Does science disprove the bible

[HappyFlappyTheist]

God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

"God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away."

I don't necessarily believe this; all I believe is that 'some thing' programmed the laws of physics. Everything else is chance.

Not just "some thing" but "some intelligence" obviously, right?

At what point would such has stopped. For example, is some some compelling in such laws to eventually have conscious sapient life? (i.e., the anthropic principle)?

----I wrote a response only to be deleted again, something doesn't want me talking to you Kurieuo-----------
I'm over my loss and I'll write again.

I'll concede on the first point; it is "some intelligence" not "some thing."

To address #2, I don't know. I have no idea why this being did what it did, I have no idea why it stopped ( if it did); I have no theology, I have no holy book.
It is remarkable that we fall within this narrow range that allows life, but (big but) with the possible unfathomable amount of universes that exist, one was bound to have the correct compatibility for life.

I personally believe if a god made this universe with the sole purpose of life evolving on this earth, theism is the more logical conclusion.
I don't believe my deist god planned life at a specific place at all, I believe it is a byproduct of the natural laws it set in motion; It probably knew life would evolve somewhere, and we just happen to be one of those somewheres.

Seriously?

I' not sure what you're seriouslying (lol funny word) about. I said "if" in that sentence you bolded, I don't believe my deist God did. Either you missed the purpose of my sentence or I missed the purpose of your seriously.

I personally believe if a god made this universe with the sole purpose of life evolving on this earth, theism is the more logical conclusion

[Audie]

Audie: Respectfully rejects this.

But why?

And, just for the sake of argument, which would be more loving? A God who just watches a purposeless, often-brutal and evil-filled survival of the fittest/Darwinian repercussions, letting it drag out as it will, or a God whom has purpose in what is happening and Whom wants a glorious eternity for those willing to love Him BACK?

And, let's not forget - God didn't just merely create and then TWEAK the systems of the universe and biological life, but He controls them

This above is what I said I reject (as a reasonable possibility).

Whether the universe (meaning our little backyard universe of some 28 billion light years diameter, not what is really out there, which the physicists say make our "universe less than a grain of sand)
has "purpose" as a human being might understand it, is could be the definition of "moot".

As for the actions of what is thought of as being a loving god, and the created as is, then watches and does nothing to improve the, as you said, brutal conditions...
I see zero of loving in that. Zero.


"Darwinian" processes, that is evolution and for that matter other natural processes
are, ultimately, of a mathematical nature.

Through those are created effects and structures which people variously think of as good and beautiful, moral and so on. Others will see the same things other ways.

I personally, am delighted to get the chance to see a wild snake. Others will be horrified and think of "satan".

The values we place on things are pretty much just subjective.

Evolution has given us to be the kind of people we are, for better and worse.

I'd not call that "dragging out", I think its fantastic. We, and all our ancestors, pulled outselves collectively out of the mud and sing Hande's "Messiah" and take photos of deep space. Cool! Even if some people do misbehave horribly.

I dont think a "loving god" would have deliberately created the horrors inflicted
by the natural world, or people who inflict them on eachother. If there's a god doing it, he is a psycho monster.

If this is his universe, I wish I'd been given a choice of some parallel universe with a different god.

This "glorious" and, "love him back" has, sorry, zero credibility with me. Its a nice idea, Id be glad if it were true. Maybe a gold meteor will land in my yard. I just dont believe it. No more than I do that this so called "allah" is planning to hang me by my hair in eternal fire for the sin of not covering my hair in public.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... urning.jpg

Seriously?

yes the Muslims seriously think things like whats in the photo. And some believe the universe was made for people.

[PaulSacramento]

Lets make this clear:
The bible is a collection of theological writings about God and the only what it's various writings can be disproved is IF God Himself disproves them.
In short, WHEN God is made know to all and IF at that time some or all of the bible is shown to be wrong about God, then the bible would be disproved.

[Audie]

Lets make this clear:
The bible is a collection of theological writings about God and the only what it's various writings can be disproved is IF God Himself disproves them.
In short, WHEN God is made know to all and IF at that time some or all of the bible is shown to be wrong about God, then the bible would be disproved.

"unfalsifiable" as it would be called in another context

But

is this the bible itself, or just certain readings thereof?

