exists with its image of Mary intact for over 500 years. MIT’s response: Turn away from anything involving Catholic religion. Deny it scientific process.
@thiruvananthapurathu1 Yes, the solid data can be tested and retested ... and that has been done numerous times. Cases in point that come to mind quickly are the Eucharistic Miracles where the blood type is AB and only the female side of the DNA is found [normal blood has both male and female], Then there is the Shroud of Turin where the image is burned into the very tips of the cloth and cannot be duplicated. Moving on to the Tilma of Juan Diago for Our Lady of Guadalupe there is the fact the tilma is made from cactus fibers with a lifetime expectancy of maximum 40 years before turning to dust ... and the part with the image is now 500 years old. Also ... the image was discovered to have eyes that reflected the scene before Mary ... only a photograph can do that sort of thing ... and cameras were not invented yet.
"Jesus came to take away your sin, not your brain" 🤯 Sooooo good!
Yes, I so loved it
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
What sin? Smart ppl can be just as delusional as dumb ones. But their rationalizations can be much more sophisticated. Still rationalizations tho. And dummies like me can sometimes say things which turn out to be true. If it happens by accident, I should get no credit.
Prove it
@@dwightfitch3120 what?
Science and engineering is just the study of the mechanisms of God's creative processes
Faith, logic, reason, science are in complete harmony and unison
I too agree, Science only reaches to where and how much man can comprehend. There is much beyond it and it's the awesomeness of our God.
Yes, God said that as he can create, we have been given the ability to create as well, so science is not against God and vis versa
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
@Ana Laura Fuentes very lovely 👍👍👍
Science is the study of the mechanism aroud us.
There is no need for God to be in this sentence.
"Jesus came to take away your sins, not ur brain"
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Bobby y’all *just* moved to Texas from Los Angeles and there is an historic weather/ice event! Does our God have a sense of humor or what! I have many stories vis-à-vis this effect! Thank you for this post and God bless y’all as you discern His call!
I am *** praying for Texas in their ice storm. 🙏🙏
I'm from Oklahoma and This freezing weather is -1 ain't no fun. The company for electricity has to do emergency blackouts.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Amen to this video a thousand times over. As a Christian and as a scientist I love to learn and explore in all facets of my life including the bible and my faith. During my college days I was a Catholic girl at an Reformed presbyterian college who went to United Methodist Church at the time. I really did have to do research, investigations, and explore my faith. I have finally come to the faith that I am today from these experiences. I would not trade the difficulties of what I endured through tense questioning from peers and some times as much as discrimination from Protestants and Catholic alike. I did have some amazing professors during my time, I learned to think critically about everything and anything being told to me. I also learned to learn and experience as much as I can. Knowledge and experience will gain you wisdom. With my faith intertwined I will have Godly wisdom that the bible talks about, the one in Proverbs. The curriculum at Geneva is meant to show that as a human being we need to learn all the studies from the bible, to genetics to psychology, to sociology to embryology. It was my sophomore fall semester I learned the connection between faith and science. Great video.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Rarest human species ever: Christian scientists
Amen Praise his name
Perfect timing! We're hearing talks about this in That Man Is You right now. Thanks Bobby.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Most amusing is those who say "I believe in science", but do not realize that the natural sciences are not self-proving. The scientific method is a product, not of "science", but of the Science of Philosophy. This same Science of Philosophy is what Saint Thomas Aquinas used to prove the existence of God in five different ways.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Oh my gosh I clicked on this video and the intro is quite literally what I have thought once I learned more about my faith in relation to past friends who have said this. Christianity and Science aren't mutually exclusive, they explain each other in a lot of cases.
One doesn't need faith to believe in science, but u need faith to believe in God. Science doesn't explain God, and Christianity doesn't explain science. U don't need to leave ur faith to accept science that at least is true.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
I cannot believe the double speak this guy delivers. Science is knowledge based on evidence and fact. Religious faith is belief without evidence and fact.
MORE PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THIS! As someone who works a lot with youth in the Church, this is such a good and necessary video. Thank you like always Ascension!
I love both!! I believe they are just two sides of the same coin.
My faith inspires me to learn science and science in turn strengthens my faith. Because the more I learn science the more I see how amazing God's design is.
Our divine purpose as human beings is to dominate, subdue and fill the Universe, the scientific method is simply the most powerful tool we have to accomplish that divine purpose.
But unfortunately as history has shown we humans always pervert the blessings we are given and in this era people are only taking science as the objective truth, i.e: false God.
I recommend checking out St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs of God’s Existence. They are very logical, and they tend to be pretty hard to disregard.
Everything need cause. So what is cause of god ? If you saying god don t have cause it is eternal you question first sentence and giving pool to think that not everything need cause. Let say that universe is eternal.
