Can science prove or disprove "God"?

[Crazy Horse]

7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

What truth? Biglino hasn't spoken any and apparently you've promoted his version anyway. That makes you just as bad IMO. That there has been much promoted over the last 2000+ years due to misrepresentations/misunderstandings/mistranslations of the Bible does, IN NO WAY, relieve you from the fact that you've promoted Biglino's lie as in any way factual when his translation (and I do use that word loosely) is embarrassingly, even humiliatingly wrong. Be a man and at least take responsibility for what you've promoted in his name.

To put it another way, if you want to rail against the corruption done in the name of the Judeo-Christian texts and deity then by all means do so, but STOP promoting someone who takes the least accurate and amongst the youngest known translations of Biblical texts and promoting him as some sort of expert when in fact HE IS NOT. 

cormac

Biglino, like myself, do not claim to know what actually happened back on the days of Mosses, Abraham, the Ellohim etc..

But, what he, Biglione, and I are claiming is, "that what ever was put in the OT, wasnt, isn't, what has been told to the general public.

Please Cormac, if you have a question, idea, a realisation concerning this diabolical situation, then please do tell everyone.

[Crazy Horse]

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

For anyone following my above post it should be pointed out that Biglino translated the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia from the late 60s/early 70s which was an updated edition to the Masoretic Text from the Leningrad Codex, itself written in 1008/1009 AD. This is, in no way, contemporary to the original texts I've mentioned previously in this thread. 

cormac

So, lets be clear..

You think that the KJV of the Bible is a more sound, a more moral, more ethical rendition of the Original Sumarian Texts.

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Biglino, like myself, do not claim to know what actually happened back on the days of Mosses, Abraham, the Ellohim etc..

But, what he, Biglione, and I are claiming is, "that what ever was put in the OT, wasnt, isn't, what has been told to the general public.

Please Cormac, if you have a question, idea, a realisation concerning this diabolical situation, then please do tell everyone.

While that may be what YOU are doing that most certainly IS NOT what Biglino is doing. He's purposely misinterpreted and mistranslated the Masoretic text, which again IS NOT the oldest nor even remotely contemporary text to early Christianity to say something it most certainly does not. Continuing to try to defend him just destroys your credibility IMO. Leave him where he belongs, the trash bin. 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

So, lets be clear..

You think that the KJV of the Bible is a more sound, a more moral, more ethical rendition of the Original Sumarian Texts.

Hell no, and that should be obvious to anyone who's actually paying attention. Newer translations such as the KJV and the Masoretic text are GREATLY REMOVED from what the earliest texts say. That's not to say there there isn't anything wrong written within the earlier texts, there most certainly is, but for once CH be honest with yourself and quit promoting Biglino as anything more than a charlatan out to make a name for himself because that's all that's happening. He's already ruined his credibility as a translator, with his specific interpretations of what's written in the texts I just mentioned, for anyone who's actually knowledgeable of Early Judeo-Christian texts.

cormac

[Crazy Horse]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

While that may be what YOU are doing that most certainly IS NOT what Biglino is doing. He's purposely misinterpreted and mistranslated the Masoretic text, which again IS NOT the oldest nor even remotely contemporary text to early Christianity to say something it most certainly does not. Continuing to try to defend him just destroys your credibility IMO. Leave him where he belongs, the trash bin. 

cormac

Fair enough, if thats what you say is happening?

But, perhaps you could explain, exactly, how, and why, and where, Bilino is purposely misinterpreting and mistretranslating the Masoretic text.

Take your time...

[Crazy Horse]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Hell no, and that should be obvious to anyone who's actually paying attention. Newer translations such as the KJV and the Masoretic text are GREATLY REMOVED from what the earliest texts say. That's not to say there there isn't anything wrong written within the earlier texts, there most certainly is, but for once CH be honest with yourself and quit promoting Biglino as anything more than a charlatan out to make a name for himself because that's all that's happening. He's already ruined his credibility as a translator, with his specific interpretations of what's written in the texts I just mentioned, for anyone who's actually knowledgeable of Early Judeo-Christian texts.

cormac

Again, quit with the hand waving.....

But please tell me, how exactly did MB ruinin his credibility?

The more detail you have....

[cormac mac airt]

 I'm not inclined to detail every incorrect line or idea that Biglino has stated, particularly as it's not within the perview of this thread, but of examples I will give a few. 

