God is disproven by science? Really?

[ElishaElijah]

If you don't know, just say so. No one else seems to know either.

Hebrews explains but you won’t receive it

 

[Audie]

God isn't disproven by science. Never was, never has been.

That doesn't even make scientific sense.

Science is about measuring observable, tangible phenomena. That's never what god has ever been except for on a sociological and possibly psychological level - which is still as weak as it gets when it comes to "proving it".

"God" makes zero scientific sense.

The things " god" does make zero scientific sense.

Many of them, say, flood, did not happen.
Disproved, scientifically, 10 000 times over.

The "god" that did that therefore does not exist.

Some other god might. Bible- god obviously does not.

.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Many of them, say, flood, did not happen.
Disproved, scientifically, 10 000 times over.

Just proves science doesn’t have all the information yet. Science is very limited because man is very limited, prideful and spiritual blind and inept.

 

[metis]

I have told a story once or twice about a meeting I had with someone and it was repeated in my presence, similar but not exact. I did not dispute since there were no big enough discrepancies for me to bicker with.

And that's the point, namely that numerous variations do appear in the scriptures but that doesn't mean they're not usable.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And that's the point, namely that numerous variations do appear in the scriptures but that doesn't mean they're not usable.

I wasn’t getting that impression that variations were an issue, because there are, because different writers were communicating different aspects of the same story.
What people have communicated is that there are contradictions and I don't agree with that view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Kenny

It's obvious that scriptural accounts don't always jive. I have shown this example many times here at RF using the variations with the women visiting Jesus' tomb, sometimes point by point. For some to insist that the scriptures are 100% accurate with no variations is simply a form of idolatry, as they are about God but are not God.

The first two chapters of the Bible, Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. The literalist/revisionist answer is that the 2nd summarizes the first, but that doesn't make sense, since the "summary" adds differing information and different orders.

It doesn't matter to my interpretation, but I don't worship the Bible and demand it must be seen as literal and true in every regard.

 

[flowerpower]

"God" makes zero scientific sense.

The things " god" does make zero scientific sense.

Many of them, say, flood, did not happen.
Disproved, scientifically, 10 000 times over.

The "god" that did that therefore does not exist.

Some other god might. Bible- god obviously does not.

.

The Bible is nothing more than an old fictional text that was never supposed to be taken literally; just a set of allegories and modes of prayer and worship - it was taken literally at times because it was a very quick and easy way to control the dumb masses. Dumb people still take it literally.

It's like trying to test the scientific veracity of Catcher in the Rye or something - it makes no sense of all.

But yeah - I agree - the overall concept of god doesn't really belong in a lab room.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The Bible is nothing more than an old fictional text that was never supposed to be taken literally; just a set of allegories and modes of prayer and worship - it was taken literally at times because it was a very quick and easy way to control the dumb masses. Dumb people still take it literally.

It's like trying to test the scientific veracity of Catcher in the Rye or something - it makes no sense of all.

But yeah - I agree - the overall concept of god doesn't really belong in a lab room.

Wow, Jesus Christ took it literally and didn’t treat it as fiction but as it is, The Word of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, Jesus Christ took it literally and didn’t treat it as fiction but as it is, The Word of God.

Did he though? I do not know of anywhere that he confirmed the OT books as being "The Word of God". In fact when it came to even some of the Commandments he appeared to have a much freer interpretation than other Jews of his time did.

As to your claim I have only seen examples of what may very well be use of the OT as a literary tool and not as being 100% accurate.

 

[flowerpower]

Wow, Jesus Christ took it literally and didn’t treat it as fiction but as it is, The Word of God.

He sure did.

All part of the rich fictional narrative.

 

[ElishaElijah]

He sure did.

All part of the rich fictional narrative.

Interestingly enough that what you call fiction is coming to pass in our day.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand the theory but do not agree with many of its suppositions.

Supposition is all you have. You suppose a god exists and that it authored the revelation you have chosen to believe. You suppose that Jesus rose from the dead. You suppose that your consciousness will survive death. You suppose that you need to be saved from perdition. And you suppose that evolution is incorrect. So what weight shall one put on your objection to the theory containing supposition?

And that theory has been demonstrated to be correct beyond reasonable doubt, but only to people capable of interpreting its supporting evidence and willing to be convinced by a compelling evidenced argument.

They aren’t conflicting stories, different sides of the same story

The Gospels contain mutually contradictory claims, that is, claims where one or both are false but cannot both be correct.

Star Wars was since the 1970’s compared to the Bible over they say 1500-1600 years maybe more.

You've yet to provide a reason to believe scripture. Its length, its number of books and authors, its age, whatever it is that you consider unique about it - none of these make the book of divine provenance nor make its claims more credible. Skeptic Thinker asked you multiple times why you thought uniqueness should matter regarding the validity of biblical content, and you never gave her an answer. I'm assuming that you don't have an answer. There is no good answer for that except that uniqueness is irrelevant to biblical authenticity.

you bring all your preconceived ideas and bias into the conversation.

The critical thinker does bring a few biases to the process. He brings skepticism, or the bias that nothing should be believed just because somebody said or wrote it. He brings empiricism, or the bias that knowledge comes from the application of reason to the evidence of the senses and not from believing something uncritically. These biases help prevent him from believing false and unfalsifiable claims - another bias he has.

Just proves science doesn’t have all the information yet.

