• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

Commoner

Headache
I think intelligent design should be taught alongside biology, so that kids are TRULY EDUCATED and not INDOCTRINATED. This teaches kids to be OBJECTIVE and not NIEVE and CLOSE MINDED.

Do you think astrology should be taught alongside astronomy? You know, for the sake of objectivity?
 

Galileo

Member
Your right, but It CAN PROVE HE DOES exist. That is my position.

If it could it would, but it hasn't. Ergo for the time being we can safely assume "God" does not exist.

This is old, it can prove a very specific kind of God and the spaghetti monster does not fit the qualifications of this specific God.

Science and metaphysical evidence can prove a very specific God exists.

How are the flying spaghetti monster and any of the other a fore mentioned gods any different than the one you're talking about?
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
If it could it would, but it hasn't. Ergo for the time being we can safely assume "God" does not exist.

Maybe you should check out some writings from Nikola Tesla who is still way more advanced then the scientists of today who would try and discredit him.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.Nikola Tesla

This is how we know God exists but like the quote above states it is futile for those who just try and reason truth in the mind.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
What are you talking about? :confused:

Nikola understood the creative energy of the universe that things are from and has explained in his writings and quotes. He understood we were connected instinctively to this source and that we could understand the truth through the connection. You may have heard it as revelation knowledge.
But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.Nikola Tesla
 

Galileo

Member
Nikola understood the creative energy of the universe that things are from and has explained in his writings and quotes. He understood we were connected instinctively to this source and that we could understand the truth through the connection. You may have heard it as revelation knowledge.
But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.Nikola Tesla

So you're saying instinct is the proof that God exists because we don't quite understand what instinct is? That in no way proves the existence of God. Instinct is a survival method developed through natural selection.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
That in no way proves the existence of God.
It is the only way God or truth is found.

It is where truth and awareness is discovered.Who is this we that doesn't understand. Tesla was trying to explain about these finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths.Science is to busy thinking reality is about numbers and conforms to our logic and formulas to grasp what is truth.You will not grasp this with your logical thoughts as already stated but through humility you can get you back in touch with this instinct.
This is how you come to know God and it doesn't matter whether he is proved to your logical mind or not.
Wether you believe in God or not truth can still only be found this way and logic is limited to try and discover truth.
 

Commoner

Headache
It is the only way God or truth is found.

It is where truth and awareness is discovered.Who is this we that doesn't understand. Tesla was trying to explain about these finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths.Science is to busy thinking reality is about numbers and conforms to our logic and formulas to grasp what is truth.You will not grasp this with your logical thoughts as already stated but through humility you can get you back in touch with this instinct.
This is how you come to know God and it doesn't matter whether he is proved to your logical mind or not.
Wether you believe in God or not truth can still only be found this way and logic is limited to try and discover truth.

If there is a god, he's probably really ****** right now. He's evolved you to the point where you can actually use your intelect and knowledge to transcend your instincts (to a much greater extent than other animals)and all you want to do is bury your head in the sand and "feel around".

Well, good luck with that theory.:D
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
If there is a god, he's probably really ****** right now. He's evolved you to the point where you can actually use your intelect and knowledge to transcend your instincts (to a much greater extent than other animals)and all you want to do is bury your head in the sand and "feel around".

Well, good luck with that theory.:D

My theory is to embrace reality and not be foolish enough to try and make it conform to any methods scientific or otherwise.
 

Galileo

Member
My theory is to embrace reality and not be foolish enough to try and make it conform to any methods scientific or otherwise.

To embrace science is to embrace reality. That's what science is all about, explaining the real world around us by examining tangible evidence. You sound like a friend of mine who is quite fond of a certain herbal concoction. He often goes off on topics that you are describing.

"Like bro what if we aren't really here and like we are just part of a dream that's being dreamed by some other being and when he wakes up we'll like totally cease to exist."

That's a direct quote from my friend while taking his her.........er......."medication".
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Ok, whether the closest word for disk in the Hebrew is Kaphtor as you mentioned or the one I mentioned which was “mecab” if your correct that kaphtor is the closest this still begs the question, why didn’t the bible authors who you say believed the earth was flat USE the word Kaphtor then?