But asume that god is the first cause why you think is christian god not muslim egyptain or (it is joke ) asgards from Star Gate sg-1 of goul'd ?
@@mollysampson534 they only proof that was big bang.
Imagine a baloon and it going bigger and smaller from infinity to infinity.
I say scientis proof only(i am 22 year studing eneginering so i can say soma about) that there was bin bang they still don t know what cause big bag. The two most theory i am close to is:
1. String theory(bit i am still asking what is the cause of string exist)
2 There universe is eternal in that sens (i will show you to it steps):
1 Big bang universe going to expand
2 time (very big amount of time)
3 Max point of expand universe it has maximum volume.(
4 Universe strating to colapsing
(steps 3 and 4 four depend of how much matter is in universe (what we don t know )becouse gravity force must be enaught strenhgt to stop expanding universe)
5 Time
6 Universe back to its starting point
7 Go back to step 1
It kind like harmonic vibration or like loop in programing.
@Jackson not the big bang but supernova explosion (our sun) cretaed a protplanetary disk which all planet in our solar system are created(becauae of gravity).
@Jackson what does not aff up ?
Well done! I'm blessed to be a scientist and a Catholic. Science is great -- after all, God created it!
Man made science though. How did God make it?
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth because he was the creator.
@@loganmiller4806 , I know he is but science was made by people. God made nature and everything in it. Science is a method used to study it, not part of it on it's own.
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth whatever it is out there, there must be something smarter than us human. Scientist are all agree, that dark energy cant be passed and in the end, it will make us unable to travel beyond our galaxy. While there are potentially, i am 100% sure, a smarter being, already did inter galactic travel. We called them angels. And the boss of those angels is God.
“From religion comes a man's purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped.”
-Sir William H. Bragg
What cannot be grasped by science alone?
@@tomandrews1429 science asks “can we?”, but doesn’t answer the question of “should we?”
@@despicableyou12 I think science can answer that.
@@tomandrews1429 Scientists* can attempt to answer “should we”, but in attempting to answer that question, they invoke philosophy, more specifically, moral philosophy, which is distinct from science.
Science is a collection of knowledge that draws conclusions based on testable observations. There are many things that are untestable.
Is it *wrong* to kill a human without a reason? What constitutes a good enough reason? That question is not testable. Science describes aspects of the world/universe, but can’t make judgments-it would need to invoke morality/philosophy/religion/etc.
&Don’t get me wrong, I love science. I have a degree in science (chemistry). Science (which includes scientists) however, can’t explain everything. This is why science needs branches of thought like philosophy/religion when attempting to answer the bigger questions in life that are not directly testable or observable.
@@despicableyou12 I disagree, I think we can observe or at least deduce whether we should kill a human without a reason without needing to invoke religion. We can plainly see that a society where people don't go around killing each other without reason will be worse off than one where people are peaceful. We don't need a God to know why that would be wrong. As for what constitutes a good enough reason, that takes a little more thought, but it can still be derived.
This question though is not solved by appealing to religion. Choosing to following what a god tells us to do isn't necessarily in our best interest since we can't fully understand that god's values or intents. It's also made worse by the fact that most (all?) religions have deities where communication is complicated if not nonexistent, making any divine knowledge that deity might have useless to us humans.
AMEN !! faith and reason WORK TOGETHER 🙏🏼 God BLESS the Catholic Church!
Science: the study of God's creation. In my life my answer always reverts to the very beginning, inevitably their answer is we don't know. Yes, we do, it is God. They choose not to admit. I refuse to argue. I refuse to debate.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
That’s a beautiful definition of science! I’ve never thought about it like that
I’m a professional and published microbiologist /scientist - for almost 30 years now. I’m also a practicing Catholic.
The more science I learn the longer I study work in the field of microbiology, it’s science that confirms my faith. Science proves there is God. Period.
I’m very passionately pro life and anti abortion. I approach pro abortion groups with science. You see, think they are on the side opposite of religion. They think that’s science. Using science as a common language we can show abortion is scientifically wrong. You can’t convert them with religion until you speak their language and show how science leads to God.