[abelcainsbrother]

One of the main issues with the Global flood in terms of population base is that IF the flood was indeed Global AND all humans died except the 8 on the ark, then ALL human life ( we won't even get to the issue of animal life) would have had to come from them and spread to the different continents like Australia and the Americas and so forth.
And would have had to that within just a few generations, traveling in mass from the ANE to all over the globe, transatlantic and pacific migration.

This is a long read but might help.

http://www.kjvbible.org/greenland_ice_sheet.html

I posted the wrong one.I meant this one

http://www.kjvbible.org/peleg.html

[Audie]

I wonder what goes on in the minds of people who
A) only consult, or believe sources that say what they want their itchin' ears to hear
B) assume that anything that does not agree with them can be hand waved so easily
with something about "paradigm" , "perspective" or "bias". Maybe "conspiracy".
C) go only to predigested second hand sources, the "creosite" say. Or ratwik, for that matter.

Its no better than only going to Pravda for news of the world,
to only jihadi or Mao's writings, liberal or conservative sites for politics.

Going to a douser for advice on a well instead of a geologist, same.

Looking at tabloid magazines for medical advice wont take you further from
shore than a creosite will from original sources and sound information.

Anyone doing actual research understands the need to go to original sources.
Its the same in science as in law, where checking citations is an endless job.

Dishonesty, laziness (self is super easy to fool) and deliberate negligence are elements of the fluddies kind of
disgracefully shoddy "research".

When we see presentations made in uneducated looking English, and citations of creosites adorned with
cartoons and 7th grade reading level, it probably is not quite so much laziness as the simple inability to
access or comprehend what is in an actual original research paper.

In those cases the criticism can be tempered a bit with some sympathy for their state,
and for them as easy victims of a crass sham. We hope others more grounded will be
standing by in case they get a letter from a Nigerian oil minister.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I wonder what goes on in the minds of people who
A) only consult, or believe sources that say what they want their itchin' ears to hear
B) assume that anything that does not agree with them can be hand waved so easily
with something about "paradigm" , "perspective" or "bias". Maybe "conspiracy".
C) go only to predigested second hand sources, the "creosite" say. Or ratwik, for that matter.

Its no better than only going to Pravda for news of the world,
to only jihadi or Mao's writings, liberal or conservative sites for politics.

Going to a douser for advice on a well instead of a geologist, same.

Looking at tabloid magazines for medical advice wont take you further from
shore than a creosite will from original sources and sound information.

Anyone doing actual research understands the need to go to original sources.
Its the same in science as in law, where checking citations is an endless job.

Dishonesty, laziness (self is super easy to fool) and deliberate negligence are elements of the fluddies kind of
disgracefully shoddy "research".

When we see presentations made in uneducated looking English, and citations of creosites adorned with
cartoons and 7th grade reading level, it probably is not quite so much laziness as the simple inability to
access or comprehend what is in an actual original research paper.

In those cases the criticism can be tempered a bit with some sympathy for their state,
and for them as easy victims of a crass sham. We hope others more grounded will be
standing by in case they get a letter from a Nigerian oil minister.

Do you think you could be just as guilty when it comes to discussing our religious texts?
I seem to remember us having a discussion about scientifically incorrect stories in the Bible like the flood, and when I told you I believe the text says it was local, you just dismissed me.

[Audie]

I wonder what goes on in the minds of people who
A) only consult, or believe sources that say what they want their itchin' ears to hear
B) assume that anything that does not agree with them can be hand waved so easily
with something about "paradigm" , "perspective" or "bias". Maybe "conspiracy".
C) go only to predigested second hand sources, the "creosite" say. Or ratwik, for that matter.

Its no better than only going to Pravda for news of the world,
to only jihadi or Mao's writings, liberal or conservative sites for politics.

Going to a douser for advice on a well instead of a geologist, same.

Looking at tabloid magazines for medical advice wont take you further from
shore than a creosite will from original sources and sound information.

Anyone doing actual research understands the need to go to original sources.
Its the same in science as in law, where checking citations is an endless job.

Dishonesty, laziness (self is super easy to fool) and deliberate negligence are elements of the fluddies kind of
disgracefully shoddy "research".

When we see presentations made in uneducated looking English, and citations of creosites adorned with
cartoons and 7th grade reading level, it probably is not quite so much laziness as the simple inability to
access or comprehend what is in an actual original research paper.

In those cases the criticism can be tempered a bit with some sympathy for their state,
and for them as easy victims of a crass sham. We hope others more grounded will be
standing by in case they get a letter from a Nigerian oil minister.