It doesn't beg the question if you're familiar with the language. Even if we assumed they could have used that word for some reason they didn't. Either the word doesn't fit the context or they had no understanding of a spherical world. Since I'm being honest here I'm not going to jump off and say...(it's because they had no understanding.....). No. It's because the word itself would not fit the context properly. Other Hebraic words that, in our opinion or loosely rendered in English, do no justice to the suttle nuances of Semitic languages. This is why the Hebrew to English lexicons and dictionaries can only go but so far. They are a good resource though.



If I am over interpreting a simple word, then so would you.

I'm really not. The word simply means circle in the Hebrew language and is the equivalent of what we in the English language regard as a 2d object. This is why (mchuwgah) is used in their language to describe and instrument known as a drawing compass and its purpose is to draw 2d circles. We use an instrument today just like that in math classes, art class and one similar to that, that was used in the early days by ship captains.


It does mean sphere in the particular lexicon link I showed you.

Right..and more "careful" research shows that others do not. Not even Strong's renders the word as sphere. I list the Strong's because it appears that is the one people are familiar with but I traditionally use the (AHL - Ancient Hebrew Lexicon). Guess what? They don't render it as "sphere" either.


And round can mean global or spherical according to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/round number 5 down.

Again, no problem but a modern meaning of the word in English is completely different that the meaning of the day in that language. Circle in Hebrew did not mean globe or sphere or round. They already had words for round and sphere. None of these were used to describe to spherical shape of the earth.

Bible Studies: Hebrew Meaning, hebrew meaning, isaiah 40
"The word is chug (the "ch" pronounced like in loch or Bach). The cognate verb means "to draw a circle." The noun means circle, or horizon --which is the circle which defines the edge of your vision. It is extremely interpretive to understand the term as orb or sphere. Perhaps that was a later meaning of the term. The simple meaning is "circle". How much further you want to take that meaning is up to you."



It can mean this yes, but it can also mean go around, or walk around. It does not just mean surround. So yes they really could have used this word. You take a journey and start at one corner of the earth and walk around and end where you started. They could have used this.

Cabab does not fit that verse contextually which is why Hebrew speaking people of the day didn't use it there. I know that after rendering the word in English and understanding the meanings you may think it could work there but that's what I'm getting at. Not all these words fit just because one of their sub-meanings in English give you the impression it could work. In that verse "God's" action is already described (he's sitting above). Now the next word is just a description of what he's sitting above. Cabab doesn't fit.


I have three points to say to this:

1: If it’s referring to the sky or heavens, then Isaiah 40:22 is NOT talking about the circle of the EARTH, so in that case you cannot say that this passage in Isaiah is implying a FLAT CIRCULAR DISK, because it’s not referring to the earth (even though it clearly shows it is) but rather it’s referring to the heavens. So therefore, we cannot know based on the text what shape the earth actually is, since it’s only talking about the heavens. This means you cannot prove your point.

Does this ALSO mean you can't prove your point either?

2: If you do say it’s referring to the earth and NOT the heavens in Isaiah, then that means the lexicon I gave that says spherical, is referring to the EARTH being spherical. Thus that proves my point.

3: If you say it’s referring to BOTH the earth and the heavens; that is, the earth is a circular disk and the sky is HALF a sphere or arch, well it does not say that in the lexicon. So the lexicon would be more so implying if it’s referring to BOTH, that the heavens AND the earth are BOTH spherical, which is actually the real case according to NASA pictures. So if you say it refers to BOTH, this proves MY POINT.

So which one do you go with, 1, 2 or 3 here?

It was your evidence. I was simply pointing out that they rendered the word in reference to mean the vault of heaven and not the earth itself. Maybe what the lexicon was hinting at was that the earth itself was flat and the vault was more live a domed shaped structure above it. But not enough info is given by that lexicon.


Aristotle http://reformation.org/flat-earth-exposed.html

There, that is a better source. So, this shows that ancient people, at least some or many did in fact believe the earth was spherical. The biblical authors would have known the SAME observations Aristotle had. And Aristotle would NOT necessarily be superior minded to the biblical authors either.