It truly is impossible by the laws of this universe, physics, biology, chemistry etx that DEMAND there is a God. He, the creator, is the only entity that can create a Universe and bend the laws of said Universe. God says he’s the potter snd we are the clay. Dumbed down for us, I believe he’s saying “I made the universe, I placed you within it. Bound to the natural laws and limits of this universe”
Science demands God exists. If one understands physics it takes more faith to say there is no God because you actually can’t say that snd say you believe in let’s say the laws of matter. If you can’t create or destroy energy - it only changes form, the Laws of Thermodynamics, then someone please explain how ANYTHING exists. The explanation by famed art heist physicist Stephen Hawking said it was such a small mathematical gap that it spontaneously created the Big Bang/Universe. You can’t say that and simultaneously believe in the laws of this universe you used in your math bc you just contradicted your own foundation. It’s inherently flawed because it’s based in faith to say it “just happend” since it conflicts basic observable laws of the universe
Hard to explain in a post but I keep finding more science and how it proves what’s in the Bible. Revelations and dark matter and energy in physics is another example. It’s all right in the Bible and it’s actually mind blowing when you go thru all this pain and study to learn the science when we were already told. Very simply. Very succinctly. In His Book. The Bible.
Please publish these findings in a scientific journal and let it stand up to peer review instead of a 6 paragraph rant on youtube that no one in there right mind is gonna read
I’m not the sharpest bulb in the deck so this may be way out of place but I think most biologists, even if believers, would not say that science PROVES god. Also the reasons stated in ur post seem like the same ones we’ve heard over and over from many others for many years. I think some take what is on the extreme edge of understanding of even the brightest among us and act as if they understand it better than they do. Also, many philosophers disagree on many issues. Phil may have been A basis for science. That doesn’t mean it can reveal truths about nature the way science can. U could say that chemistry came from alchemy but who practices the latter any more?
This is brilliant! Spot on. Thank you 🙏🏻
Well said. Thank you and God bless
Thanks so much. You rock! Alleluia. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
It is both/and...
God is the ultimate scientist!!!
Look at nature, the universe etc.
it is logical to realize he was first! Pretty obvious.
Perfect timing and very well explained . 👍🙏
I appreciate your words and I wish priests would take the time to share this viewpoint at mass. My experience with the Catholic church doesn't match the examples you shared of science being a part of the church. There are many elders in my church and family who believe asking a question about anything is the devil tempting us to question God. Pursuing a science degree was greatly frowned upon because of fears that I would be corrupted. It would be well served if science and how moral ethics in science could be presented as part of teaching curriculums in Catholic schools, or sunday schools across the whole world. (maybe it already is, but it wasn't when I went to school).
Thank you, Bobby! We can’t talk about this enough...JP II’s Faith & Reason helped keep me in the Faith when I was just out of college and feeling the tension between the two...great questions at the end👊🏻
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Beautiful thoughts. You're always so grounded and present. Thank you 🙏
GOD is okay with science and technology in aiding people such as cures and vaccines to prosthetics. GOD uses people to help people.
On the side note: science is never constant and can be considered wrong as times marches on with it's advances. GOD is consistent and is never wrong no matter how much time passes. This is the big difference.
Very well said! Thank you!
Most of us want to hear the truth and clear explanation of where our country is heading and current situation. At least I learned something today. Wish all the churches are waking up , before it’s too late.🙏👍
Thanks
I was a atheist.I didn’t believe in God, but I start praying the rosary and change my life.
Thank you brother Bobby for the message.
Yes!!! This is so good 🙌
Pluto is a planet! Amen!
Thank you for saying this Bobby. It is so true. We got a new priest this year and he preached a sermon that all science and scientists were evil. I couldn't believe it. I'm struggling with trying to figure out how to continue to support my parish rather than switch parishes, but not expose my child to his preaching. (That isn't the only thing he goes against the teaching of the church on.) I keep having to remind myself that I should expect at least 1 out of 12 priests to not be good examples of teaching and discipleship. No wonder there are people who think that is what the church preaches. I don't know how he made it through seminary with that idea.
That is definitely not good. That is the last kind of polemics we need being revived. May be consider speaking to him and finding out more of his reasoning? If he is not the pastor, bring your concerns to his attention. If he is and he will not see reason, consider raising the concern respectful of the priest's place as your spiritual father and shepherd, to the bishop.
Some good resources I could recommend is the work of Fr.Robert Spitzer's evangelization using scientific knowledge, Bishop Robert Barron's videos both on the dangers of scientism and the relationship between science and faith or reason and faith more generally. Look up examples and read about the contributions of Catholic scientists espescially if they are also clergy or religious. Such as Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics who was also famously an Augustinian friar and abbot, Fr.pLemaitre who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, or of course any mentioned in this video, or Fr.Coyne the late priest-astronomer who ran the Vatican Observatory. Or look at scientific studies of Eucharistic Miracles and miraculous healings, science has a long and much more intertwined history with Christ's Holy Church than many really appreciate.
I have spent countless hours looking at apologetics in this area. If you need help, please do not hesitate to ask. And remember, prayer is a must here, pray for father, and pray for yourself and always be respectful and humble, docility to spiritual authority is a powerful virtue and spiritual discipline.
