I don’t need to though? Its not really relevant to what I discuss. As it stands, science can not disprove that the first female human was created by god constructing a human using the dna taken from adam. Science can not disprove that god invisibly guided evelolution to create a human or created the process of evolution knowing a human would eventually be created. Science by its nature can not disprove thr bible by events alone. Untill the day science can prove that god isn’t real, the bible and the scientific method remain compatible with each other.
You don’t need to do anything in life. Just pointing out that your position of Genesis being a metaphor does not align with the primary authors of the Bible thought. No Genesis, no fall of man, no original sin, no need for God’s son to come down and be killed then reborn and in the words of Paul himself that would mean the entire faith was in vain.
Judaism as well. Lots depend on there being a historical Exodus. Which there wasn’t. A metaphorical one makes the entire Hebrew Bible a lie. We see a nice ordered path from Abraham to Micah that involves one prophecy to the next.
Science can not disprove that god invisibly guided evelolution to create a human or created the process of evolution knowing a human would eventually be created. Science by its nature can not disprove thr bible by events alone. Untill the day science can prove that god isn’t real, the bible and the scientific method remain compatible with each other.
Yeah they are compatible which I admitted. As long as you are willing to lower your standards to nothing everything is permitted. Do you do this with other stuff? Do you argue that invisible unicorns could be real and are compatible with science?
Be honest: could you even imagine what form of evidence would be required to disprove your god? If you can’t you might want to think about the ramifications of an unfalsifiable idea are
Incorrect, praise be the flying spegetti monster, though I can understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.
… your position of Genesis being a metaphor …
I never said that. At no point do I say that an interpretation of Christianity that accepts science requires genesis to become a metaphor. I argue instead that since how life was created is kept incredibly vague, scientific theories are not “disproven” by the bible and can remain in use. The bible does not say “And God created great whales from scratch, by designing them from scratch to be a perfect part that will not ever evolve”. This allows people to accept science and learn from it without having to leave there christian support network and entire friendship network.
Please make sure to not use a strawman in your argument.
Do you argue that invisible unicorns could be real and are compatible with science?
Somehow, since anything invisible could be real, yes. Science is just a series of hypothesises about the world derived from continuous gathering of data that is still on going to this day. Let us suppose there are magical creatures that are invisible to all scientific instruments and have not been observed by a human since the 1500 and who’s bodies seace existing. Since there is no way to detect these creatures, science can not prove they exist, similar to the concept of a soul or a teapot floating in space (read up on that last hypothetical, its another great rebuttal against the divine)
the reasons I do not believe any of these things is there existence would not change my life, there is little evidence for them existing and because the current scientific theories being completely true for my purposes is a much more useful framework for understanding the world.
could you even imagine what form of evidence would be required to disprove your god?
Yes, it is lack of evidence of god, the fitting of a non religious framework that perfectly lines up with the creation of religions, the breaking of gods oath of plague, combined with the monsterous nature of a god that will cast out cripples and force his worshipers to stone those who insult him.
I don’t need to though? Its not really relevant to what I discuss. As it stands, science can not disprove that the first female human was created by god constructing a human using the dna taken from adam. Science can not disprove that god invisibly guided evelolution to create a human or created the process of evolution knowing a human would eventually be created. Science by its nature can not disprove thr bible by events alone. Untill the day science can prove that god isn’t real, the bible and the scientific method remain compatible with each other.
You don’t need to do anything in life. Just pointing out that your position of Genesis being a metaphor does not align with the primary authors of the Bible thought. No Genesis, no fall of man, no original sin, no need for God’s son to come down and be killed then reborn and in the words of Paul himself that would mean the entire faith was in vain.
Judaism as well. Lots depend on there being a historical Exodus. Which there wasn’t. A metaphorical one makes the entire Hebrew Bible a lie. We see a nice ordered path from Abraham to Micah that involves one prophecy to the next.
Yeah they are compatible which I admitted. As long as you are willing to lower your standards to nothing everything is permitted. Do you do this with other stuff? Do you argue that invisible unicorns could be real and are compatible with science?
Be honest: could you even imagine what form of evidence would be required to disprove your god? If you can’t you might want to think about the ramifications of an unfalsifiable idea are
Incorrect, praise be the flying spegetti monster, though I can understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.
I never said that. At no point do I say that an interpretation of Christianity that accepts science requires genesis to become a metaphor. I argue instead that since how life was created is kept incredibly vague, scientific theories are not “disproven” by the bible and can remain in use. The bible does not say “And God created great whales from scratch, by designing them from scratch to be a perfect part that will not ever evolve”. This allows people to accept science and learn from it without having to leave there christian support network and entire friendship network.
Please make sure to not use a strawman in your argument.
Somehow, since anything invisible could be real, yes. Science is just a series of hypothesises about the world derived from continuous gathering of data that is still on going to this day. Let us suppose there are magical creatures that are invisible to all scientific instruments and have not been observed by a human since the 1500 and who’s bodies seace existing. Since there is no way to detect these creatures, science can not prove they exist, similar to the concept of a soul or a teapot floating in space (read up on that last hypothetical, its another great rebuttal against the divine)
the reasons I do not believe any of these things is there existence would not change my life, there is little evidence for them existing and because the current scientific theories being completely true for my purposes is a much more useful framework for understanding the world.
Yes, it is lack of evidence of god, the fitting of a non religious framework that perfectly lines up with the creation of religions, the breaking of gods oath of plague, combined with the monsterous nature of a god that will cast out cripples and force his worshipers to stone those who insult him.