NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

EDIT: (27/06/2006) For anyone new trying to read this thread, I suppose I ought to tell you its purpose, since fundamentally it has achieved that purpose. Most of you will read the above and cry 'But that's impossible!'. Interestingly enough, youre exactly right, and reached the deduction I was expecting you to. You are correct in thinking that it is impossible to prove or disprove God.

Therefore, you must agree that God is possible.
And you must also agree that the non-existance of God is possible also.

It's up to you what you choose to believe. Against the laws of rationality, I choose to believe in God. But if you choose to not, then I wont be personally offended. In the meantime, lets make an effort to recognize the above when debating the existance (or non-existance) of God. It is not so rediculous afterall to believe in him, nor is the belief in God rediculous in itself (given it's entire possibility). Likewise, I encourage Christians (or any religion for that matter) to have some respect for non-believers, and understand that their points are just as valid also (since the non-existance of God is entirely possible also) ;)

With that in mind, peace out. I achieved what I needed to achieve today :D

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. If scientists had to disprove every crackpot idea, we could never make progress. So, it is up to the person or people claiming their own truth to show that that truth is valid.

I am reminded of a certain piece of cookware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)...

1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?





1) Jesus did exist, they believe he wasn't the son of god.

2) You can't prove it either way.

3) It counterdicts itself.

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. If scientists had to disprove every crackpot idea, we could never make progress. So, it is up to the person or people claiming their own truth to show that that truth is valid.


HaHa...You got nothing.:D

Ah, but Christians are asked to prove their beliefs when they speak of them as undeniable certainty. If they just limited themselves to declare their opinions as simply based on their beliefs there would be no problem whatsoever.

But if they want to pass their beliefs as absolute irrefutable truth, then they'll have to prove that that's what they are. Since the burden of proof is in the one making the affirmation and proving a negative is nearly illogical, that's why they have to prove it.

The aliens told me there wasn't any God. Why would they lie?

HaHa...You got nothing.:D
I don't have to "have" anything. You're the one asserting the existence of some sky-deity, ergo, it is up to you to prove your assertion. Do I have to disprove Shiva? Thor? Zeus? The Tooth-Fairy? No. Anybody claiming these beings really exist must prove that they exist -- it is not my responsibility to disprove them. Same goes for God.

Poster A: Prove that <insert religious person/event here> existed.
Poster B: Prove it didn't
*repeat for several hundred pages*
*thread stagnates*
*spammers move in*
*new thread appears*

Now we could all stop this, and become agnostic. But fence-sitting is no fun so this model will be able to describe NSG for years to come. (Until of course the robocalypse occurs)

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

Hmmm ... there's gonna be lots of spark for this one ....
as for 1-i don't have any proof that Jesus doesn't exist, but i do have proof that he's mostly amalgamation of Horus/Mithra mythos. As far as his existence not qualifying Messiah, you should punch up the Curse of Jeconiah and digest that from the source material itself.
2- i don't have any proof that there isn't a god, but i don't really need any either. I should point out, though, that the Old Testament god is, by all accounts, a twisted, evil piece of f*cking sh*t, and unworthy of worship. Good thing the christians decided to bypass that issue by shifting, in the breaking-the-10 Commandments kind of way, to the worship of Jesus instead of God.
3- The material itself is quite contradictory at times to ITSELF, for which you're welcome to check out some of that material and decide for yourself.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

If ya want more, hollaback.

Prove this guy didn't create the universe, then we'll talk.

http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg

Hmm....

Do I bother to care and spend my entire life searching for proof that God either exists or doesn't exist, dealing with frustration on the internet as people will reject whatever I say no matter what I say.

Or do I spend my life enriching my mind, educating myself, and enjoying this gift of life and this wonderful opportunity I have to live a good life?

Damn, tough choices...

I don't have to "have" anything. You're the one asserting the existence of some sky-deity, ergo, it is up to you to prove your assertion. Do I have to disprove Shiva? Thor? Zeus? The Tooth-Fairy? No. Anybody claiming these beings really exist must prove that they exist -- it is not my responsibility to disprove them. Same goes for God.


I am not claiming anything dipshit. I am just laughing because you won't disprove god..or atleast back up your atheism. Care to prove jesus never lived?



FYI, I am agnostic numbnuts.:D

Prove this guy didn't create the universe, then we'll talk.

http://www.randomfate.net/MT/media/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg

WTF is that!

I am not claiming anything dipshit. I am just laughing because you won't disprove god..or atleast back up your atheism. Care to prove jesus never lived?



FYI, I am agnostic numbnuts.:D
All togther now...

Disbelievers do not have to prove God. Believers do.

And your agnosticism doesn't make a difference. Asking a disbeliever to prove the non-existence of God is a silly request no matter who you are.

EDIT: Looking back, I just realized that I got you confused with the OP -- that's why I was saying that you were claiming this and that. Eh... it's almost 4AM... forgive me. :p

I am not claiming anything dipshit. I am just laughing because you won't disprove god..or atleast back up your atheism. Care to prove jesus never lived?



FYI, I am agnostic numbnuts.:D

The ones claiming the existence of magic sky-faeries are the ones who need to prove it. The ones saying 'magic sky faeries sound highly unlikely, and thus I don't believe in their existence' aren't making any claims and thus have no need to prove anything, capiche?

All togther now...

Disbelievers do not have to prove God. Believers do.

And your agnosticism doesn't make a difference. Asking a disbeliever to prove the non-existence of God is a silly request no matter who you are.


He asked for more than that silly. You didn't state why you think the bible is fake now did you?

1) Jesus did exist

There is absolutely no conclusive proof in any way that Jesus existed.

And, remember kids, burden of proof always falls on those arguing the Affirmative case, not the Negative case. It is impossible to proove a negative, all you can do is debunk the proof for a positive.