Thank you for the advice and resources. Unfortunately we are without a bishop at this time. He retired not long after this priest was moved to my parish. It is a small rural parish and therefore he doesn't have access to as many people thankfully.
I've realized that prayer is what is required of me. I would just pray through his sermons if my child wasn't a new Christian with mental health issues. Instead at this point we are participating in virtual masses. I've already had a couple of conversations with him about his teaching that sacrifice is good as long as it doesn't actually make us uncomfortable or actually cost us anything and the pope is the authority unless he disagrees with him and then he's wrong. I think he has succumbed to the classic North American heresy of the unholy trinity of me, myself and I as god. I don't think that is countered with apologetics. The Lord is the only one who can shift that thinking. I can offer up prayer and sacrifice, access the sacraments elsewhere when we can, and hope for a miracle.
@@karenp4036 Whenever you do get a bishop, please do inform him. I am rather confused as to the situation and obviously I am no one in regards to the situation anyway.
@@LostArchivist I will.
Science is the STUDY OF ALL God's CREATION
Why would you assume that it's creation?
Amazing video, God bless you
Actually some Scientist Used Science to prove God's and Jesus's Existence.
I'm a Christian and I love Jesus very much
As a person not a god
@@Bc232klm yeah it is, I do my research. Some Scientist are actually Christians who proved God's Existence. Look it up
No life without God
John Paul II and Nicolaus Copernicus were great Poles 😊
Greetings from Poland 😊
Excellent video!!! I'd always loved sciencie. It surprised me the beuty and perfection of the creation so much that i can not see God's work behind of all.
For those who are looking for a logical approach to faith, there is a great book “I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist” by Giesler and Turek. GREAT book!!
Unfortunately ur don’t seem to be kidding. A lack of an ism isn’t another kind of ism; it’s a LACK.
I believe in both and I can explain to you how they intertwine❤
Could you guys at ascension presents do a video about how to talk about evolution with other Catholics or really anybody who thinks that the creation story in the Bible is meant to be taken literally? I had a huge argument about this with a friend once and it wasnt fun at all :D
Most ppl just went to a bad church. These days, being a pastor is on Indeed. It used to be a calling. Sir, you have a calling. Let God use you for his Glory and do not succumb to fame and pleasure. Walk for God and 1day we will all walk together.
Love this topic but am wondering why no one adresses the fact that it also goes the other way around, i.e. I know some Christians who think they have to reject science in order to have faith in God. Am I the only one out there who's encountered this? I used to be Protestant and I see that sort of thing a lot among fundamentalists. It mainly has to do with a belief that the theory of evolution contradicts the creation story in Genesis. But lately, I'm also seeing fundamentalist Christians declare that they're not going to get the COVID vaccine because God is in control of COVID and we shouldn't trust things that come to us from science. They feel they have to chose between trusting God with their lives and trusting a vaccine. How does one go about countering THAT sort of thing?
Why do you need to counter somebody's personal decision of what goes in their body? What happened to the free will God granted us?
Maybe look at the fact that they're telling people to still wear mask and social distance after taking the vaccine as proof that it isn't the silver bullet people think it is. Maybe it will help older individuals not have such severe reactions when exposed to COVID but it's not going to stop the spread. It's more like the flu vaccine, not like the vaccines we get as kids to stop measles or polio.
It's more about the fact that they buy into the overall misperception that science and faith contradict each other but they are not coming from an atheist perspective rather from a faith perspective. That's what I'm trying to dialogue with here.
As in, it's not about whether or not people should be encouraged to get the vaccine but that the vaccine is fundamentally untrustworthy because it comes from the scientific world
Thanks for much for this information, in learnt about these priest scientist in my high school but non of the teachers ever told us that any of them was perist. Every good thing about the catholic, they try to suppress !
Science is done best when you're trying to find out 'why'. If you aren't trying to discover how Creation works, what are you doing?
i believe in both!
🌹 Hello from New Hampshire.
Hello from Ireland.
Checking in from Michigan!
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! God resurrected the Messiah! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Well said!
Good video. Ravi Zacharias would’ve nailed this in a debate with an atheist scientist- which he most likely has already.
Anybody else read, “I believe in science” in Esqueleto’s voice?
What do you mean you have not been baptized?!
God is the master of the universe.
AMEN! 🙏🙏🙏😇😇😇
Good that someone is adressing this point. God and sciences are not mutually exclusive, and I don't quite understand where this idea como from or how it originated. God and science go hand in hand. We have amazing things which God allowed us to have though science, especially when it comes to preserving life, saving it. There are bad things that come from science too. I think science can be a wonderful thing if used for good and for the love of God and mankind, to make us all better and not worse. Science is reason, God is the Mystery. It's alright to believe in human reason when we also know that there is a place for the Mystery, a place that human reason can't go. The best scientists know this.