In Biglino's book The Book That Will Forever Change Our Ideas About The Bible he starts out by restating an idea as fact that originates with Zechariah Sitchin who, although now deceased, claimed to be able to translate Sumerian even though when asked to do so by professional linguists in that field he refused to show such an ability and mistranslated words to mean/say things that they did not. Among those was Nibru, which he claimed as Nibiru, an alleged 10th planet with a 3600 year elliptical orbit around the sun. In actual Sumerian texts Nibru is actually known to be both the name of the city of Nippur, in Iraq, as well as sometimes used as the name for the planet Jupiter. He, Sitchin, and Biglino in promoting him both claim that the inhabitants of this alleged planet were known as Annunaki, which is actually a corruption of the word Annuna-ge, which means 'Annuna deities', who were deities of the Mesopotamian underworld AND NOT sky gods. It just gets worse from there and I'm not wasting my time on further examples of the gross incompetence both Sitchin and Biglino have promoted. 

If you'd like to read early Mesopotamian texts for yourself, in English, then I'd encourage you to do so at the following:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php

cormac

Edited March 18, 2018 by cormac mac airt

[cormac mac airt]

47 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Again, quit with the hand waving.....

But please tell me, how exactly did MB ruinin his credibility?

The more detail you have....

Promoting Sitchin's fantasy for starters as it's been shown via actual Sumerian and Mesopotamian texts that no such belief ever existed in that area nor do the words "translated" mean what they are claimed to mean by either. In Biglino's case that extends to much of his Biblical translation. Nor is Biglino relevant to the origins of Judeo-Christian belief as he's purposely taken one of the youngest texts and claimed that Christianity started from that when textually such other writings had already existed for more than 1000 years before the texts he used for his translation. That's a rather HUGE omission of the facts on his part IMO.

cormac

[Crazy Horse]

43 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

 I'm not inclined to detail every incorrect line or idea that Biglino has stated, particularly as it's not within the perview of this thread, but of examples I will give a few. 

In Biglino's book The Book That Will Forever Change Our Ideas About The Bible he starts out by restating an idea as fact that originates with Zechariah Sitchin who, although now deceased, claimed to be able to translate Sumerian even though when asked to do so by professional linguists in that field he refused to show such an ability and mistranslated words to mean/say things that they did not. Among those was Nibru, which he claimed as Nibiru, an alleged 10th planet with a 3600 year elliptical orbit around the sun. In actual Sumerian texts Nibru is actually known to be both the name of the city of Nippur, in Iraq, as well as sometimes used as the name for the planet Jupiter. He, Sitchin, and Biglino in promoting him both claim that the inhabitants of this alleged planet were known as Annunaki, which is actually a corruption of the word Annuna-ge, which means 'Annuna deities', who were deities of the Mesopotamian underworld AND NOT sky gods. It just gets worse from there and I'm not wasting my time on further examples of the gross incompetence both Sitchin and Biglino have promoted. 

If you'd like to read early Mesopotamian texts for yourself, in English, then I'd encourage you to do so at the following:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php

cormac

yeah......

You seem to be missing the main issue here.

Which is.

Whether you believe in the OT, or the Bible, it is irrelevant. What is important however, is the fact that what was actually written, and was was actually told to us, was in fact two different things - which has led us to many wars, abuse, lies, corruption etc, etc.

Are you in favour of such diabolical nonce-sense?

 

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

yeah......

You seem to be missing the main issue here.

Which is.

Whether you believe in the OT, or the Bible, it is irrelevant. What is important however, is the fact that what was actually written, and was was actually told to us, was in fact two different things - which has led us to many wars, abuse, lies, corruption etc, etc.

Are you in favour of such diabolical nonce-sense?

In other words you don't really want to know what Biglino has done wrong, you'll just promote any charlatan available. Ok then. As to what is written in the Bible I was smart enough, early on, to see that it is self-contradictory, both internally as well as with the way it is presented/preached to others. 

I'm neither in favor of the worst aspects of Judeo-Christianity nor of your incompetence as a researcher. 

cormac

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

The truth needs no promotion..

It can stand on its own two feet..

All the lies, deception, corruption, these things need back-up.

Our history proves our present. Eg, war, poverty, crime, corruption.... 

Need I say more?