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. If scientists had to disprove every crackpot idea, we could never make progress. So, it is up to the person or people claiming their own truth to show that that truth is valid.

I am reminded of a certain piece of cookware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)...

Who mentioned scientists? What has science got to do with God? Answer me that!

I wonder why do the NSG christians insist in calling everyone who doesn't believe in 'God' an atheist...:rolleyes:

The ones claiming the existence of magic sky-faeries are the ones who need to prove it. The ones saying 'magic sky faeries sound highly unlikely, and thus I don't believe in their existence' aren't making any claims and thus have no need to prove anything, capiche?

Cause we all know they have to prove their ways but you don't. Who needs to back anything up..Why is it unlikely? If you don't believe you should be readt to explain why and prove it. You can't just say..NO YOU PROVE IT!!!:upyours: :upyours: And then walk away with a smirk on your face. They say god created earth....you say he didn't....can either of you prove it? Now stop being a coward.

I wonder why do the NSG christians insist in calling everyone who doesn't believe in 'God' an atheist...:rolleyes:



Because most who don't are.....Just an accurate statement.

He asked for more than that silly. You didn't state why you think the bible is fake now did you?
Just because he asked for it doesn't mean I have to give it to him. It's his responsibility to prove, not mine.

Others have answered for me, anyway: the Bible is contradictory in many, many places.

Who mentioned scientists? What has science got to do with God? Answer me that!
Science has little to do with God, but much to do with how we craft a consistent, credible, and reliable worldview. Besides, I was just using scientific progress as an example. The onus of proof always lies with the claimant, no matter what the situation is.

There is absolutely no conclusive proof in any way that Jesus existed.

And, remember kids, burden of proof always falls on those arguing the Affirmative case, not the Negative case. It is impossible to proove a negative, all you can do is debunk the proof for a positive.


.....................What do you want? A photograph?

Because most who don't are.....Just an accurate statement.

That's not necessarily true...I don't believe in the christian God, but i still believe in superior deities.

.....................What do you want? A photograph?
LMAO!

Just because he asked for it doesn't mean I have to give it to him. It's his responsibility to prove, not mine.

Others have answered for me, anyway: the Bible is contradictory in many, many places.


Science has little to do with God, but much to do with how we craft a consistent, credible, and reliable worldview. Besides, I was just using scientific progress as an example. The onus of proof always lies with the claimant, no matter what the situation is.


You can't can you? Can he prove it? NO! So...both of you shaaadup!

That's not necessarily true...I don't believe in the christian God, but i still believe in superior deities.


LMAO!



Still, a lot here are atheists.


Just asking what he wants to prove it.

Ah, but Christians are asked to prove their beliefs when they speak of them as undeniable certainty. If they just limited themselves to declare their opinions as simply based on their beliefs there would be no problem whatsoever.

But if they want to pass their beliefs as absolute irrefutable truth, then they'll have to prove that that's what they are. Since the burden of proof is in the one making the affirmation and proving a negative is nearly illogical, that's why they have to prove it.

This by far is the best answer. I should probably note, although you would have picked up already, that I am infact a Christian myself.

I believe in God, I believe that he sent Jesus to do away with the power of Sin, and to establish the new covenant. I believe in the trinity, although I have no proof that it exists - I acknowledge my beliefs are faith based, and could sometimes contradict "science". Although, I do not believe that God is bound by the rules of science, nor do I believe that everything God is, or has done, can seem logical.

I simply believe, because I choose to.

1) Now a question for all of you... given that I have absolutely no proof, I acknowledge that sometimes my beliefs go against science... and that sometimes it can seem illogical... does that make me wrong?

2) Or does it simply give the possibility that I believe in something that could be possible?

Examine the following: Given that if God is as according to most christians claim; he is all powerful, all knowing, and limitness in nature (and assumingly has the ability to defy logical understanding when and if he wants to). According to this, it is entirely possible for him to be real, and entirely possible for him to not. But since we can not infalliably prove or disprove either way, is it fair to call either side definitely wrong... ?

You can't can you? Can he prove it? NO! So...both of you shaaadup!
Why do you refuse to listen? Maybe if Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29) says it instead:

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a hypothesis must be true, solely on the grounds that it has not been proven false. For example, in argument, it could occur:

* "How come you think the loch ness monster exists?"
* "Well, how come you think it doesn't exist?"

Another form of this kind of fallacious argument is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"[1]

This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default.

Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations.

This fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of God, and the existence of aliens in the following form:

* "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the converse is also true, according to the argument from ignorance:

* "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist".

Satisfied?

Why do you refuse to listen? Maybe if Wikipedia says it instead:



Satisfied?


One little error.....THEY DON'T TALK LIKE THAT!:rolleyes: Shaddup!

1) Now a question for all of you... given that I have absolutely no proof, I acknowledge that sometimes my beliefs go against science... and that sometimes it can seem illogical... does that make me wrong?

2) Or does it simply give the possibility that I believe in something that could be possible?

IF you believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and that the dinosaurs didn't existed, then, it makes you wrong. Otherwise, you're another regular joe who believes in a religion. :p

One little error.....THEY DON'T TALK LIKE THAT!:rolleyes: Shaddup!
What is your deal? The OP asked skeptics to disprove God, Jesus, and the Bible. Basic rules of logical reasoning say that that is not the responsibility of the skeptics.

IF you believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and that the dinosaurs didn't existed, then, it makes you wrong. Otherwise, you're another regular joe who believes in a religion. :p

I can think of another word.

I can think of another word.
Stupid? :confused:

What is your deal? The OP asked skeptics to disprove God, Jesus, and the Bible. Basic rules of logical reasoning say that that is not the responsibility of the skeptics.


Why don't you just give him what he wants instead of refusing? Is that so hard?