Science and religion are mutually exclusive when it comes to determining truth. Science needs evidence to reach a conclusion, religion is satisfied with faith alone (without evidence).
@@tomandrews1429 All religion is based on pretty solid evidence, each with different interpretations. Religions don't use the scientific method for "proofs". Google Alfred Russel Wallace for science with some space given to the Mystery. You will be surprised to discover that he, along with Darwin, was one of the fathers of the theory of evolution. He and Darwin remained friends for life; both of them obviously agreed on evolution, but differed on what put life into motion in the first place, or the reasons for it.
@@rafaelzengo5534 So Mormonism is based on solid evidence?
@@tomandrews1429 The idea of God is based on solid evidence. Each individual religion has its spin on it. I'm not discussing particular religions but the idea of God in general.
@@rafaelzengo5534 Religion is more than just "the idea of God". Some religions don't even have God in them. But sure, what is the solid evidence that proves there is a God?
People who say they believe in science are not to be taken literally. Basically, their position is that they enjoy using science to justify their belief system and god. Science = Knowledge. Knowledge is mostly true. However, there is some knowledge which is not true or accurate.
Knowledge is not always true or accurate 😂🤣
Pluto will Always be a planet! 🥰😆
Thanks Bobby, even scientists ask God to help them pass exams. Those believing in science & not God, are lying to themselves.
I believe in science but not God, how have I lied to myself?
Because we scientists pray so hard to God to have our scientific proposals accepted, then we pray to God to get funding to conduct the research and we beg God for good health & successful completion of our scientific research in a timely manner. So, if our scientific findings make you not believe in God, think twice.
@@susankeubar6175 Huh? Think twice about what? I'm a scientist and I have never prayed to God about my research.
@@tomandrews1429 no way, that can't be true. How so? On international platform? Really? Anyway, return to the faith. God is love.
@@susankeubar6175 I conduct research in the US and I have truly never prayed about it to God. Why should I return? How is God love when he drowns an entire planet because he was unhappy with how they were acting?
Science vs god is nonsense. Science is focusing on this word. If god exist and his haven science don t have acess to it and tool to explore it.
I am atheist this is my opinion. If you have objections tell me.
In its purest form religion is about why and science is about how…
Science is the pursuit of whys & hows 😂 using the most probable explanation for determining a phenomenon done by tests….of which can and must be able to be replicated by other scientists to determine if that explanation is valid or false.
@Davidson-bn1tg and how does that detract from my claim?
@Davidson-bn1tg “why” is a philosophical question and was the original purpose of religion. That was my message, regardless of how well it does answer it. Im an atheist myself, and yet I struggle to see what your point is, besides reiterating the tired “science is better than religion, and here is why…”
All religion is based off of astrotheology. It helps to know the true origins of what you believe in to make sure it is truly aligned with your priorities and values in life. Most would be surprised to learn the true origins of what they place so much of their blind faith in.
For me it has been making sense of certain things through science....like the 'Virgin' birth
Then how do you explain the church's persecution of Galileo?
2:22 Science has given us a lot of good things. What has God given us. When he came to the world, he spends 33 years making miracles instead of teaching people how to make medicine. Bragged about his father's house(his own house). For a man that was born in a very poor home(placed in a manger) in the desert. He thought wine is what the world needed. I'm at the point where I will either take the stories in the bible as literature and not real or be disappointed with God for abandon us in the world full of diseases.
I very much disagree with this but I just came to learn this side of the argument
Same. Highly disagree with these theories and opinion. I have very unpopular beliefs.
Besides the true origins of religion, people bypass the fact that arguing over their “right” gods and religions is exactly why Earth is divided, why the biggest corporations profit off of war and sickness, and in my humble opinion - why we have a rampant epidemic of hidden shame and guilt controlling the masses subconscious.
@@youngfreeandrv6940 There's a reason why they're called "Faiths" not "Facts"
@@user-bz7tn7gd8w Whats the reason?
Science = questions from man
Religion = answers from God
I am sure you will agree that science is considered a hard science.
My position is that science is a "culture of evidence" based belief, whilst religion is a "culture of faith."
"Religion and science are like oil and water. They might co-exist, but they can never mix to produce a homogeneous medium. Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. They disagree profoundly on how we obtain knowledge of the world. Science is based observation and reasoning from observation. Religion assumes that human beings can access a deeper level of information that is not available by either observation or reason. The scientific method is proven by its success. The religious method is refuted by its failure."