Hi Crazy Horse

So are you suggesting that all of the Holy wars since Jesus have been based on the old testament? 

jmccr8

[XenoFish]

59 minutes ago, seanjo said:

The creator of the Universe.

Then if there is a god, what created it? What created the thing that created god? And......you can see how this leads to an infinite question right?

Another mind twister if you will is.

If god created man in his image and man created god in their image, who really created who first? 

[Lilly]

Nope, science can't prove or disprove God. 

Good article as to why this is the case from Time Magazine: http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

My advice, accept the reality of this and move on. 

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, seanjo said:

It all came from somewhere and must have had a start....

 

And that's where the guess work begins. Things is, we can't know.

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, seanjo said:

If he is, he's kinda right, no Christian can use the teachings of Jesus to justify conflict, but they can use the OT with all its smiting etc.

IMO, the OT should be removed from the Bible.

Hi Seanjo

Because I don't claim to be a follower I don't have a problem with the old testament. It's part of a story that has a descriptive purpose, and without it the purpose of the new testament is lost or lacking in significance. For me people who say they follow Jesus and reject the old testament are denying the essence of the teachings of the bible and don't really see them as Christians. That is not to say I don't think that they are good people just that they aren't Christian.

jmccr8

 

[+joc]

20 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Be wiser...

Walk towards Nonse-Sence..

In other words - Shut your PIE hole.

Justice will be done.

Again...anyone who even dares go against your twisted belief system is totally berated.  How exactly is justice going to be done? And justice against what...and whom?

[Piney]

19 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Hell no, and that should be obvious to anyone who's actually paying attention. Newer translations such as the KJV and the Masoretic text are GREATLY REMOVED from what the earliest texts say. That's not to say there there isn't anything wrong written within the earlier texts, there most certainly is, but for once CH be honest with yourself and quit promoting Biglino as anything more than a charlatan out to make a name for himself because that's all that's happening. He's already ruined his credibility as a translator, with his specific interpretations of what's written in the texts I just mentioned, for anyone who's actually knowledgeable of Early Judeo-Christian texts.

cormac

I use the Jerusalem Bible I purchased at Princeton for my references. I was told it was the most accurate translation.

@Crazy Horse  Try reading this version. I think it's online.

[psyche101]

On 16/03/2018 at 5:45 PM, Crazy Horse said:

Its not me that is making no sense but those in the Church claiming to speak for an omnipotent God.

Yes it is you. You are ranting on about contracts with deities and burnt flesh. Hell, nobody even know why God gets high on burning  humans but he sure seems to like it. 

This makes zero sense to me, its more like a Hollywood plot, but like an old one from the 50s or something

 I mean contracts!! Burnt flesh!!! Just what the hell is that supposed to explain????????? 

On 16/03/2018 at 5:45 PM, Crazy Horse said:

So yes, its a man made story, one that may or may not be true. The only point I am trying to make is that what was written in the first place, isn't what is being told to us today. And that these lies have had terrible consequences for those folks outside of the Church, and all those who follow these lies too.   

So from your posting can I assume you refer to the Sumarian texts that modern religion was ripped of from or are you referring to something else 

This is what I was asking, what story you claim has been changed and by whom for what reason. 

On 16/03/2018 at 5:45 PM, Crazy Horse said:

If you care to comment upon this one point then please do.

No matter how many times I ask you anything it never goes well because you wish to insist the supernatural is reality when quite clearly that is not the case. 

You need to present evidence for the supernarural as a reality if you wish to include it as evidence. 

On 16/03/2018 at 5:45 PM, Crazy Horse said:

Hay psyche, I really dont feel that you are trying to engage with me in any honest attempt to even try to understand me, or any of the points I am trying to make. So, this is your last chance, engage, debate, talk, chat, with me genuinely, or go on the ignore list. Your choice!

That's rich. Especially coming from You!!! 

I and others have asked you genuine question about the claims you have been making and HAVE NOT been genuine about. Cormac showed you to be promoting lies to bolster your view as some sort is proof, and you just shrugged that off, which might not have been as notable if you had nor just been ranting on and on about how relevant the lies were. So shy would anything you say be any better supported? You have insulted and been rude to those who discuss your subjects but do not agree with you, and you don't take any notice or apologise to anyone when it's been shown your promoting BS artist snake oil salesman because he is saying what you want to hear. You rant like a crazy person and insist ancient tall tales are somehow given fact. Go right ahead and ignore me, but rest assured I won't be halting full evaluations of all your claims and illustrating how they are fables you gave adopted via your opinion as personal fact. The only people supporting your views are those who side against atheism I  fear of it fir silly ancient superstitions.