Cause we all know they have to prove their ways but you don't. Who needs to back anything up..Why is it unlikely? If you don't believe you should be readt to explain why and prove it. You can't just say..NO YOU PROVE IT!!!:upyours: :upyours: And then walk away with a smirk on your face. They say god created earth....you say he didn't....can either of you prove it? Now stop being a coward.

It's impossible to disprove things. I've explained why I don't believe, it's silly to believe in faeries without evidence. I've even said I can't disprove them. It's unlikely because there's nothing to suggest it, magic isn't provable.

I'm not being a coward (telling you that you're an idiot isn't cowardly, it's just stating the obvious) and honestly, everyone here is sick of your flamebaiting troll ass, so stfu n00b and stop wasting our time and bandwidth.

Can you disprove that I'm not behind you with a machete and a bad idea? Well then, you had best accept it as fact and soil yourself in fear.

Stupid? :confused:


THATS IT!

IF you believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and that the dinosaurs didn't existed, then, it makes you wrong. Otherwise, you're another regular joe who believes in a religion. :p

Prove to me that the Earth is older, and that dinosoars did exist. How do we know that God isnt the world's greatest prankster, and created the Earth with its history.

My point really, and the entire point of this thread, is that nobody can anything. So why do we even argue whether God exists or not, and get on with our lives? All I do see are arguements over this, and its pointless - nobody will ever be able to come out with a definitive answer.

It's impossible to disprove things. I've explained why I don't believe, it's silly to believe in faeries without evidence. I've even said I can't disprove them. It's unlikely because there's nothing to suggest it, magic isn't provable.

I'm not being a coward (telling you that you're an idiot isn't cowardly, it's just stating the obvious) and honestly, everyone here is sick of your flamebaiting troll ass, so stfu n00b and stop wasting our time and bandwidth.

Can you disprove that I'm not behind you with a machete and a bad idea? Well then, you had best accept it as fact and soil yourself in fear.


:rolleyes:



Such a waste of good oxygen. Who is forcing you to read my posts retard? Your flame proved how stupid you are. So just go away and come back when you learn how NOT to post like an idiot.

Kierkegaard argued that God is beyond human understanding and as such all human attempts to understand God through rationalisation and logic are bound to fail. Thus, theology and philosophy (and, by extension, science) are useless in trying to determine the nature of God: only through the irrationality of faith can any understanding be reached. Dostoevsky argued along similar lines.

I personally think it is a weak argument.

Can you disprove that I'm not behind you with a machete and a bad idea? Well then, you had best accept it as fact and soil yourself in fear.

He could turn around :rolleyes:

He could turn around :rolleyes:


He got my hopes up...Now I can't have any fun with him....:(

This by far is the best answer. I should probably note, although you would have picked up already, that I am infact a Christian myself.

I believe in God, I believe that he sent Jesus to do away with the power of Sin, and to establish the new covenant. I believe in the trinity, although I have no proof that it exists - I acknowledge my beliefs are faith based, and could sometimes contradict "science". Although, I do not believe that God is bound by the rules of science, nor do I believe that everything God is, or has done, can seem logical.

I simply believe, because I choose to.

1) Now a question for all of you... given that I have absolutely no proof, I acknowledge that sometimes my beliefs go against science... and that sometimes it can seem illogical... does that make me wrong?

2) Or does it simply give the possibility that I believe in something that could be possible?

Examine the following: Given that if God is as according to most christians claim; he is all powerful, all knowing, and limitness in nature (and assumingly has the ability to defy logical understanding when and if he wants to). According to this, it is entirely possible for him to be real, and entirely possible for him to not. But since we can not infalliably prove or disprove either way, is it fair to call either side definitely wrong... ?

I decided to quote this, because between the bickering and argueing (as funny as it is), I think it has been missed.

My point really, and the entire point of this thread, is that nobody can anything. So why do we even argue whether God exists or not, and get on with our lives? All I do see are arguements over this, and its pointless - nobody will ever be able to come out with a definitive answer.

How can you prove the pointlessness of this argument? You're wasting just as much time as we are.

Why don't you just give him what he wants instead of refusing? Is that so hard?
I'll go through this slowly:

1. He wants me to disprove God.

2. It is impossible to disprove God.

3. The above fact is OK, since it is not my responsibility to disprove, but his responsibility to prove.

4. Ergo, me refusing to do an impossible task is alright, and does nothing to weaken my position.

So please, please stop acting like we are all trying to dodge the issue.

Now excuse me while I go to sleep. *yawn*

How can you prove the pointlessness of this argument? You're wasting just as much time as we are.

Well my point is how silly it is to argue over the existance of God, or Jesus, or the Spagetti Monster (whatever he's actually called, I forget). Neither side will ever prove themselves to another, so if its an arguement with no possible resolution, why not put your differences aside and not argue to begin with?

My point really, and the entire point of this thread, is that nobody can anything. So why do we even argue whether God exists or not

As long as you don't go around saying that the dinosaurs didn't exist, you can even say that this guy created earth: http://www.aquateencentral.com/images/characters/shake.jpg

WTF is that!

Its the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The God of a parody religion created in protest to the teaching of ID in some US schools. Wiki has an entry:
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster)

I'll go through this slowly:

1. He wants me to disprove God.

2. It is impossible to disprove God.

3. The above fact is OK, since it is not my responsibility to disprove, but his responsibility to prove.

4. Ergo, me refusing to do an impossible task is alright, and does nothing to weaken my position.

So please, please stop acting like we are all trying to dodge the issue.



You were dodging.....Oh well.:rolleyes: And you are still dodging that Bible a jesus thing...But I guess you want to believe and not have to back it up. Go on...:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Such a waste of good oxygen. Who is forcing you to read my posts retard? Your flame proved how stupid you are. So just go away and come back when you learn how NOT to post like an idiot.

