Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[POI]

I am not shifting the burden. Here is what you stated in post 34:

The Tanager wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 19, 2023 5:25 pm
I do believe Exodus was probably a literal, historical event.

And so I rightfully ask, again: Aside from the Bible's say-so alone, why do you believe this?

Why does it matter why I believe that? I haven’t made a claim using this belief as a premise.

Because maybe there are reason(s) outside the Bible's mere say-so alone, and I would like to know. Unless it's because of the Bible's say-so alone?

This thread is about science debunking the Bible. You think it does. You’ve narrowed, in part, on the Exodus story. In that thread, I raised some scholars questioning that there is silence on the Exodus events but even if there is silence, an argument from silence (especially within a field like archaeology) is far from debunking anything.

I've narrowed this down to "the Exodus", thus far, because you somehow remain 'agnostic' to the claims of "Adam and Eve" and "the flood". And sure, silence may be applicable to many claims. But the reason I raise this topic, is because the silence is deafening towards the claims for 'the Exodus'. Why? The video, where a gentleman put in quite a bit of sweat and effort, explains exactly why in extensive detail.

You easily give reasons to think Tolkien’s works are fiction. I agree with them and I think they are fiction for the same kinds of reasons.

What I find curious though, is that it was an unnecessary observation for you to make. Of course, we both already know he was a fantasy writer. And of course, we already know he did not believe he was writing non-fiction.

Why can’t you give reasons to think the Bible writers, in writing about Adam and Eve, the flood, or the Exodus meant these to be taken in a hyper literal, historical, scientific kind of way? “I sincerely doubt” isn’t reason for someone to agree with you.

For the same reasons I do not need to go into great detail on why we both know Tolkien’s works are fiction. Again, if I was to check out the Bible in the library, would I look in the fictional section, or the non-fictional section? As you would say, "come on".

Further, I remember recently catching the 'History channel". The series called 'The Bible" was on, and a disclaimer came up stating (paraphrased) - "the stories told are based upon actual events.”

Assuming they relied on actual scholars in the field, those scholars have reasons to believe they were actual events. Share those.

Aren't we just wasting time here again? Do I really need to elaborate further, really? Why? Haven't I laid down enough of a case to adequately justify this position, using common sense alone?

The default is to assume all stories told are intended to be literal, unless specified otherwise in the story itself.

Why is the default genre literal history if not specified otherwise?

Because the Bible is not intended to be a fictional collection of writings.

[alexxcJRO]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Here I selected just 3 for you sir:

Bible: God created two earth golems and with a magical incantation he imbued them with life.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared few hundreds of thousands of years ago through a natural process called Evolution.

Bible: God killed all humans except Noah and his families in a global flood.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: It did not happened. Multiple entire scientific fields show otherwise.

Bible: God made everyone speak different languages in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: The linguistic evidence proves otherwise.

Enjoy!

[Data]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #39]

Myself, demons causing illness, healing on the spot with magical power, and the claims of God and Holy spirit is non - physical, but I could see how that could be argued about, and i don't care.

It appears those making the claim do not care either.

I can tell you that personally I don't care. If the argument is "I believe the Bible" or "That's garbage" I don't care. What I do is what I expect in return. I say "I think the Bible says this because . . . " so the argument would be "I think you're wrong because . . . " or "No, it says this because . . ." I can't argue with what someone thinks the Bible is, I can only argue with why they think it.

Take this, for example: The original claim was Science debunks the Bible. That's the subject of the OP.

That looks like total garbage to me. Genesis 1 sets out the creation events in chronological order, each on a separate day, marked by morning and evening. Right from day 1. (1)

The sun and moon and other skylights were created later on as God thought they would be good markers for passage of time. Thus the daylight was there before the sun was. So the Bible says.

(1) Ehad yowm, seni yowm, selisi yown first, second and third day, is it not?

Where's the science? Okay, I intentionally left it with very broad definitions of "science" and "debunk." Where's the reason? I had already stated the reason for thinking the days of creation were periods of indeterminate time after the heavens, including the earth, sun and moon had already been created. Does it say "evening and morning"? It does. Does that constitute a literal 24-hour period? No. Half. And those days only took place after the heavens and earth were created. "That's garbage." Okay, why? Is it because the Bible says 6 days? No, because the Bible also says 1 day. Genesis 2:4 Just because you read something in the Bible doesn't mean it has been translated right, you have to compare translations and examine as best as you can the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and if it is harmonious with the overall Bible; just because you read the Bible say that the serpent spoke to Eve doesn't mean the Bible is saying the serpent spoke to Eve. She said the serpent spoke to her because Satan deceived her into thinking the serpent spoke to her. Okay. Find a verse that confirms that. 2 Corinthians 11:3. Is that harmonious? Who is blamed throughout scripture - Satan or a snake? Precedence? Numbers 22:22-28; 2 Peter 2:16.

Similar examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true is the ass in the quote I gave you on Balaam. But also, in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later. This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.