So go ahead make you choice it won't change anything as you don't discuss subjects,  you preach them. 

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, Lilly said:

Nope, science can't prove or disprove God. 

Good article as to why this is the case from Time Magazine: http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

My advice, accept the reality of this and move on. 

The problem with articles like that is that some try to use it as evidence God exists because science cannot prove a negative  which really isn't even remotly the case at all. As far as science is concerned, there is just no need for God, God could exist or not, science doesn't  care untill somthing shows up to care about. We have evidence illusrtating a natural universe so that best fit to the data available to us right now and the best answer we have right now is the focus. 

Be it clearly labelled in the article or not, that is the way some advertise support for religious ideology. 

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The problem with articles like that is that some try to use it as evidence God exists because science cannot prove a negative  which really isn't even remotly the case at all. As far as science is concerned, there is just no need for God, God could exist or not, science doesn't  care untill somthing shows up to care about. We have evidence illusrtating a natural universe so that best fit to the data available to us right now and the best answer we have right now is the focus. 

Be it clearly labelled in the article or not, that is the way some advertise support for religious ideology. 

I’m going to jump in here briefly just to correct a misconception that I’m sure Lilly is already aware of. Science has never attempted to determine whether or not there is a “need” for God as you seem to be implying but has shown that there is no “requirement” for the existance of such an entity. That’s a rather subtle, but no less valid, distinction that should be understood in these kinds of discussions. 

cormac 

[psyche101]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I’m going to jump in here briefly just to correct a misconception that I’m sure Lilly is already aware of. Science has never attempted to determine whether or not there is a “need” for God as you seem to be implying but has shown that there is no “requirement” for the existance of such an entity. That’s a rather subtle, but no less valid, distinction that should be understood in these kinds of discussions. 

cormac 

That's exactly where I was going  some misconstrue that to initiate the God of the gaps, argument. 

I like the jesus on South park, not sure if that counts. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

14 hours ago, seanjo said:

I'm not religious by any means, but the OT and Christianity are incompatible, yes the OT should be looked on for origins and the backstory, but it should in no way be used to tell people how to live, it is the source of all Christian homophobia and violence.

 

Jesus brought the new covenant, a covenant based on being nice to everyone...no matter what they were.

But jesus also said he is not going to change the word of God, and that it will be God's world when the final battle is over, so how does that not insist that the current covenant is a temporary situation and that God, Will go back to genocide and smiting people after the new order has been established? 

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's exactly where I was going  some misconstrue that to initiate the God of the gaps, argument. 

I like the jesus on South park, not sure if that counts. 

 

Yes, I’m aware of the “God of the gaps” argument, which gets us nowhere IMO. My point was that, generally speaking, it shouldn’t be overstated what evidence science provides as a counter to the wholly subjective and therefore scientifically unverifiable evidence of believers. That doesn’t help progress the discussion either IMO.

cormac

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yes, I’m aware of the “God of the gaps” argument, which gets us nowhere IMO. My point was that, generally speaking, it shouldn’t be overstated what evidence science provides as a counter to the wholly subjective and therefore scientifically unverifiable evidence of believers. That doesn’t help progress the discussion either IMO.

cormac

With those experiences being personal it's outside the scope, as such irrelevant to anyone else but the individual. 

[khol]

22 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

yeah......

You seem to be missing the main issue here.

Which is.

Whether you believe in the OT, or the Bible, it is irrelevant. What is important however, is the fact that what was actually written, and was was actually told to us, was in fact two different things - which has led us to many wars, abuse, lies, corruption etc, etc.

Are you in favour of such diabolical nonce-sense?

 

Please explain this 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-bodys-greatest-flaws-evolution-sweat-glands-eyelids-399697

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-top-ten-daily-consequences-of-having-evolved-72743121/

You couldnt explain to me human suffering and how it fits into gods plan. This is another good example of the non existance of a creator

Why would an all knowing god include these flaws into his creation ? And this is just the human body. The animal kingdom is riddled with evolutionary mistakes

This is science showing pure and simple intelligent design is a human construct and nothing more