Science over the Bible

[FiveLinden]

You cannot explain scientifically many things. How did the Universe come about? (the universe did not create itself). Dark matter and dark energy are scientific mysteries. And nobody has been able to produce a single cell putting chemicals together in the lab, and many have tried. So nice try but no

If all things were explained scientifically there would be no need for science. As science has progressed the things attributed to the work of god(s) have retreated. We no longer seriously attribute weather patterns, disease, plant growth, and happiness to the intervention of god(s). God(s) work is no restricted to those areas of science that are least advanced. On past history we can expect a retreat of god(s) as explanation from those areas also. It seemed apparent to the author(s) of Genesis that the stars were fixed in a dome separating the waters below from the waters above. Science has replaced that understanding and now even the most literalist biblical literalist does not believe it.

 

[fredystairs]

And for your penance, a thousand lashes with a wet noodle…

 

[Pattylt]

Oh good…I was afraid I’d have to eat hot jalapeños as my penance!

 

[Dan_Defender]

I agree. But there are still many unexplained things. From no universe to universe and from no life to life are two big ones. The OP starts with the statement that science disproves God. That is false.

 

[fredystairs]

Oh good…I was afraid I’d have to eat hot jalapeños as my penance!

Even I, on my most terriblest day, would subject anyone to that!! Unless, of course, you are a native of Texas; they would say that the jalapeños are mildly spicy…

 

[FiveLinden]

I agree. But there are still many unexplained things. From no universe to universe and from no life to life are two big ones. The OP starts with the statement that science disproves God. That is false

Me too. Science does not disprove the existence of an ‘arms-length’ god(s) that does not directly intervene in ‘his/their creation’. But science has done a pretty good job in at least establishing the lack of firm evidence for intervention, to the same scientific standards we accept in, say, building bridges. And it has never been established that there was once ‘no universe’, in the sense that there was once ‘nothing’.

 

[Dan_Defender]

And it has never been established that there was once ‘no universe’, in the sense that there was once ‘nothing’.

And yet, the scientific evidence points to an accelerated expansion of the universe in all directions, which logically points to a start at a point. If there was a start then there was a first cause.

 

[FiveLinden]

And yet, the scientific evidence points to an accelerated expansion of the universe in all directions, which logically points to a start at a point. If there was a start then there was a first cause

An accelerated start from a single point says nothing about what was there ‘before’ that point or even if the concept of ‘before’ in this hypothesis/theory has any meaning. ‘The’ universe, if there is only one, may regularly contract to a point and expand again. Who knows? And my observation is that everything is in constant motion and that motion, relative to other things, is a constant of all known things. That there should be a ‘first mover’ has therefore never seemed logical to me as movement is inherent in being a ‘thing’.

 

[Dan_Defender]

And my observation is that everything is in constant motion and that motion, relative to other things, is a constant of all known things.

Not forever. Most scientists agree that the universe will stop expanding, it will eventually tear itself apart become a soup of particles and stop moving. Time will cease to exist. I’ve never heard that it will contract again. For that would require immense forces.

 

[puer.dei]

Even I, on my most terriblest day, would subject anyone to that!! Unless, of course, you are a native of Texas; they would say that the jalapeños are mildly spicy…

Oh, some of them exceed mild, and get all the way to moderately spicy.

Now, if it’s punishment you’re after, I highly recommend the ghost pepper.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

To be fair, there are things which are irrational insofar as they violate logic and the observable world…

And then there is nonrational, things like Beauty, Truth, Justice, Mercy, which can’t be weighed and measured directly, or seen, but we know they exist (I’m tired after a long day and can’t find the words to explain my point better).

 

[Buzzard3]

I hate to break it to this community, but there is scientific evidence against God.

… you mean like mud becoming a living organism all by itself? LOL!

 

[FiveLinden]

it will eventually tear itself apart become a soup of particles and stop moving

Then they wouldn’t be particles. Particles move from their atomic level and up.

 

[FiveLinden]

And for your penance, a thousand lashes with a wet noodle…

I didn’t know there were Pastafarians here.

 

[FiveLinden]

And then there is nonrational, things like Beauty, Truth, Justice, Mercy, which can’t be weighed and measured directly, or seen, but we know they exist

You have put your finger on what I think god(s) is/are - a real thing that exists inside our mind. One of the challenges for atheists is identifying the reason all peoples identify these things. In the case of the ones you list I can easily see how identifying them as positive qualities, especially if they are not absolute, would give one group of humans advantages over another and therefore spread through populations in the usual way of natural selection. God(s) are harder to hypothesise but my guess if that such beliefs reinforce group solidarity, resilience and optimism.

 

[ReaderT]

Science does not disprove the existence of an ‘arms-length’ god(s) that does not directly intervene in ‘his/their creation’. But science has done a pretty good job in at least establishing the lack of firm evidence for intervention

That’s the thing I wonder about - intervention by God. Because unless one is watching every atom everywhere, I can’t say that God Himself didn’t change something while nobody saw (whether it’s a blade of grass, a breeze, whatever). Just as a crude example, there’s a Greek story about a little demon who messes up people’s work behind their backs and leads them to sin.

 

[OddBird]

Jesus is pronounced “g-s-uh-s”

Only if you’re an English speaker - which most of the world isn’t. It’s “Jésus” in my own language. And I don’t see how that proves anything.

we have evidence that there was no first human, rather we evolved over million of years.

And most Christians don’t have a problem with this.

 

[FiveLinden]

atheisticscience:

we have evidence that there was no first human, rather we evolved over million of years.

And most Christians don’t have a problem with this.

Catholics have a problem with this. The Church teaches there was, indeed, a first couple. You can work really hard and fit this with evolutionary theory but…

 

[Freddy]

Welcome to CAF! I recommend you peruse the forum so that you don’t make a fool of yourself.

Whoops. Too late…

 

[BartholomewB]

Jesus is pronounced “g-s-uh-s”. This is also likely wrong, as linguistics suggest that it came from the Hebrew language, and it is related to the name of Joshua.

Since we’re in the business of pointing out other people’s mistakes, here goes.

This is also likely wrong,

What do you mean, “likely”? Jesus is a form of the Hebrew name יהשוע , conventionally transliterated as Yehoshua. In conversation, that name was usually shortened to Yeshua, by leaving out the middle syllable. In that shorter form, the name entered the Greek language as Ἰησοῦς. From Greek it entered Latin as Iesus, and from Latin it evolved in our modern European languages into Jésus in French, Jesús in Spanish, Jesus in Portuguese and English, Jezus in Dutch, and so on.