Not my words but spoken by:
Victor J. Stenger, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Hawaii
They say God is just an answer to those who want it all easy. But the truth is, the moment you come to know Him personally, u know you have to change your life. And that is not an easy answer.
What about , I believe in science and I believe in good.✌️
For me, I don't believe that the case is that people find SO much truth in science that it makes religion less credible. I believe the people don't like the rules and responsibility and sacrifice of religion and fall back on science because science makes no moral or ethical claims on our lives. It's easier. The odd thing is that science and the laws of nature are far less forgiving than our loving God!
Which laws of nature are unforgiving?
@@IONov990 gravity when you fall from a ladder. Momentum when you drive too quickly around an icy corner. The pain and damage make no accommodation for a person. God forgives 70 times 7 times and desires our happiness and joy. Gravity just is.
@@wishIwuzskiing Or the brutality of the human body aging.
@@IONov990 oh my goodness... The most cruel rule of all!
@@IONov990 Oh my goodness, is THAT true!
It's good
I bet you have not read the bible completely, and you are saying here that christianity supports science, there you go! read your bible first instead of making a wise person from yourself here, there tons of conflicts in your bible with science.
Every so-called biblical conflict or contradiction that I have seen proposed turned out to be nothing. I seriously doubt that you'll be the one to find a legit one but I'll give you two tries just for sport. I limit people to two because if your top two fail then 3, 4, 5 and 6 won't fare any better and I don't have the time or the patience to debunk your 300 dumbest arguments.
I'm a scientist doing a theology degree part-time and I find this one really hard. The worst part is having to listen to theology lecturers whose 'faith and reason agree' arguments are based on their ignorance of natural science and on speculative logic which is itself full of holes. and i am a catholic. science hasn't broken my faith, but studying theology very nearly does, because it requires me to really questions what my faith is built on rather than bumble along with it. the only conclusion i can come to is that i believe because i choose to believe, and i choose to believe because jesus gives me the best deal out of all deities/non-deities scenarios.
Watch the video called: How to Fit Christianity with Science
I enjoyed this very much. I just recall a ton of these scientists being cast out as heretics. Very glad we've moved forward in history.
With science is like this: “A is right”. “No, B is right”. And years later: “C is right”. God just laugh because He know the true “right”
So, something about me.
I want to be an adventist.
I am 14.
I don't have perfect grades, but I belive in God and i want to be a nuclear physicist.
this dudes name is actually bobby angel?
I believe most who say they believe in science
are not saying they don't believe in the God as presented by man which is a human construct that uses an alleged infallible book as God's perfect word. All religions on earth are human constructs. Within Christianity itself there are more than 1000 denominations because of differences of interpretation. I personally believe in God with all my mind heart and soul but I didn't find God in any historical books, which is what the Bible is, but within myself and is vastly different than every man-made religion I've studied.
I Think Science Created Everything And Not God, But I Still Respect Him, What Religion Is That?
Science is not created everything theory of nothing created universe
“I believe in reality everything else constitutes to fantasy.” Thats what a scientist would say. Something so limited.
Of the many different religions, which one is correct?
Which one is the only one to give us a detailed and historically accurate document on the creation of the earth and the rises and downfalls of humanity?
@@JeremiePierre-hi3vgEvery religion believes they do that, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.
@@tacoenjoyer8623 ok but none other talks about the creation of humanity and the fall of humanity, or the creation of the universe and earth
@@tacoenjoyer8623 Buddha and Mohammed were nothing more than Good teachers. They were ordinary human beings just like you and me. They themselves took notice of Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh, and the same God from the Bible that Christians believe in.
@@tacoenjoyer8623 any religion besides the ones that believe in Jesus Christ are basically telling you to be good and that’s a good thing but when it comes to the Christian God it’s much more than just “being good”. They just want you to be comfortable with their words and not embrace the truth of life. I don’t want to judge or hate on them and I’m not, but Buddha and Mohammed are not the way to eternal life with God
The big bang and the fine tuning of the universe-Antropic Principle-DNA Code-Complexity of the Cell-Consciousness and the mind, are some examples of how science confirms the work of God, Catholics and Christians should not be afraid of science, they should embrace it as it is showing the complexity of life every day
IRONICALLY, JESUS SAID WE WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE GREATER MIRACLES THAN HE.. SCIENCE CURES ALL
Where does he say that
I'm going to go talk to my atheist friend...
No, just no. Right off the bat you’re defining your terms to fit your argument , you’re using strawman like I “believe” in science.