No one's forced me to, I never claimed anyone did. You come in here flaming atheists and complain when someone calls you a tool for acting like one. Upyours smilies are silly and make you look like a dumb troll. Ones who flame have no right to complain about getting flamed, sorry, it's the way it works.

He could turn around :rolleyes:

Unless there are items which I could hide behind. And, using the sort of logic he's pulling out "what if I'm invisible?" Yes, it's silly, and that's what I was hinting at. :)

Well my point is how silly it is to argue over the existance of God, or Jesus, or the Spagetti Monster (whatever he's actually called, I forget). Neither side will ever prove themselves to another, so if its an arguement with no possible resolution, why not put your differences aside and not argue to begin with?

We could do that, but then I at least would have nothing to do. Who knows, we might defy the odds and reach a resolution. Which was my point. You can't say for sure whether this can't be resolved. Although experience and what little common sense I have tells me that I'm full of s**t.

If they just limited themselves to declare their opinions as simply based on their beliefs there would be no problem whatsoever.
Have you read NSG lately?

As long as you don't go around saying that the dinosaurs didn't exist, you can even say that this guy created earth

<snip>

I think youre missing my point.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I do believe dinosoars existed. Even still, suppose that they didnt... and that God created five or six billion years worth of Earth's history as a means to hide the proof of his existance.

Why would God do that perhaps? Some ideas to throw around, are that perhaps he prefers it to be faith based, rather than something you can solidify with facts. Its possible, and I could see why he would prefer that.

In the meantime, we cannot prove nor disprove that dinosoars ever existed. I know that I wasnt around to really know, and Im not God... nor was I around at the time to tell you... so...

My point here, was that even if I didnt believe in dinosoars, my beliefs arent at all rediculous either.

We could do that, but then I at least would have nothing to do. Who knows, we might defy the odds and reach a resolution. Which was my point. You can't say for sure whether this can't be resolved. Although experience and what little common sense I have tells me that I'm full of s**t.

:D

Perhaps, as a means of entertain yourself, we could start sharing recipes... XD

.....................What do you want? A photograph?

Nope. A set of sources (I.E. public records, historians, speeches, non-Christian litterature) from contemporaries that offer concrete proof. All we have is the Bible, which is no confirmation of anything at all.

My point here, was that even if I didnt believe in dinosoars, my beliefs arent at all rediculous either.

It doesn't matter how hard you believe something or how many people believe it: it doesn't make it true.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I do believe dinosoars existed. Even still, suppose that they didnt... and that God created five or six billion years worth of Earth's history as a means to hide the proof of his existance.
On a side note, why the fuck would god have the trouble of forging earth's history and then have some old men write that he created it 6,000 years ago? That is totally senseless.

It doesn't matter how hard you believe something or how many people believe it: it doesn't make it true.

Quite true. Im not sure exactly what your point is exactly however, I could say the same for any of your beliefs.

Im simply arguing that it [i]could[/b] be true, we dont know for sure.

:D

Perhaps, as a means of entertain yourself, we could start sharing recipes... XD

I would if I had recipies to share and/or cooking ability :(

On a side note, why the fuck would god have the trouble of forging earth's history and then have some old men write that he created it 6,000 years ago? That is totally senseless.

Good point. So either the bible is true and the world is six thousand years old, or the bible is false and therefore by extention, God being false also.

Like I said however, we can't seem to prove either way. My point still stands.

You see, the problem with the major religions is that they all conveniently claim stuff like "we can't understand God's actions because he is infinitely smarter" and shit. If you analyze it from a neutral P.O.V. you will understand why we don't believe in 'God'.

On a side note, why the fuck would god have the trouble of forging earth's history and then have some old men write that he created it 6,000 years ago? That is totally senseless.

As a test of faith. Jist like why there is suffering in the world. God wnats to know that you can belive in hime without emperical evidence; sort of that you trust him I gues.

. So either the bible is true and the world is six thousand years old, or the bible is false and therefore by extention, God being false also.

There IS scientific proof that earth is way older than that.

you can even say that this guy created earth:
http://www.aquateencentral.com/images/characters/shake.jpg

Okay.
*worships soda cup*

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. If scientists had to disprove every crackpot idea, we could never make progress. So, it is up to the person or people claiming their own truth to show that that truth is valid.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As a test of faith. Jist like why there is suffering in the world. God wnats to know that you can belive in hime without emperical evidence; sort of that you trust him I gues.

No offense pal, but that's bullshit. Ain't God omniscient? Why would he need to test us?

Okay.
*worships soda cup*

He ain't a soda cup...He's Master Shake, the god of gods! *bows*

He ain't a soda cup...He's Master Shake, the god of gods! *bows*
My bad.
*worships*

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but there's no point in beleiving in something that you can't proove exists (Beyond, of course, the point that we have no proof anything exists, because causaility is faith).

But I'm an ignostic, so I guess it's a whatever.

You think there is no point. Religious people clearly think there is.

I'm agnostic. I just think that both the rabid atheists and the rabid Godfanatics are being dumb when they try to 'prove' themselves right.

No offense pal, but that's bullshit. Ain't God omniscient? Why would he need to test us?
Thankyou. I'm not too good with the metaphysical stuff. I think the reason the devout site is that we have free will. Or something like that.

As a test of faith. Jist like why there is suffering in the world. God wnats to know that you can belive in hime without emperical evidence; sort of that you trust him I gues.

This is why religious peoples' attempts to, as they see it, engage with science, are doomed from the start. Science is about examining evidence in order to reach a conclusion. What you are doing is starting with the conclusion you want, then trying to make the evidence fit it.

There is absolutely no conclusive proof in any way that Jesus existed.

There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than for the existance of Julius Caesar (even if you discount Christian writings).
Also, the earliest of the writings about Jesus come from much sooner after the event than the earliest about Julius Casesar.

That's not a Euclidian proof for his existance, but in the historical sense it is very nearly as good as it gets.

