Did God become a hoax after modern science?

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (22 posts)
  1. John Sarkis profile image81
    John Sarkisposted 11 years ago

    Did God become a hoax after modern science?

    We now believe The Bible was wrong, because, the earth cannot be 6k years old - this is wrong by the way, the Book of Genesis never states how old earth or the universe are!  God could have been lonely for billions of years before he decided to create the cosmos...much of this scientific claim is based on the study of fossils/animal remains and pressure - e.g., Grand Canyon is one billion years old.  What's your take on this?

  2. theupside profile image61
    theupsideposted 11 years ago

    Why not ask him yourself and then let us know what he says? OH WAIT. He doesn't exist. It shall forever remain a mystery.

    1. lone77star profile image71
      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The owner and creator has His own motives and agenda. Just because they don't suit yours, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. This is a rescue mission, and flashy magic only plays to ego -- and ego is the barrier

  3. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 11 years ago

    NO, Modern science just tried to prove it this way, only to fail time and time again. People are constantly saying there is no proof God exists, look it up and see how much from the Bible has been proven as facts.

    1. John Sarkis profile image81
      John Sarkisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You're so right...as I just replied to calynbana about how our current society and the way we've been taught to think - people take it for granted that science is always correct and they sometimes forget that science has been wrong.

    2. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you John.

  4. calynbana profile image76
    calynbanaposted 11 years ago


    There is no way to read the Bible honestly and come to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old. If anything the Biblical account of Genesis works very well with our current understanding of the Big Bang theory and of micro evolution.

    The Bible says that one of God's days is like a thousand of our own (not literally a thousand, it is basically saying that God has a very different conception of time than we do). God doesn't create our conception of day until the fourth day and God doesn't create man until the 6th "day". How many years went by before man then?

    I do not see anything in what is written in Genesis that goes against current scientific knowledge.

    1. John Sarkis profile image81
      John Sarkisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So true...precisely my point.  It's interesting how people have wrongly arrived at this conclusion.  ...blame it on the media, or who knows?...  Well said....

  5. wtaylorjr2001 profile image60
    wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years ago

    Modern science has no effect on God. Science is based on the principle of falsifiability, which is whether something can be proven false or not. As far as I know, there is no test that can prove that God doesn't exist, therefore God cannot be studied in the realm of science. But science is just one system of describing the world around us. The question I have is whether or not belief in God has a positive effect on an individual. There are individuals in which the answer to that question is yes. Therefore this system of belief that includes God is valid and of value. Can God save a life? Yes. Ask that of an emotionally distraught person with a deep belief in God, who decides at the last minute to lower the gun in his hand because of either the fear of eternal damnation or the desire to only act to please God. No matter what the system, only a fool removes a system that serves a vital purpose without  respect to the satisfaction of that purpose. In other words don't swear off eating meat if there are no vegetables around.

    1. John Sarkis profile image81
      John Sarkisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is true.  I believe in Kantian epistemology - God belongs to the realm of "thing in itself" just like math, which is 'a priori' yet looks as if experience is needed to reach outcome.

  6. rfmoran profile image71
    rfmoranposted 11 years ago

    What we know about modern science is this: We still don't know. 50 years ago the Internet would have seemed like an unscientific superstition. And what any honest scientist will admit (maybe not in the faculty lounge) is that we haven't the foggiest idea how something came from nothing.

  7. Michele Travis profile image65
    Michele Travisposted 11 years ago

    What is interesting about the big bang theory, is that before the big bang, time did not exist.  If time did not exist then nothing could move. If nothing could move, then not enough pressure could have built up to cause anything to explode.  So, if pressure could not have built up then the big bang could not have happened.    Also,  the first thing that happened after the big bang was light, fire.  That is what happens when something explodes.  In the bible God says " Let there be light"  How could that have been written in the bible, when man knew nothing about the big bang?

    1. John Sarkis profile image81
      John Sarkisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Michele,

      So many unanswered questions, yet the world has been hoodwinked to believe science has all the answers  - biggest of all fallacies!...

