Someone responded to one of my questions asking “Why do you say ‘IF’ God exist, why not use facts?” That made me think, since some scientific theories are more factual than others yet BOTH are still used to formulate proof, then what’s wrong with using the theory of the Biblical God to formulate proof? There is plenty of known history and records of some people’s personal experiences to at least establish the works of the Bible as Theory, (a plausible fact.)
2007-08-25 03:01:43 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
DANGER,
The Bible refers to the world as a SPHERE and the world can APPEAR to be older than it is if it was CREATED.
2007-08-25 03:12:03 · update #1
Elliot,
There's also plenty of evidence that SUPPORTS the Bible.
2007-08-25 03:15:01 · update #2
Yeesang,
I used to think about the Hell thing until I discovered that the principles in the Bible for living a good, respectable life actually work!
2007-08-25 03:21:18 · update #3
Jason g
Zeus was never said to be real. There are othe gods associated with demons. However there are accounts linked to the true God that come from sources other than the Hebrews.
2007-08-25 03:30:14 · update #4
Good question. Believers study science, but lots of nonbelievers scoff at God.
A collection of books, written over about 1,500 years, by 40 different authors who, in most cases, did not know each other, written in 5 countries and 3 languages is a lot of evidence. People died defending what they wrote, so it's absurd to just toss it out as impossible.
2007-08-25 03:08:22 · answer #1 · answered by theark 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
There is no number of subjective, self-reported 'experiences' that could establish something as a theory in the scientific sense. Plus, a scientific theory can be disproved by a single piece of contradictory evidence. There's plenty of evidence contradicting the Bible.
There's evidence that supports the existence of some of the people and places mentioned in the Bible. But like I said, a single piece of contradictory evidence means a theory is invalid. The Bible has a hell of a lot more than a single piece of contradictory evidence.
2007-08-25 03:08:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
God is not a theory. A theory is a set of principles supported by some amount of observable evidence. A series of 2000+ year old, incomplete 2nd and 3rd hand accounts that have been translated and reinterpreted countless times over many centuries does not constitute evidence.
2007-08-25 03:19:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the formula to a good theory is having the least amount of 'ifs', 'whens', 'whys', 'hows', etc. The less of those questions there are the better the theory. In the theory of the Biblical God there are far too many conjunctions to consider it a GOOD theory... and therefore using it to formulate proof renders your proof bad as well.
2007-08-25 03:14:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
why the bibles god? why not give thanxs to Zeus and the gods of Olympus? Why not the gods of Egypt? Why not a million other diaties? Because Science explains all the things that people from the time didnt understand. The easy solution to anything you dont understand is "God did it"
but you'll never learn because God told you to sit down and shut up
2007-08-25 03:20:28 · answer #5 · answered by jason g 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 'theory of the biblical god'? No such thing, really. Do you mean the bible? Why not use Harry Potter to 'formulate proof'? It's probably more factual. Just because the writers of the bible got a few things right CERTAINLY doesn't mean that they got them all right or that there's a god. Sorry, science needs physical evidence. And there's none for a god.
2007-08-25 03:07:45 · answer #6 · answered by eri 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
the philosophy of science will give you your answer:
ideas about God can't be falsified, because God can do whatever he wants.
Using Occum's razor, God has to be cut out of science, because He makes things needlessly complicated.
How does gravity work? Forget math, what about God pushing things down? You see?
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with Christians or anybody else) trying to come up with proof that God exists, or engaging in apologetics -- but when they claim that they can find proof that their God is having an impact on the natural world, they've got a vertical hill to climb.
2007-08-25 03:16:13 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are not scientific facts that god is real. The bible? Its been re written so many times, who knows whats coming and going. The Greeks wrote the book way after Jesus died. Of course Jesus is real he walked the earth but other then that we can prove evolution, I know I did not appear because of Adam and Eve. Discovery channel has some really good things on evolution. Check it out some time.
2007-08-25 03:10:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
When Ezekial had a dream about the firey chariot they said it was god some how. But one of the guys who worked on the Lunar modual read the desription in the bible, drew it out and used parts of it in his design for what landed on the mood. That is not god. Faith does not make it so. And for some one to shove it at me just because it is in the bible is insulting.
2007-08-25 03:09:45 · answer #9 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Isaac Asimov on God:
Asimov: "I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." HOWEVER, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it."
Now that is what I call Logic.
I have to say that if it had not been for Isaac Asimov I would probably not be a Christian today since he opened my mind to the FACT that there was no evidence against God. When I was presented with evidence of God my mind was open enough to believe. Thanks to an atheist.
How Ironic is that?
2007-08-25 03:15:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