There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than for the existance of Julius Caesar (even if you discount Christian writings).

links please. Also the fact that he existed does not make him the son of God by default.

You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does [/religious argument]
You can't prove god exists, therefore he doesn't [/non-religious argument]

Either this method of proof is true. Self-contradictory. Rocks fall, everyone dies.

Or this method of proof doesn't work. And there goes all previously stated arguments from this thread.

You cannot disprove God, but there is evidence SUGGESTING that (S)He doesn't exist. Evidence that is confirmed by many different other pieces of evidence.

The evidence towards God existing is self-confirming. It's true because it says it is. It has no supporting evidence, and as such is purely a matter of faith. You have to believe the bible in order to have reason to believe, if you don't there is no reason to believe it.

It's impossible to disprove things. I've explained why I don't believe, it's silly to believe in faeries without evidence. I've even said I can't disprove them. It's unlikely because there's nothing to suggest it, magic isn't provable.

I'm not being a coward (telling you that you're an idiot isn't cowardly, it's just stating the obvious) and honestly, everyone here is sick of your flamebaiting troll ass, so stfu n00b and stop wasting our time and bandwidth.

Can you disprove that I'm not behind you with a machete and a bad idea? Well then, you had best accept it as fact and soil yourself in fear.

:rolleyes:



Such a waste of good oxygen. Who is forcing you to read my posts retard? Your flame proved how stupid you are. So just go away and come back when you learn how NOT to post like an idiot.

naa naa naa

naa naa naa

naa naa naa

Thankyou. I'm not too good with the metaphysical stuff. I think the reason the devout site is that we have free will. Or something like that.

Neither am I, actually. I've never read the bible and the few times i went to the church was because of the chicks...Damn, i'm so going to hell.:(

Anyway, even if it were because of Free Will, it would still make no sense. I mean, you know what i'm saying? The dude is omniscient.

Efenn, youre entire arguement here seems to be getting into the idea that youre trying to disprove the existance of God, but I believe that we've already established that disproving or proving anything for sure is impossible, so Im not going to get into that arguement with you.

On the other hand... I could simply respond by saying that if God is who he says he is, then he must have the ability to be above science. So the idea that the Earth has been scientifically proven, might be true, but God being well, God, Im sure he would have a way with dealing with that.

Perhaps he had a reason for creating a pre-aged earth, I dont know.

But if you ever meet him sometime, maybe you can ask him for me?

Let me further clarify, Im just arguing that its possible. Im not asking you to believe.

Also, as a Christmas Gift to my good friend Dryks Legacy, please observe the following.

Perfect Prime Rib

With a high price tag and formidable size of a rib roast, most home cooks seldom tackle the task of roasting one. But, preparing a perfect rib roast is easy, once you learn the basics.

Solve the Meat Mystery

Shopping for a roast can be confusing because the very same cut of meat can be called by several different names. "Prime rib" is the most famous moniker for this cut, but the word "prime" actually describes the grade of the meat, not the cut. The top three grades of beef are Prime, Choice and Select.

Meats graded "Prime" are sold almost exclusively to restaurants, so while you may have eaten Prime rib in a restaurant before, you probably won't be able to buy a Prime rib roast at the grocery store. Instead, look for a Choice cut by the name of "rib roast," "eye of the rib roast" or "standing rib roast." A rib roast can be boneless, in which case it may be called an "eye of the rib" roast, or it can have the ribs still attached--and may be called a "standing rib" roast. The meat will be more flavorful if you roast it with the ribs still attached, but a boneless roast is definitely easier to carve; the choice is up to you. If you do buy a roast with the ribs still attached, make sure the butcher removes the chine bone (the backbone) first, or the roast will be very difficult to carve.

How Much to Buy

Allow at least six ounces of cooked, trimmed meat per adult. A boneless roast will give you about two servings per pound, and a bone-in roast will give you one to one-and-a-half servings.
Season Simply

Rib roast doesn't need a marinade or any complicated preparations; the meat speaks for itself. If you like, you can prepare a simple seasoning rub: fresh herbs, lemon zest, garlic, pepper and Dijon mustard are all good matches for beef. To infuse even more flavor into the meat, sliver the garlic, make tiny slits in the roast and insert the garlic bits. You can cover the meat with the spice rub up to 24 hours in advance; wrap it tightly with plastic wrap and refrigerate until you're ready to roast. No need to bring the meat up to room temperature first; you're going for a pink center, so it's okay if the outside heats up faster than the inside. Don't salt the roast until right before cooking.
Roasting Tips

Place the meat in a roasting pan that's slightly bigger than the roast itself. If the pan is too big, the juices from the meat will spread out in the pan and evaporate. For a boneless roast, it's best to use a roasting rack. If you've chosen a bone-in roast, the bones themselves will serve as your roasting rack. One side of the meat will have more fat on it; you want this side facing up so the meat will baste itself as it cooks. Don't add water to the pan, and whatever you do, don't cover it!

Time and Temperature

There are two ways you can roast it:

1. At a low temperature for a long time, or
2. At a high temperature for a shorter time.

Your roast will shrink less if you cook it low and slow, but you won't get the same flavorful, well-browned exterior that a high roasting temperature gives you.

It's possible to combine the two methods by starting the roast at a high temperature to sear the outside of it, then turning down the oven after 30 to 45 minutes to finish the roasting. If roasting at 325 degrees F (165 degrees C), the meat will take about 17 to 20 minutes per pound. If you start the roast at 450 degrees F (235 degrees C) for the first 30 minutes and then reduce the temperature to 325 degrees F (165 degrees C), allow about 13 to 15 minutes per pound.