Yes, we know, and it likely never will. By contrast, faith answers nothing. It gives "answers," but they are just unfalsifiable guesses or already falsified claims.

Jesus Christ took it literally and didn’t treat it as fiction but as it is, The Word of God.

We're in accord here, but some fellow believers will take issue with you. I wrote, "But it's a good thing when the religious acknowledge that their myths aren't history and begin trying to reassign new meanings to them" on another thread recently. A believer said that the myths were never considered history, and I mentioned what you did - Jesus believed them: "Jesus believed those myths literally. Do you think his apostles informed him that Noah wasn't a real person and that the flood story was only allegory? I don't. Such ideas were rarer then and commoner now even among the faithful." I was asked, "How do you know? Philo didn't. Why must Jesus?" and I cited two scriptures from the Gospels where Jesus refers to the days of Noah and how things were then. That led to this reply: "If I said 'as it was in days of Robin Hood...' it doesn't mean I believe in Robin Hood, it means I have a point to make" and "It's far too reductionist to make Jesus out to be a literalist based on a few verses which need further interpretation."

How's that for a bias? This poster is one of many who refuses to actually say the word error when discussing myths. You, too, but you do that by saying that the myths are historical accounts, and this other poster does it by saying they were never thought of a literal, historical accounts. But it's clear what they are. They're the best guesses of ancient people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night to explain the world they found around them under the assumption that a tri-omni deity created it all and told them how it did it.

Of course those stories would have been believed literally, and you can be sure that in most times and places before it was known that they couldn't be correct hat they were taught as history, questioning that would be considered blasphemy and would be punished as such - the crime the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus crucified for. I consider it absurd to think that they believed in a literal creator god but knew to not believe the creation accounts.

But today, literalists like you are much rarer, which was my point with my initial statement, which discussed the evolution of the god concept from person to principle and was from this paragraph: "But it's a good thing when the religious acknowledge that their myths aren't history and begin trying to reassign new meanings to them following new discoveries. It is by that process that the gods will eventually be reduced to principles rather than persons. Look at those who presently refer to God as the laws of nature or the mystery of existence, or that God is love - things atheists call the laws of nature, the mystery of existence, and love without referencing a conscious agent."

 

[Trailblazer]

There is nothing new under the sun.

Three Messengers of God have come since Jesus so there is a lot that is new.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But today, literalists like you are much rarer, which was my point with my initial statement, which discussed the evolution of the god concept from person to principle and was from this paragraph: "But it's a good thing when the religious acknowledge that their myths aren't history and begin trying to reassign new meanings to them following new discoveries. It is by that process that the gods will eventually be reduced to principles rather than persons. Look at those who presently refer to God as the laws of nature or the mystery of existence, or that God is love - things atheists call the laws of nature, the mystery of existence, and love without referencing a conscious agent."

Not sure what you’re going to do when Jesus Christ returns because the way the world is going right now, prophecy is being fulfilled as the one world government and the set up with the anti christ ready to be revealed as spoken by Daniel and laid out in that Book of the Bible.
Seems you consider yourself a prophet by your statement yet you cannot discern the times we are living in.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Three Messengers of God have come since Jesus so there is a lot that is new.

Already spoken about in the Bible and would be good to recognize that:
”And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭4‬-‭8‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

But some on here just living a lie and consider this another myth that is actually coming to pass as we live.

 

[Audie]

The Bible is nothing more than an old fictional text that was never supposed to be taken literally; just a set of allegories and modes of prayer and worship - it was taken literally at times because it was a very quick and easy way to control the dumb masses. Dumb people still take it literally.

It's like trying to test the scientific veracity of Catcher in the Rye or something - it makes no sense of all.

But yeah - I agree - the overall concept of god doesn't really belong in a lab room.

Some of it is literal.
Your claim to know original intent
is as screwy as that of the fundies.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not sure what you’re going to do when Jesus Christ returns

Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament.
Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world. That means that the return of Christ has to be another Person.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

because the way the world is going right now, prophecy is being fulfilled

Yes, prophecy is being fulfilled right now, and it has been ever since Christ returned in the mid-19th century.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament.

”“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened. “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭15‬-‭31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Not really worth talking to you about the Bible because if you don’t like what it says you white it out or twist it to fit you’re views.

 

[flowerpower]

Some of it is literal.
Your claim to know original intent
is as screwy as that of the fundies.

Really?

Screwy as that of the fundies?

You saying "some of it is literal" then immediately following it up by saying that "a claim to know original intent is screwy" is as bad as the mistake you've claimed I made.

That said, the scientific method didn't exist until thousands of years after the Judeo-Christian narrative began; I really doubt that people were even conceiving of it in the same way that today's fundies do.

What parts do you think are literal? I know it's a solid source as far as historiography goes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Already spoken about in the Bible and would be good to recognize that:
”And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭4‬-‭8‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I said: Three Messengers of God have come since Jesus so there is a lot that is new.
None of those Messengers claimed to be Christ, although they were all sent by God and they were all the return of the Christ Spirit.

Please note that in Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭4‬-‭8‬ Jesus did not say that He was going to return to earth.
Not once in the New Testament did Jesus ever say that He was going to return to earth.

But some on here just living a lie and consider this another myth that is actually coming to pass as we live.

The only ones who are living a lie are those who are waiting for the same Jesus to return to earth.