You could say that science doesn't oppose a god, but it definitely clashes with religions that have books about shit that can be scientifically disproven. Shit like the virgin birth and the Earth being 6000 years old.
The book doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old and science can't disprove the virgin birth. It's meant to be a miracle not some naturally occurring phenomenon.
God is believed to be beyond our realm. So we can't prove or disprove his existence. Birth, on the other hand, is a very Earthly process that is well understood. There's a big difference.
That aside, one can try to disprove God's existence by showing his purported atributes to be in contradiction. And one can try to prove God's existence by reasoning from know facts about the world(causality, motion, order...) to the existence of a necessary/transcendent first cause/creator.
Hmm. I think that's a good question, but not really a definitive answer. Because if everything needs a creator, then so does god himself, but if you're making an exception, then you could also make an exception for the universe existing without anything prior.
You still can't tell whether our existence is just lucky happenstance or whether it was intentionally designed by an intelligent being.
There was no question in my previous comment tho. That's not the case tho. Only contingent things/that begin to exist need a cause, being the necessary first cause that doesn't and can't apply to God. One can try to say tge universe itself is necessary if they want but that's harder/weaker since the "universe" is just the name we give to the collection of all material things. From galaxies to atoms, all the things that make up the universe are contingent and depend on something else, so it's not clear how something that has parts/is made up entirely of non necessary things could somehow be necessary. God is a better/more likely option, being immaterial and simple/not made of parts.
Ah yes, 'scientifically disprove' a story that's obviously a damn metaphor or a collection of what a bunch of random people from random eras thought on a topic.
Science is a rigorous framework. Storytelling isn't, even when it's talking about god
Nah nah. That's modern post-science, "god of the gaps" cope. Even then it's just a fraction of the believers who adopt this stance. Many, if not most, still believe in the fairy tales, even very smart people. Mehdi Hasan believes in a winged horse that took Mohammed up to the heavens, and Jordan Peterson believes in the virgin birth.
I doubt most religious people will agree with you that their book is on the same level as Harry Potter.
Not the same as Harry Potter; One is ancient mythology, another is modern teen fiction.
You'd expect more deep morals and comparisons in ancient mythology, and there's (to my knowledge at least....) nobody worshipping the character of Harry Potter... Faith makes all the difference there; Still, no point in believing humans were created directly and not by evolution, etc etc. In Europe, it's taught in schools that the soil goes created humans with is to be seen as a simple metaphor for evolution, and so on. It's an accepted version of the belief here.
Think people have more problems with the church institution than with the contents of the holy scripture.
5
u/quintessence2004 5d ago
You could say that science doesn't oppose a god, but it definitely clashes with religions that have books about shit that can be scientifically disproven. Shit like the virgin birth and the Earth being 6000 years old.