The Real Secret to a Perfect Prime Rib

A thermometer is the absolute best way to guarantee the roast turns out exactly the way you want it. For an accurate reading, push the thermometer into the middle of the roast, making sure the tip is not touching fat or bone (or the pan!). We recommend you cook this cut of meat to medium rare (130-140 degrees F/55-60 degrees C) or medium (145-155 degrees F/63-68 degrees C). Cooking it beyond medium is a waste of a superior cut of meat. Remember that the roast's temperature will rise at least 5 degrees after you remove it from the oven. Let the roast stand for 15 or 20 minutes before carving to let the juices return to the center.

The slices taken from the ends of the roast will be the most done, and the middle will be the least done, so you should be able to suit the preferences of everyone at the table. Serve with pan drippings and horseradish on the side.

No, but there's no point in beleiving in something that you can't proove exists (Beyond, of course, the point that we have no proof anything exists, because causaility is faith).

But I'm an ignostic, so I guess it's a whatever.

there is a point, people are religious because physical explanations of the world around them arent good enough for them so they seek understanding on a spiritual level. believeing in god has uses, therefore god does exist whether as a real deity or a construct of the human mind. btw being a construct of the human mind does mean that god exists any less.

Efenn, youre entire arguement here seems to be getting into the idea that youre trying to disprove the existance of God, but I believe that we've already established that disproving or proving anything for sure is impossible, so Im not going to get into that arguement with you.
No, you're getting it all wrong. I'm actually trying to resolve my own doubts. Seriously! I'm not trying to disprove god, like i said, i'm not an atheist. Right now, i'm trying to find out why would an omniscient entity need to test us, that's all. Do you think i'm trying to convert you or something? :p

Neither am I, actually. I've never read the bible and the few times i went to the church was because of the chicks...Damn, i'm so going to hell.:(

Anyway, even if it were because of Free Will, it would still make no sense. I mean, you know what i'm saying? The dude is omniscient.

The point is we have to chose. Like Adam + Eve chose to eat the knowlage fruit ih the garden of eden. God seems to be obsesed with the idea of testing people. Like Job. He got leporasy, his family were killed and his property destroyed by God. Just to prove to the devil that he would remain faithfull.

Like Job. He got leporasy, his family were killed and his property destroyed by God. Just to prove to the devil that he would remain faithfull.
Really? :eek: Holy crap, that God guy is mean...:(

P.S. I'm just kidding. :p

Unless you've read "Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah" by Richard Bach, you will never truely understand my belief system.

I don't believe in God, I believe in myself, and my perception of the world. It is what I make it.

I also believe in Retrospective Fate (For want of a better term) whereupon everything that has happened, had to happen.

There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than for the existance of Julius Caesar (even if you discount Christian writings).
Also, the earliest of the writings about Jesus come from much sooner after the event than the earliest about Julius Casesar.


The evangelists like to come up with that claim, but it relies on ignorance of historical context.

Have you ever stopped to wonder how written evidence survives for 2,000 years? Generally, it's because people kept making new copies to replace old and worn out ones.
How did they choose which documents to copy? They chose important ones.
Who decided which ones were important? After 325AD, Christians did.

The evangelists like to come up with that claim, but it relies on ignorance of historical context.

Have you ever stopped to wonder how written evidence survives for 2,000 years? Generally, it's because people kept making new copies to replace old and worn out ones.
How did they choose which documents to copy? They chose important ones.
Who decided which ones were important? After 325AD, Christians did.

That is true. I've never heard of thousands of preists and monks copying by hand Julius Ceaser's Biography.

And of course, who else would? No-one had the time.

No, you're getting it all wrong. I'm actually trying to resolve my own doubts. Seriously! I'm not trying to disprove god, like i said, i'm not an atheist. Right now, i'm trying to find out why would an omniscient entity need to test us, that's all. Do you think i'm trying to convert you or something? :p

Hehehe,

Alright, I can offer my suggestion, which I wasnt going to get into beforehand. But I will firstly say, it is only a suggestion.

I personally believe that God chose not to make his existance definitive, because he wanted to give people the chance to seek him. The bible says "Seek and you shall find", perhaps it is that without having any need to seek him (knowing that he exists for sure), people simply wouldnt, and it is with my experience that if you want the breakthrough in any particular area, you first must seek it out.

In other words, sitting on your butt achieves nothing; and I think God recognizes this, therefore hasnt made his existance a definitive yes or no. The power is in the mystery, perhaps?

If you want some more definitive answers, I dont mind making some enquiries. Im sure one of my Pastors will be able to offer a better explaination than I. Infact, Im certain he would - I know this Pastor, he knows so much. :eek:

I personally believe that God chose not to make his existance definitive, because he wanted to give people the chance to seek him. The bible says "Seek and you shall find", perhaps it is that without having any need to seek him (knowing that he exists for sure), people simply wouldnt, and it is with my experience that if you want the breakthrough in any particular area, you first must seek it out.
Ok, but i still don't get what he did to poor Job. :(
I mean, i understand your point there, on why he wouldn't just come down to Earth and say "Come my children, let's all go to heaven", but i still don't get why he would need to cause so much pain just so he could know something that he already knew, you know what i'm saying? That is one of my biggest issues with the christian God. He seems so...evil.

Sorry. According to wiki God lets Satan do all the stuff to Job. God Does not do it himself but father sanctions the Devil to do so. Still nasty. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_%28Biblical_figure%29)

Satan says to God. "Hey this dude is just paying you lip service" Says God "Well because I can't actually find out, because I cannot see into man's heart and check if he believes in me or not" "You can beat the shit out of him, destroy his life, slaughter his family. If he still claims to believe in me, I'll make it worth his while".

Edit: Yay God, for something so omnipotent He can't even check if people believe Him. Of course, he has more power than St. Peter. OH NOES> I AM SHOOTING LAZERS OUT MY EYES.