The Bible says or I believe or That's garbage aren't arguments or debate, they are opinion.

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Here I selected just 3 for you sir:

Bible: God created two earth golems and with a magical incantation he imbued them with life.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared few hundreds of thousands of years ago through a natural process called Evolution.

Bible: God killed all humans except Noah and his families in a global flood.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: It did not happened. Multiple entire scientific fields show otherwise.

Bible: God made everyone speak different languages in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: The linguistic evidence proves otherwise.

Enjoy!

Do you realize that, speaking on behalf of science, you give no evidence, only opinion? Saying it is true because you say science says it's true is like me saying it isn't true because the Bible says it isn't true.

[POI]

[Replying to Data in post #54]

One of your observations is 'ignorance to scripture'. Assuming you do not believe you are ignorant to scripture, I have to ask some basic follow-up questions to even see IF science can debunk the Bible:

1) Was the story of Adam and Eve a literal event (yes or no)?
2) Was Noah's flood a literal event? (yes or no)?
3) Was the Exodus a literal event (yes or no)?

The Tanager remains agnostic for the first two, and believes the Exodus was literal.

Answering these (3) basic questions will get us started.

And when (I) say 'science', I mean any physical science field for which you can obtain a high-level degree - (archeology, dendrology, biology, paleontology, etc). If we need to vet this out more, please let me know. But I trust you know what I mean.

[Data]

"The Bible" is too broad. Do you mean "debunk certain phenomena the Bible holds claims about"?

The Bible isn't too broad, though I don't see any reason why "debunk certain phenomena the Bible holds claims about" would be a problem.

I don't know that there is anywhere in the Bible which presents the idea/claims of supposed existence of the "non-physical". (apparently "of which there are many" - according to Tanager in post #2,) so it would be helpful to be given some examples of these supposed non-physical entities, whatever they are re the Bible stories.

What?! Seriously? God, angels, demons, Satan, holy spirit, and anything they do in non-physical form; wind and breath are non-physical.

Because if these supposed "non-physical" entities exist, then physical science at least, would have no ways in which to "debunk" those.

Correct. Which is why "science" "debunking" "the Bible" is so broad and insignificant. You can even take that down to the bare essence as meaning "science is knowledge," which it is, and you have to "know" the Bible. Not just have read it, or cherry pick parts of it that seem to say something, but know it.

But first things first, does the Bible claim this supposed "non-physical" exists?
Or is it merely an interpretation of the minds reading it?

Maybe you have a definition of "non-physical"?

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #56]

wind and breath are non-physical.

This will be why so many folk believe in something "non-physical" and refer to such as "supernatural"... because they conflate "invisible" with "non-physical" - as you have so clearly exampled.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #56]

wind and breath are non-physical.

This will be why so many folk believe in something "non-physical" and refer to such as "supernatural"... because they conflate "invisible" with "non-physical" - as you have so clearly exampled.

Okay. Fair enough. Physical is defined as relating to the body as opposed to the mind: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete:

You said:

But first things first, does the Bible claim this supposed "non-physical" exists?
Or is it merely an interpretation of the minds reading it?

Given the definition of non-physical "perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind" wouldn't the mind reading it constitute it all as non-physical? Unless you have some specific meaning of non-physical being something else, what you would appear to be saying is either the Bible is all in the mind, or the beings therein are of a non-physical - state? that is only in the mind of the people in the accounts?

Why not just say spiritual or physical beings? And what does this have to do with the OP?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Science can't debunk morality because of the is-ought dilemma. In other words, the domain of science is to tell us what is, and the domain of morality is to tell us what ought to be. And that's the end of that oil and water don't mix.

I mean, can you argue that God lies or might/must be lying? Can you argue that he's a bad person? Likes genocide? Vile temperamental piece of omnipotent garbage? Probably doesn't exist? Sure. You might even do so successfully. Let's pretend you've proved all that deductively. But when you cross into a value judgment, you have abandoned science and now have absolutely zero grounds to say that anything God does is wrong.

Science absolutely can't, under any circumstances, define God as immoral. This is true whether God happens to exist irl, or just as a character in a book. The best you can do is appeal to a shared value judgment, which will convince people who share that judgment but it doesn't mean you're right.

Modern science would do well to keep itself advised of this, but it doesn't. Judge, jury, and executioner.

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #58]

Okay. Fair enough. Physical is defined as relating to the body as opposed to the mind: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete:,

That is still unacceptable. You are making the same mistake as when you claimed that the wind was "Supernatural"
You are trying to fit nature into an unnessary conceptual framework.

The Truth is that we don't know for sure if mind is without phisical property but we do know for sure that it affects and effects those more tangible/concrete things (visible to the human senses) so we can deduce from that, mind is a phisical thing, and like the wind...we do not see it other than observing what it inflences and thus understand it is physical.

Unless you have some specific meaning of non-physical being something else,...

There is no need to create such a category. "Non physical" simply denotes "does not exist".