Atheists: Why has science not been able to disprove what's written in the Bible?

[bizerinm]

Why has science not been able to disprove what's written in the Bible?

[Nikinger]

It's because the perception of a religious being what a proof is (not) doesn't match with the scientific view.
You can't even disprove 1+1=3 to someone who rejects every word you say (doesn't listen at you).

[Chinatsu]

It's because there are millions who devoted there life to religion. And they are not disproving it rather, they are trying to find an explanation to the miracles happened on the bible.

[james.lent]

It's because there are a lot of things which science have yet to explain. If and once every occurrence in our universe is explained, then i guess science would be able to disapprove the scriptures.

[modrikix]

Science is talking about revolution on mindset and technologies then the religion itself contain questionable that seem mystery
Combining - MAGNET and - MAGNET : repel
Same goes with science that never cannot proof what state in Bible

Science create by human unexpected brainstorm through thousand years of searching and experiments ,then its become a ancient once it overcast
Bible is a state that cannot be changed ,add, reduce on contains and it may leave in society mind by years goes up


#LYow

[ukeden]

Religiots: Why has the bible not been able to disprove what's written in science books?

[Dekker3D]

Religiots: Why has the bible not been able to disprove what's written in science books?

Atheiots, Uhmm, maybe because Bible has been written in the past and no longer growing while science is the opposite. So obviously the past can no longer do something about it that why it's past.

[capcher]

Why has science not been able to disprove what's written in the Bible?

This is what I understand: God's existence is scientifically unfalsifiable, meaning that you cannot prove God doesn't exist or disprove that God exists. But the point is this: science's being unable disprove God's existence is not proof that God exists.

To paraphrase Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy: let's say someone claims that there is a teapot revolving around the sun between Earth and Mars, and that the teapot is so tiny that not even our most powerful telescope can observe it. Given that we're incapable of proving the space teapot doesn't exist, does that mean we are supposed to accept the teacup's existence as a fact?