Satan says to God. "Hey this dude is just paying you lip service" Says God "Well because I can't actually find out, because I cannot see into man's heart and check if he believes in me or not" "You can beat the shit out of him, destroy his life, slaughter his family. If he still claims to believe in me, I'll make it worth his while".
I always tought God was omniscient...:confused:
Still, that was plain mean.

Satan says to God. "Hey this dude is just paying you lip service" Says God "Well because I can't actually find out, because I cannot see into man's heart and check if he believes in me or not" "You can beat the shit out of him, destroy his life, slaughter his family. If he still claims to believe in me, I'll make it worth his while".

Edit: Yay God, for something so omnipotent He can't even check if people believe Him. Of course, he has more power than St. Peter. OH NOES> I AM SHOOTING LAZERS OUT MY EYES.

Its really more in the field of omniscience that that falls down. He should already know. But the counter-argument is that it is less about God finding out what you do, more about finding out about yourself.

I always tought God was omniscient...:confused:
Still, that was plain mean.

Ok, I paraphrased a little. But really, why couldn't he tell if Job believed in him?

Its really more in the field of omniscience that that falls down. He should already know. But the counter-argument is that it is less about God finding out what you do, more about finding out about yourself.

Satan didn't say "If he goes through a rough time, he wont believe in you" It was "He currently doesn't"

And why did God believe Satan anyway? Or was this before He knew that Satan was a naughty boy (Again, shouldn't He know?)

Ok, but i still don't get what he did to poor Job. :(
I mean, i understand your point there, on why he wouldn't just come down to Earth and say "Come my children, let's all go to heaven", but i still don't get why he would need to cause so much pain just so he could know something that he already knew, you know what i'm saying? That is one of my biggest issues with the christian God. He seems so...evil.

Actually, the reason why God will sometimes allow things to come against us, is because it will benefit us one way or another. Consider a diamond, and how it is formed... (heat and pressure). Like this analogy, if God didnt allow heat and pressure to come against us, we couldnt turn into diamonds.

It wasnt God who 'made' these things happen to Job. It was the enemy who believed that he could overcome Job's faithfullness, and God allowed this test to come upon him. As a result, Job might have lost a lot of things which were important to him, but it created character... and as a result the enemy failed. The level of faithfullness that Job had now, was as hard as a diamond. And the example he became to christians everywhere, immortalised him in the Bible forever.

I'll also note the following:

10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before. 11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver [a] and a gold ring.

12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 17 And so he died, old and full of years.

Job was tested, but as a reward to measure his success, God gave him twice as what he had before. In the meantime, this is an example to illustrate that if you have faith in God no matter what is brought against you - then you a bound to overcome, and you can overcome anything with great success.

Sometimes terrible things will happen, and people ask questions like "Why would God let this happen?". My answer, and the only answer I know is "Sometimes bad things will happen, but God understands a bigger picture."

I hope this somewhat answers your question.

I always tought God was omniscient...:confused:
Still, that was plain mean.

Mean? Oh no, God defines what's right and what's wrong. (So Christians always win the moral argument.)
He also defines what's possible and what's impossible. (So Christians can ignore science.)
He also reveals His word to us through the Bible. (Except for the bits we don't like the look of - Christians just ignore those.)

Satan didn't say "If he goes through a rough time, he wont believe in you" It was "He currently doesn't"

And why did God believe Satan anyway? Or was this before He knew that Satan was a naughty boy (Again, shouldn't He know?)

Yes he should, but evidently he doesn't. Yet another inconsistency in the dogm... I mean entirely factual, sensible, reasonable story that we should all base our lives on. :rolleyes:

Here is the verse where God agrees for Satan to test Job. :P

Job 2
1 On another day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

4 "Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life. 5 But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face."

6 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life."

Yes he should, but evidently he doesn't. Yet another inconsistency in the dogm... I mean entirely factual, sensible, reasonable story that we should all base our lives on. :rolleyes:

Its just another problem with the whole Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God.

<Snip>

It hasn't solved my problems.

This Thread is Prove the God doesn't exist.

The Bible shows that God exists (I read the Title as Prove that the Christian God doesn't exist).

The Bible states that God has certain powers.

The Bible then implies God doesn't.

According to the Bible, the whole Job thing, wasn't about proving his character (Prove: Testing or Trying), but about finding out how he truely felt. Why would the God described elsewhere in the Bible have to do this? God knows all, and knows the outcome of what happened before it did. God doesn't need to do that to find out if Job was lying to him (Letting something happen is doing something when you are all-powerful, just as inaction is infact an action (Often reffered to by the 'amusing' fact that "No comment" is a comment.)

Actually, the reason why God will sometimes allow things to come against us, is because it will benefit us one way or another. Consider a diamond, and how it is formed... (heat and pressure). Like this analogy, if God didnt allow heat and pressure to come against us, we couldnt turn into diamonds.
I see...

It wasnt God who 'made' these things happen to Job. It was the enemy who believed that he could overcome Job's faithfullness, and God allowed this test to come upon him.
It still kind of looks like gambling to me. "His soul says that i can get him to stop believing you!".

The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys
That's a lot of ass. :p
Sorry, i couldn't resist.

Here is the verse where God agrees for Satan to test Job. :P

Job 2
1 On another day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

4 "Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life. 5 But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face."

6 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life."

So God let Satan do it, to prove (Provide proof) that God was right. God is always right, no?

Silly Satan, God is the ultimate truth, and if ever otherwise, God changes the truth to make God's word True.

God does not need to provide proof or examples, or God would provide them for humans.

Im not really here to argue one point or another. The entire thread was created as a joke, to illustrate that we couldnt that God exists, or doesnt exist. And Im not really here to argue what God did, or what God didnt do to Job. I was trying to answer questions I was asked. If this is gonna turn into some debate, Im not really personally interested into getting into it.

If this is gonna turn into some debate, Im not really personally interested into getting into it.

Eh? "If this is gonna turn into some debate"?
What were you expecting it to turn into, a game of snakes and ladders?

