Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
nephili

Can science prove or disprove "God"?

1,062 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seanjo
12 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

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

 

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
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?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
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 :tu: some misconstrue that to initiate the God of the gaps, argument. 

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

 

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's exactly where I was going :tu: 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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khol
Posted (edited)
On 17/03/2018 at 10:51 PM, 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?

 

Its not my intention to upstage you or make fun of. Ridicule. Im not like that. I am truly interested in your perspective on above links and can respect your opinion.From someone so devout in there beliefs Im sure youve thought of this

CH if you stand outside the box..your box..and look at these facts and apply critical thought  its clear this is evolution and not any sort of intelligent design. Yet you still believe thats what it is. What is your explanation I kindly ask again ?. You must have one if you believe in a god. Whats up with flaws and mistakes in nature ? Why was god so clumsy..I really want to know. 

Truth is you dont have an answer that will support your beliefs. So dig down deep and realize maybe its because god doesnt exist. And you know what?..thats ok.Life remains pretty damn incredible. The fact we are here. Self aware life forms in this cosmic expanse

I will go on to say its two things people with faith will never answer. Suffering and this last example. You all go on and on about everything else but will not ever address these two issues

I can address them..you cant. Why do you think that is

 

 

Edited by khol
spelling
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.