Dogs see the world in shades of grey. They do not have the technology to observe the parts of the spectrum their eyes cannot see and they do not have the mental capability (as far as we know) to imagine that there might be other colours. However, none of this means that the full spectrum does not exist. It most certainly does.

I believe it is the same with our understanding of God. I have always stated on this blog that I am confidant that God is a scientific reality. That God is potentially observable using scientific methods. That faith and science are NOT two different things. That God is as real as the chair I am now sitting on. The fact that we may never be in a position to observe God scientifically does not mean that God does not have a scientifically provable reality. It simply means we are like dogs, unaware of the true nature of existence and incapable, at least at present, to even imagine it.


GOD IS FOR REAL, MAN — 10 Comments

  1. Good Morning from Guilford, CT –
    I love this truth a lot. My son always argues the science thing as proof or better said, dis-proof. I love how you explained it. thanks.
    Love Gail

  2. Thanks, Gail. Nowadays I probably study science far more than I study theology. I am particularly interested in cosmology and quantum physics. So, I am aware of just how little we have learned through science and how much we have yet to discover. All scientists know this but they are not very eager to tell everyone else, letting them think instead that they have everything sussed out.

    I am very strict with myself when it comes to scientific discovery. If scientists prove something and that something proves a religious belief of mine wrong, I accept the scientific evidence. But it is amazing how little science has actually proved for certain and how little they have disproved. For example they have proved that life has evolved over billions of years on earth, but they have not proved how it has done this, or rather they have only shown how bits of it work. So, I never argue that the Genesis account of creation is right (as it obviously isn’t), but neither do I reject God from the evolutionary process as, at the moment, God is still the most logical explanation for why things change and evolve. I’ve done the mathematics and major evolutionary change by random selection is impossible.

    • Hi Again – oh how I wish I could be in your brain and borrow your command of language. thanks so much
      love Gail

    • Genesis has always struck me as the way you just might explain the big bang, the formation of elements and planets, the beginning of life AND evolution to a child. Kind of like our minds were when Genesis was written. Good stuff.

  3. I take it that around these parts/this blog, “woof” is the equivalent to “word up, bro” or “word to yer mutha.”

    If that is the case: woof!

    That said, it’s funny that Joe has made similar arguments about the existence of God. Well, he’s made a couple of observations.

    1: For a human being to say “I know definitively that there is NO God, there never has been and there never, ever will be” is the height of arrogance.

    2: He has used the example of the (now former) planet Pluto to illustrate his point. Did Pluto exist before we puny humans discovered it? Of course it did. Just because we didn’t see it until the 1940s doesn’t mean it wasn’t always there. You get the idea.

  4. Exactly! Brilliant. I shall nick this for a future sermon.

    Oooooo, maybe for Easter! Thanks, MP!
    (and Gail, I’m from Connecticut, too.)