The issue is epistemology. Faith is an epistemology that is at odds with science and it’s epistemology. People are complicated and can except two contradictory things, or incompatible ideas at a time. But the worldview that the epistemology of science presents is at odds with the worldview that the faith based epistemology presents. And the results of the process of science, the model that has been developed, is at odds with any religious received wisdom model. Time to accept one is man (not woman) made (religion) and one is humanities honest attempt in understanding itself and the world around us. Not to mention science doesn’t have to brainwash children before they are taught how to reason or think for themselves. Taught what to believe before given the reasons to believe, is backwards, and it goes without saying, antithetical to scientific reasoning.
Einstein did once say the more he studied the universe, the more he believed there was a God
Love that, thank you for sharing
Don't forget Einstein also said "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me"
@@tomandrews1429 you don’t gain anything from not believing, but there’s so much to gain from believing
@@tomandrews1429 also Einstein said physics aims to study the effect of things but not the cause. He believes the cause is caused by a higher power, i believe that higher power is God. this gives me peace of mind, if you don’t believe then stay miserable 🤷🏻♀️
@@ev1836 I'm quite happy actually without any God in my life. "but there’s so much to gain from believing" Not true. I might gain so much if I believe and your religion is true, but I see no good evidence that it is true so belief alone will get me nothing but a wasted life.
I agree! Science and religion are compatible! You can have both! I'm Catholic and I accept science, in fact I'm going into science when I get older. I see science as away to understand and study Creation. But there is one thing I want to point out, science is not a belief. When someone says "I believe in science", they are misinformed. Science is a tool that helps us study the natural world around us.
Same here
Why do you need to look "with the church" at some of the big questions? If the church is the answer to the questions, shouldn't that become obvious when looking for the answer? Why is the church necessary for any of this?
“Belief in science” is faith in inquiry and the scientific method to explain the world we live in, this is in stead of just believing or taking everything in the Bible seriously due to the lack of evidence in the existence of god. 😐
❤❤❤
Short summary:
Don't be an empiricist.
Thank you. I wish I understood this when my dad was alive. I’m grateful for the way you laid it out for us. Maybe it will help me walk beside someone in the future. Thank you😊
@ydkydgk2k
Knowledge is a gift, like the gift of understanding, is ordained to the certitude of faith. Now faith consists primarily and principally in speculation, in as much as it is founded on the First Truth. But since the First Truth is also the last end for the sake of which our works are done, hence it is that faith extends to works from reason,your question makes it seem impartial.
@ydkydgk2k
Then before i answer your question, consider the view, common among analytic philosophers, that the only sorts of truths there are are either those of natural science or those of conceptual analysis, so that philosophy must be oriented toward one or the other. Philosophers who think of their discipline as primarily devoted to conceptual analysis tend to fall either into a kind of rationalism or a kind of Kantianism, with predictable results. If they claim, as a rationalist would, that what they say about essences, causality, possible worlds, etc. reflects something about objective reality, their critics will say: How can mere conceptual analysis yield such momentous results? Why should reality conform to our concepts? If instead they say, a la Kant, that the results of conceptual analysis tell us only how we must think about reality, the critics will say: So what? Maybe we’re thinking about it the wrong way, and in particular in ways that reflect merely how natural selection or our cultural circumstances shaped our minds, rather than the way things really are.
Those who hold instead that philosophy is an extension of natural science tend to fall into a kind of empiricism, or into a kind of Kantianism proceeding from the empiricist rather than rationalist direction. Their critics will say: Natural science has to be interpreted in either an instrumentalist or a realist way. If we read it the first way, then it doesn’t get us knowledge of the objective world, and we’re stuck with a riff on Humeanism. That’s essentially what logical positivism was, and it and other forms of antirealism are problematic in the usual well-known ways. If instead we read science in a realist way, then we are taking on board a substantive metaphysics. But then the history of scientific revolutions and Kuhnian points about the social nature of science raise questions about how objective such a metaphysics can be. Maybe it gives us knowledge only of how the scientific community conceptualizes reality rather than how it really is - which is essentially a riff on Kantianism.
Interestingly, if you’re someone working in analytic metaphysics who thinks that we can get a more robust metaphysics than the critics of conceptual analysis suppose, or if you’re someone working in philosophy of science who think that natural science does give us something in the way of old-fashioned metaphysics, there is a good chance that you are a neo-Aristotelian who has made your way out of the box the early moderns put us in. (I have in mind people like Molnar, Martin, Mumford, et al. in the first case, and Cartwright, Ellis, Bhaskar, et al. in the second.)
Anyway, the conceptual analysis/natural science dichotomy is essentially a riff on the logical positivists’ dichotomy between analytic propositions and empirically verifiable propositions, which was in turn a riff on Hume’s dichotomy between relations of ideas and matters of fact (“Hume’s Fork”). And it is no more defensible than those ancestors are. (See pp. 139-51 of Aristotle’s Revenge for detailed discussion.)
