3 Ways Modern Science Proves God

#bible #christ #christianity #jesus #shorts #orthodox #orthodoxchristianity #trinity #catholic #god #protestant #faith #salvation #ecumenical #council #saint #saints #heresy #heretical #icons #communion #eucharist #virginmary #theotokos #protestant #reformation #finetuning #science #apologetics

[archived]

It's so funny seeing militant atheists deny every one of these points on the grounds that it still wouldn't prove God. I'm certain it's mainly bias.

[VolkovVelikan]

“A little bit of science strays us away from God, a lot of science brings us closer to God”

[ruebenhall]

One of my friends is atheist, he said he can't believe in God because its not in his nature, so I given myself one year to convert him before I leave school pls pray for him 🙏

[alexyan]

Im muslim but god is real and there is no denying it

[danieldelappe]

Imagine, if you please.
The fact, that we are communicating.
That we are in fact, created.
In an image, of Divinity.
Yet all different.
Unique.
Virtues and vices unique to our souls “needs”.
Imagine that DNA held the sequence but within the perimeters you must have your DNA exposed to “triggering” stimulation.
What if agreement was involved?
Free will allowed.
When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
When the soul is ready, Christ appears.
May the Peace of Christ be with you All.

[ilya]

Point 1&3 contradict.
Point#4 is that a creator doesn't mean that Christianity is not a joke. Any religious can claim the origin of the universe as proof

[justincapable]

None of these argument demonstrate a supreme being.

1. Our universe is finely tuned for black holes and dark matter, not life
2. Humans assign information to DNA in order to better understand the molecule.
3. Consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

If we grant these argument, it only shows a creator of our universe, not a supreme being. You still need more arguments for a supreme being. If we grant a supreme being, that's deism, not the Abrahamic God of the Bible.

[jezuzjuize]

at first i thought that was some super smash bros music in the background 😂

[chadwhitman]

While there have always been people who doubted God or Gods, the systematic materialistic atheism as it known today which trys to turn a belief in nothing into a belief into something by negating all non materialistic arguments is only as old as the Enlightenment.

[LOLMANXDLOLdelgado]

As also a Orthodox, these arguments do not prove God.

You cant prove or disprove God, thats why we are called to have faith.

If we could prove God, faith would be null and void.

Also, "proof" is not filling in the gaps with Good. Proof is proof, factual testable proof.

[lordsiergiej]

Atheism isn't about how world came to be, that's astrophysics
It's not about how life came to be - that's abiogenesis
It's not about moralisty
It's not about social programs
It's not about gender roles

It's about deities. So to say that atheism was wrong about origin of universe is like saying bible is wrong about pronunciation of polish consonants

It's not what those things are for.

[LeedsunitedfanRyan]

The fact we live on a planet which happens to have plants which can be turned into medicine to heal us shows me theirs a God especially when the chances of us been here is so low to begin with and that's before we mention that someone will see art on a wall and say that was created yet the beauty of nature and the world just happened on its own.

[deejayaech]

How does this support, in particular, the christian notion of God? If the cardinality of the set of that which can be comprehended by humans is finite, yet God infinite, why should we expect the nature of God to be within the set human comprehension? Should it not be outside of human comprehension with probability 1?

[mariem]

Fine tuning is not correct - presume that life as it is was a purpose and only this laws of physics will support it. What if we have different laws of physics and some other form of life forms.

[illusion]

While I believe in God as a symbol for self-transcendence and I pray, I take issue with these arguments. Literally all of them have been debunked with strong counterarguments for atleast a few decades, so how can you continue to make them? It feels disingenuous. Also, how can you use science to 'prove' God when science contradicts the Bible about the age of the universe? This always seems to be ignored by theists.

[dennis-]

It's not a scientific proof per the definition of scientific proof. A higher existence is an possible explanation for those phenomena, call it God, or whatever you like

[sabn]

How can I become an Orthodox Christian

[roshinvarghese]

God is real and good. I am fake and sinful. I need Christ to create a new me and redeem me everyday of my life and carry me in this world for His purpose and not mine.

[lachlanthird]

as a believer, these arguments are easily refutable. I would be more hesitant in appropriating science which u dont understand in place of ontological/logical arguments that dont need to rely on scientific confirmation.

[dalex]

Nothing proves a god created anything… do better…