    2. wtaylorjr2001 profile image60
      wtaylorjr2001posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Michelle and John,

      Science does not have all the answers. Science is only a body of information that is increasing exponentially. It allows us to predict and influence our world. I think the concept of virtual particles may answer your question.

  8. bethperry profile image84
    bethperryposted 11 years ago

    I tend to think the great trending fallacy among modern atheists and science enthusiasts is the assumption that science is infallible. Now I don't believe in Biblical doctrine that claims the Earth is only 6K years old, but I also don't believe science can explain everything. But is becoming popular methodology for those who look to science as the final word to ridicule anything that doesn't jive with scientific assertions So no, I don't believe "God" or gods or divine spirits have consummately been proven to be myths or hoax. Anyone who preaches otherwise demonstrates the very same kind of intolerance directed by religious fanatics toward those who don't share their dogmas.

  9. coffeegginmyrice profile image81
    coffeegginmyriceposted 11 years ago

    If one can write a book about the past, then why can’t God write a book with history in it?
    God made the universe with a history; He created the world 6000 years ago and created it with age attached. He created The World with history.

    1. calynbana profile image76
      calynbanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This theory goes against the character of God. If this is true then it is something that creates a stumbling block for many, many people. Do you remember what Jesus said about stumbling blocks? Do you think God would create a stumbling block?

  10. lone77star profile image71
    lone77starposted 11 years ago

    The creator and owner of the universe is hardly a hoax.

    No, we do not now believe the Bible was wrong. What is wrong is interpretation. People interpret the Bible to say many things it doesn't say. People also used to believe that the world was flat and that the sun, moon, stars and planets were hung on crystal spheres above the earth.

    Belief never makes something true. Your statement that "We now believe The Bible was wrong," doesn't make that true, either.

    The 6,000-year-old Earth is the product of Archbishop Ussher's interpretation of history and the Bible. His scholarship in his 1650 book was outstanding, for its day, but we have to realize that science was still in its infancy. Isaac Newton was only 7 years old. And later, when Sir Isaac Newton had gained some of his reputation, he also came up with a similar biblical timeline. But Ussher's work included dates that are close to or match historical dates we still use in our standard textbooks -- dates like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. We can thank Ussher for this.

    But even Ussher would likely reject his own timeline, if he knew what we know today. For instance, his date for the Flood was 2348 BC. Now, we know that 3 years after this date Egypt's sixth dynasty was started. Where in the heck did all those extra people come from if Noah and his family were the only ones on Earth 3 years earlier? Thirteen years after this date, Sargon the Great conquered Sumer. See what I mean?

    Clearly, Ussher's dates are all wrong for the earlier part of the timeline.

    Now, we know from science that humans have been around for at least 200,000 years. That age seems to keep growing longer and longer. Thirty years ago, the age was closer to 50,000 years. It keeps changing through new discoveries.

    So, the literal interpretation of Genesis is too short. If Genesis has truth (and I know it does), then the ages of those early patriarchs need to be extended greatly. How can it be that Methuselah was thousands of years old, instead of 969 years? Genesis 5:2 gives us a clue. In it, Adam is declared to be male and female and a "them" instead of a "him." The names in Genesis represent the eponymous tribes of early man. A tribe can last for thousands of years, even though its founder may only have lived to age 60.

    I've discovered a timeline in Genesis which is compatible with those of science. I discuss the details of this and other discoveries in my Genesis series.

    1. John Sarkis profile image81
      John Sarkisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That was the point I was trying to make by posing the question.  We, (when I say we I'm including myself as we're all influenced by the media to some extent) have been hoodwinked into believing science is correct and The Bible is nonsense....

  11. Abluesfornina profile image60
    Abluesforninaposted 11 years ago

    For most scientist that seems to be the case but it's rather ironic to me that they feel that way since a lot of bible history coincides with science discovery.

    1. Michele Travis profile image65
      Michele Travisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I find that interesting also.

  12. Diane Woodson profile image61
    Diane Woodsonposted 11 years ago

    No it did not. God is infallible, omniscient, omnipresent and cannot lie neither can his HOLY BIBLE. The Bible is irrefutable in its HISTORY and in its TRUTH.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)