Do you think you could be just as guilty when it comes to discussing our religious texts?
I seem to remember us having a discussion about scientifically incorrect stories in the Bible like the flood, and when I told you I believe the text says it was local, you just dismissed me.

Did I? Sorry about that. It does tho, now you bring it up make the bible immune to any such criticism, as the actual meaning can never be established.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I wonder what goes on in the minds of people who
A) only consult, or believe sources that say what they want their itchin' ears to hear
B) assume that anything that does not agree with them can be hand waved so easily
with something about "paradigm" , "perspective" or "bias". Maybe "conspiracy".
C) go only to predigested second hand sources, the "creosite" say. Or ratwik, for that matter.

Its no better than only going to Pravda for news of the world,
to only jihadi or Mao's writings, liberal or conservative sites for politics.

Going to a douser for advice on a well instead of a geologist, same.

Looking at tabloid magazines for medical advice wont take you further from
shore than a creosite will from original sources and sound information.

Anyone doing actual research understands the need to go to original sources.
Its the same in science as in law, where checking citations is an endless job.

Dishonesty, laziness (self is super easy to fool) and deliberate negligence are elements of the fluddies kind of
disgracefully shoddy "research".

When we see presentations made in uneducated looking English, and citations of creosites adorned with
cartoons and 7th grade reading level, it probably is not quite so much laziness as the simple inability to
access or comprehend what is in an actual original research paper.

In those cases the criticism can be tempered a bit with some sympathy for their state,
and for them as easy victims of a crass sham. We hope others more grounded will be
standing by in case they get a letter from a Nigerian oil minister.

Do you think you could be just as guilty when it comes to discussing our religious texts?
I seem to remember us having a discussion about scientifically incorrect stories in the Bible like the flood, and when I told you I believe the text says it was local, you just dismissed me.

Did I? Sorry about that. It does tho, now you bring it up make the bible immune to any such criticism, as the actual meaning can never be established.

Like any ancient text we have to tread carefully, some things are clear, some not so much.

[Audie]

I wonder what goes on in the minds of people who
A) only consult, or believe sources that say what they want their itchin' ears to hear
B) assume that anything that does not agree with them can be hand waved so easily
with something about "paradigm" , "perspective" or "bias". Maybe "conspiracy".
C) go only to predigested second hand sources, the "creosite" say. Or ratwik, for that matter.

Its no better than only going to Pravda for news of the world,
to only jihadi or Mao's writings, liberal or conservative sites for politics.

Going to a douser for advice on a well instead of a geologist, same.

Looking at tabloid magazines for medical advice wont take you further from
shore than a creosite will from original sources and sound information.

Anyone doing actual research understands the need to go to original sources.
Its the same in science as in law, where checking citations is an endless job.

Dishonesty, laziness (self is super easy to fool) and deliberate negligence are elements of the fluddies kind of
disgracefully shoddy "research".

When we see presentations made in uneducated looking English, and citations of creosites adorned with
cartoons and 7th grade reading level, it probably is not quite so much laziness as the simple inability to
access or comprehend what is in an actual original research paper.

In those cases the criticism can be tempered a bit with some sympathy for their state,
and for them as easy victims of a crass sham. We hope others more grounded will be
standing by in case they get a letter from a Nigerian oil minister.

Do you think you could be just as guilty when it comes to discussing our religious texts?
I seem to remember us having a discussion about scientifically incorrect stories in the Bible like the flood, and when I told you I believe the text says it was local, you just dismissed me.

Did I? Sorry about that. It does tho, now you bring it up make the bible immune to any such criticism, as the actual meaning can never be established.

Like any ancient text we have to tread carefully, some things are clear, some not so much.

Presupposition being that every passage has some god-given and profound meaning?

You do in any case recognize that the bible as you present it is immune to any criticism, in science we'd call that "unfalsifiable"?

In science, that aint high praise.

[PaulSacramento]

Lets make this clear:
The bible is a collection of theological writings about God and the only what it's various writings can be disproved is IF God Himself disproves them.
In short, WHEN God is made know to all and IF at that time some or all of the bible is shown to be wrong about God, then the bible would be disproved.

"unfalsifiable" as it would be called in another context

But

is this the bible itself, or just certain readings thereof?

That is a very good question.