Other echoes of the rationalist/empiricist false dichotomy arise in discussions of arguments for God’s existence and for the immateriality of the mind. For the ancients and medievals, First Cause arguments can get us from premises about the empirical world, by way of strictly demonstrative reasoning, to a conclusion about an absolutely necessary cause outside the world. I’ve defended such arguments myself. But if you’re a Humean, no such argument is possible. If you’re starting from the empirical world, you can only ever get probabilistic conclusions and you can’t conclude to anything that exists of metaphysical necessity. The most you might be able to construct by way of an empirically-based natural theology is a Paley-style inductive argument that gets you at best to a kind of demiurge rather than to the God of classical theism. On the other hand, if you are going to provide a strict demonstration of a truly necessary being, then you are going to have to reason a priori. But that only gives you at most knowledge of the relations between concepts, rather than of objective reality. This is the inspiration for Kant’s influential view that the cosmological argument ultimately depends on the ontological argument, and therefore fails given that the latter argument does. Contemporary criticisms of First Cause arguments to the effect that they are dubious scientific hypotheses, or that all necessity is merely the logical necessity that holds of the relation between concepts but tells us nothing about objective reality, reflect this broadly Humean way of carving up the conceptual territory.
Meanwhile, arguments for the immateriality of the mind like Richard Swinburne’s or W. D. Hart’s, which appeal to conceivability or to possible worlds, are essentially rationalist in spirit, and problematic for the reasons that rationalism in general is. And it seems to be commonly supposed that if an argument for immateriality isn’t of this sort, then the only other thing it could be is a kind of quasi-scientific inductive hypothesis. But arguments for the immateriality of the intellect of the kind Thomists would give fall into neither of these categories.
It's not that everything but science is irrational, it's just that science is the best way we have to determine what is rational and what isn't. Religion absolutely doesn't do that or there wouldn't be different religions, or different denominations within the religions, or different schools or thought within the denominations within the religions, or different ideologies within different churches within the schools of thought within the denomination within the religions, or different beliefs by the different people within the different churches within the different schools of thought within the different denominations within the different religions...
The story a bout who decides the right conditions & acceptable conditions when we talk a bout faith & theory perspective 🙄
Religion is science
In religion you make something up then look for the evidence.
In science, it's the other way around.
So in science they look for evidence and make something up? Okay. 😂😂😂
@@kennethrussell1320
They certainly do.
As we all know Darwin made up a Theory of Evolution.
This happened after he had gathered evidence for over 20 years.
@@tedgrant2So evolution is just some made up tale from some dead white guy. Got it. 😊
@Davidson-bn1tg
Darwin didn't start with a hypothesis.
He just loved collecting, then wondered at what he found .
Then asked himself a question... How ?
I believe in science it’s not logical that a God would exist
Science and religion do mix. If it wasn't for the studies in DNA they would've never caught those preists
Everybody please if someone born from father and mother there must be a creator but the question is who is the creator
🌷
Per former Harvard professor of Marketing and MIT graduate Roy Schoeman.
Science methodology teaches us to look at the data, formulate a hypothesis and then check the data to see if it is true. When data contradicts the hypothesis then one discards the first and comes up with a second until the data and idea match.
MIT culture is that religion was created in the middle centuries to explain things beyond their understanding. Now is the age of true science and only therein we can find reality.
MIT refuses to examine any of the tons and tons of concrete scientific data supporting Catholicism. There is Lourdes with its ongoing medically observed and verified miracles, Fatima with the spinning sun falling to earth witnessed by 50-70 thousand people, some of whom were atheists or communists and present only to laugh at the Christian believers. There is the shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Jesus that modern science is incapable of duplicating. There is the tilma of St. Juan Diego; made of cactus fibers that only last around 20-30 years before completely rotting away but still exists with its image of Mary intact for over 500 years.
MIT’s response: Turn away from anything involving Catholic religion. Deny it scientific process.
@thiruvananthapurathu1 Yes, the solid data can be tested and retested ... and that has been done numerous times. Cases in point that come to mind quickly are the Eucharistic Miracles where the blood type is AB and only the female side of the DNA is found [normal blood has both male and female], Then there is the Shroud of Turin where the image is burned into the very tips of the cloth and cannot be duplicated. Moving on to the Tilma of Juan Diago for Our Lady of Guadalupe there is the fact the tilma is made from cactus fibers with a lifetime expectancy of maximum 40 years before turning to dust ... and the part with the image is now 500 years old. Also ... the image was discovered to have eyes that reflected the scene before Mary ... only a photograph can do that sort of thing ... and cameras were not invented yet.