Right. And I agree to this. I'm not saying everyone believed the earth was flat but obviously it wasn't that apparent to some that the earth was spherical. The debate of whether it was, was in existence before, during and even Aristotle.

IBSS - The Bible - Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3: Circle of the Earth

The site above is very informative. I believe it's a Christian site as well. It does a decent job in shedding some light on the verse.
 

Commoner

Headache
My theory is to embrace reality and not be foolish enough to try and make it conform to any methods scientific or otherwise.

No offense, but your position is often taken by those who don't really understand how profoundly crucial the use of science is in establishing what "real" is and how profoundly useless "gut feeling" is in the same exercise. I suspect you don't either.

So if your "theory" is to embrace reality, science - in one way or another, is unavoidable. The only difference between your kind of ad hoc "science" and the scientific method is that one is good science and the other is bad science - one makes demonstrably correct predictions and the other is about as good as a coin flip, if that. And if you haven't established that yet, you're far from what you're trying to embrace or your simply not being honest.
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.Nikola Tesla
When you actually understand this quote and what it is saying you will understand how I embrace reality.Sorry I use differnt qoutes from scientists but I thought i would engage you on your own turf.
Besides I enjoy science and views from scientists( the real ones anyway)
Please share your interpretation of this quote if you feel you are really on here to learn and find truth.
No offense, but your position is often taken by those who don't really understand how profoundly crucial the use of science is in establishing what "real" is and how profoundly useless "gut feeling" is in the same exercise. I suspect you don't either.
From what I am understanding from a real scientist and his quote above it sounds like you are the one who is misunderstanding or can you explain how we can perceive truths without willful effort of the brain.
And you do this by clinging to faith?
Wow.
At least you are sort of entertaining Mestemia.

To embrace science is to embrace reality. That's what science is all about, explaining the real world around us by examining tangible evidence. You sound like a friend of mine who is quite fond of a certain herbal concoction. He often goes off on topics that you are describing.

"Like bro what if we aren't really here and like we are just part of a dream that's being dreamed by some other being and when he wakes up we'll like totally cease to exist."

That's a direct quote from my friend while taking his her.........er......."medication".
Is this an example of embracing reality with science and what your post is really saying???
Mental disease comes from those who get trapped in there fight and flight responses behind fear and instead of trying to deal with their emotional traumas they try to reason themselves out logically
but unfortunately their rationality eventually becomes irrational as their chemicals become out of balance in the brain. It's sad how much medical science has failed in trying to be successful in the area of mental illness but since they rely on logic they assume fixing the chemical imbalance will fix the problem when all along it's the emotional trauma that is the problem.Medical science has definately done a profound job of keeping society suppressed and turned every feeling of the blues they can into a mental disease to push their drugs for profits.( your not blind to the commercials right???)
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
And you do this by clinging to faith?
Wow.
What also really baffles me about science is their view on faith.
It is a complete normal part of our fight and flight response instincts.
What state our you in when you are not in fear???
There is only one other choice outside of fear?

Or do we want to control reality so much that logic overrides our instincts and reality must conform to our math formulas????
Who cares if space is really empty or filled with substance? We have a math formula to stand on so that reality doesn't matter?
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
What also really baffles me about science is their view on faith.
It is a complete normal part of our fight and flight response instincts.
What state our you in when you are not in fear???
There is only one other choice outside of fear?

Or do we want to control reality so much that logic overrides our instincts and reality must conform to our math formulas????
Who cares if space is really empty or filled with substance? We have a math formula to stand on so that reality doesn't matter?
What the hell are you talking about?

Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes.
You are doing nothing more than reinforcing this particular view.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
What the hell are you talking about?

If you don't even understand humans have a fight and flight instinct,I am not going to waste my time. Please google it.

I will be simple and ask if you are not in a state of fear, then what state are you in?
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
will be simple and ask if you are not in a state of fear, then what state are you in?
Are you saying that I have to believe in your teslan crap in order to understand?
[/QUOTE]
What does this question have to do with Tesla? I can care less where you stand scientifically.
 
Top