• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months 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 worship it?

    I don’t believe God exists. But if he was proven to exist, I would believe. I would not, however, worship him. Dude’s a prick.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 months 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.

    • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The bible should be considered a book of gossip, like an old hollywood rag and accorded such due respect

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months 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.

        • robotica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months 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?

          • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months 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”.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            In science, anything you can measure is real.

            If this god affects nothing measurable on the universe, it might as well not exist

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months 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.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months 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.