The bible shoild be considered a book of gossip, like an old hollywood rag and accorded such due respect
Comment on Glad I was too dumb to finish college...
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 5 weeks ago
If you believe in God and science empirically proved God didn’t exist, would you still believe?
If you don’t believe in God, and science empirically proved God exists, would you start to believe?
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
wabafee@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
More like a fanfiction basically tumblr of that time.
lunarul@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
God’s existence, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven. That’s the nature of faith and free will (in the theological sense). And that’s why there are scientists who believe in God. This American idea that religion and science are opposites makes no sense.
SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Of course it can be proven to exist, as long as evidence of its existence exists.
robotica@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
And what would be the evidence for God’s existence? I don’t think there’ll ever be scientific evidence for God because all events can be explained by science as having occurred naturally, but what if the natural part is made by God?
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
In science, anything you can measure is real.
If this god affects nothing measurable on the universe, it might as well not exist
SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
If “God” is indistinguishable from the natural world, unable to be differentiated from it, to formulate or express thoughts or to influence existence in any way, it is a redundant idea, a zero to the left, and something so alienated from what the vast majority of people consider God is that the meaning of the concept has already been twisted. It doesn’t deserve epistemological effort, because our understanding of the world wouldn’t change one bit: rather than it being a wilful intelligence, it would be a carcass over which we happen to live in, which the Universe already is. Even if you were to prove the existence of such a devoid concept, it would be equal to asserting “The Universe exists”.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
God’s existence, by definition, cannot be proven or disproven. […] This American idea that religion and science are opposites makes no sense.
What? It sounds like you’re contradicting yourself there. Also not sure how that’s an “American” idea lol.
lunarul@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
sounds like you’re contradicting yourself there
Where’s the contradiction?
not sure how that’s an “American” idea
That’s where I heard this perspective from. That you either believe in science or in God, not both. I guess it’s because of all the weird Christian denominations in the US that say crazy things and seem to have never actually read the bible, but use it to justify their anti-science ideas.
zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
Effects on the natural world can be scienced.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
it depends which god we ended up proving the existence of, if it’s prometheus i’d join the movement to free him from his eternal punishment for gifting humanity the fire of innovation.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 5 weeks ago
“Flying spaghetti monsters, did in fact, create all life in the universe.”
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
blessed be his noodly appendage
DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 5 weeks ago
ramen
Zehzin@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I would hear his explanation first.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
I mean, if Yahweh exists it’s not that the story is full of holes so much as that he was part of the Canaanite pantheon and the stories were never originally meant to describe the actions of a singular god.
There is likely a whole mythological cycle that we simply do not have because it was destroyed by zealots for disproving their weird monotheistic fan fiction.
It’s like trying to make sense of the Norse sagas if cultists merged all the other gods into Odin, including Loki.