The answer is that, as some have argued, the bible can never be wrong, only the INTERPRETATION can be.
I don't know if I agree with this in the absolute.

The bible makes certain concrete and explicit statements about God, regardless of interpretation, and the only way the bible can be proven to be in error about THOSE statements is if we have concrete evidence that God is not how the bible claims Him to be.
What science CAN proven the bible to be in error, then, falls under the same category, in short:
Where the bible makes concrete and explicit statements about something observable in nature ( as science does) and science can disprove THAT event in SPECIFIC or that GENERAL comment in GENERAL, then the bible would be proven to be in error.

Know what I mean?

[Audie]

Lets make this clear:
The bible is a collection of theological writings about God and the only what it's various writings can be disproved is IF God Himself disproves them.
In short, WHEN God is made know to all and IF at that time some or all of the bible is shown to be wrong about God, then the bible would be disproved.

"unfalsifiable" as it would be called in another context

But

is this the bible itself, or just certain readings thereof?

That is a very good question.

The answer is that, as some have argued, the bible can never be wrong, only the INTERPRETATION can be.
I don't know if I agree with this in the absolute.

The bible makes certain concrete and explicit statements about God, regardless of interpretation, and the only way the bible can be proven to be in error about THOSE statements is if we have concrete evidence that God is not how the bible claims Him to be.
What science CAN proven the bible to be in error, then, falls under the same category, in short:
Where the bible makes concrete and explicit statements about something observable in nature ( as science does) and science can disprove THAT event in SPECIFIC or that GENERAL comment in GENERAL, then the bible would be proven to be in error.

Know what I mean?

The bible makes certain concrete and explicit statements about God

Examples? Not that it matters I guess, since those are not matters subject to any sort of empirical evidence.

What about things that are concrete, explicit and relate to things that could be examined? Like say if the Bible said that Egypt is north or Galilee, say.

[PaulSacramento]

What about things that are concrete, explicit and relate to things that could be examined? Like say if the Bible said that Egypt is north or Galilee, say.

One must always be cautious when reading into the bible for explicit and specific scientific views, especially since the bible not only was NOT written that way BUT also because it is a collection of books and letters and writings with very different literary genres.
EX:
A writer, in a poetic context, could state that Egypt is lower/south than Israel and not be meaning ANYTHING in the geographical sense at all, but be making a theological statement.

Numbers, for example, can be written in a way to mean completeness as opposed to an exact number count of something.

In short, the literary genre must be identified first and then the statements put into THAT context.

[Audie]

What about things that are concrete, explicit and relate to things that could be examined? Like say if the Bible said that Egypt is north or Galilee, say.

One must always be cautious when reading into the bible for explicit and specific scientific views, especially since the bible not only was NOT written that way BUT also because it is a collection of books and letters and writings with very different literary genres.
EX:
A writer, in a poetic context, could state that Egypt is lower/south than Israel and not be meaning ANYTHING in the geographical sense at all, but be making a theological statement.

Numbers, for example, can be written in a way to mean completeness as opposed to an exact number count of something.

In short, the literary genre must be identified first and then the statements put into THAT context.

Considering the general elusiveness of meaning in the Bible, I guess I would only say basically what I have all along, that some interpretations are clearly ad variance with reality.

[PaulSacramento]

What about things that are concrete, explicit and relate to things that could be examined? Like say if the Bible said that Egypt is north or Galilee, say.

One must always be cautious when reading into the bible for explicit and specific scientific views, especially since the bible not only was NOT written that way BUT also because it is a collection of books and letters and writings with very different literary genres.
EX:
A writer, in a poetic context, could state that Egypt is lower/south than Israel and not be meaning ANYTHING in the geographical sense at all, but be making a theological statement.

Numbers, for example, can be written in a way to mean completeness as opposed to an exact number count of something.

In short, the literary genre must be identified first and then the statements put into THAT context.

Considering the general elusiveness of meaning in the Bible, I guess I would only say basically what I have all along, that some interpretations are clearly ad variance with reality.

Actually, the bible is surprisingly clear in its meaning MOST of the time, prophetic writings aside of course.
Maybe not for us but since it was not written TO us then it falls on us to try and understand as the people it was written to would understand.

It is not that the bible can't be understand by everyone, it can BUT only the basic and most important parts, ie: the Gospel.

The rest is really for scholars and theologians and so forth, just like any other multi-level historical document.