Im not really here to argue one point or another. The entire thread was created as a joke, to illustrate that we couldnt that God exists, or doesnt exist. And Im not really here to argue what God did, or what God didnt do to Job. I was trying to answer questions I was asked. If this is gonna turn into some debate, Im not really personally interested into getting into it.

I apologise for trying to draw you into an argument. I was taking this thread seriously, and doing (What I feel is) the right thing, by arguing from the position whereupon the opponent (Not opponent, but I'm too tired to think of a better word) is right.


A main issue with all this, is I feel there is enough evidence in the bible to prove itself wrong. But there were Gods before the Bible, and there will be Gods well after it ceases to exist.

I apologise for trying to draw you into an argument. I was taking this thread seriously, and doing (What I feel is) the right thing, by arguing from the position whereupon the opponent (Not opponent, but I'm too tired to think of a better word) is right.


A main issue with all this, is I feel there is enough evidence in the bible to prove itself wrong. But there were Gods before the Bible, and there will be Gods well after it ceases to exist.

I respect that belief.

"God is Dead" (Nietzsche, 1882)

"Nietzsche is Dead" (God, 1900)

I am not claiming anything dipshit. I am just laughing because you won't disprove god..or atleast back up your atheism. Care to prove jesus never lived?



FYI, I am agnostic numbnuts.:D

I think your dumbass is missing the point. God -can't- be disproven, and the only burden is on the nuts who claim he exists to prove it. Same with anything extraordinary about Jesus, other than he was a Jewish Carpenter.

FYI, Agnostics have no grounds whatsoever to even argue, they're the most confused group of them all. :D At least make a decision before you try to back it up.

For me, I guess it's not that I don't believe in God but I don't believe in Jesus. I can't give you specific reasons why..I just don't believe it. The Bible is gender-biased and it very often contradicts itself.

There is no way I could ever tell you that God doesn't exist. Even if he/she isn't what we've been told all our lives doesn't mean that he isn't real. But I think there's more than one higher power. Think about it. What came before God? What created God? And if he just went *poof* and came out of nowhere, how did that happen? It's a perpetual question and our minds can't expand that far.

Also, another theory I have is that every person has a God/Goddess inside of them. Some are 'good' and some are 'bad'.

I'm kind of shocked you didn't ask about hell or Satan.





-the Kate Vegas
love&.


P.S. George W. Bush is an ignorant redneck badly in need of an enema. :D

I wrote this in the FSM thread, but I thought i'll copy and paste it here as it is quite relevent:

"You misunderstand completely.

The concept of God, of perfection, of a creater etc... is a nescecerry question where each side of the debate is unknown.

The concept of a basic prime mover if you will, is down to either picking the cause, or the effect, as the beggining of a long chaing of events. The cause being God, the effect being matter just apearing for example.

Each side of the debate is totally unknown and as likely as each other, you cannot show either way to be true or untrue. However, due to many writings about the FSM, and how people should have witnessed him and he should be evident in nature, you can say that is extremely unlikely for him to exist as he is bound by many other issues.

But that has nothing to do with the idea of not disproving God."

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

Prove He does.

There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than for the existance of Julius Caesar (even if you discount Christian writings).
Also, the earliest of the writings about Jesus come from much sooner after the event than the earliest about Julius Casesar.

Dude, we have books written BY Julius Caesar! Commentarii de Bello Gallico (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.html)

We also have coins showing Julius which were minted during his lifetime:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/RSC_0022.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/jcaesar_coin.gif

Lots more pretty pictures of Caesar (http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-50,GGLD:en&q=julius+caesar+coin)

Not to mention other people's accounts of him. I challenge you to produce anything comparable for Jesus.

I don't buy the Jesus Myth theory either but what you're saying is just plain silly.

Efenn, youre entire arguement here seems to be getting into the idea that youre trying to disprove the existance of God, but I believe that we've already established that disproving or proving anything for sure is impossible, so Im not going to get into that arguement with you.

On the other hand... I could simply respond by saying that if God is who he says he is, then he must have the ability to be above science. So the idea that the Earth has been scientifically proven, might be true, but God being well, God, Im sure he would have a way with dealing with that.

Perhaps he had a reason for creating a pre-aged earth, I dont know.

But if you ever meet him sometime, maybe you can ask him for me?

Let me further clarify, Im just arguing that its possible. Im not asking you to believe.

Cartesian doubt is an interesting thinking exercise but you shouldn't take it too seriously or you'll get ideas like Last Thursdayism (the entire universe was created last Thursday and all evidence to the contrary, including memories, was fabricated by God).

On a deeper note, 'faking' the age of the Universe would be a sort of lie; would a perfect God be capable of lying?

Sometimes terrible things will happen, and people ask questions like "Why would God let this happen?". My answer, and the only answer I know is "Sometimes bad things will happen, but God understands a bigger picture."

If you haven't read Voltaire's Candide then I heartily recommend it. It's an extremely funny book which gleefully pokes holes in the optimistic 'everything is for the best' view of life.

It's probably a bit late to get it for Christmas now but you can probably find a translation online. ;)

Prove He does.

Well... that defeats the purpose of the thread. :D

Ok, but i still don't get what he did to poor Job. :(
I mean, i understand your point there, on why he wouldn't just come down to Earth and say "Come my children, let's all go to heaven", but i still don't get why he would need to cause so much pain just so he could know something that he already knew, you know what i'm saying? That is one of my biggest issues with the christian God. He seems so...evil.

job isnt meant to be taken literally. its a theological discussion of why bad things happen to good people.

job isnt meant to be taken literally. its a theological discussion of why bad things happen to good people.


I have an image of Job up in the clouds going:

'I went through ALL THAT and THAT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE!?!!?! Sonofabi...'

:D

I have an image of Job up in the clouds going:

'I went through ALL THAT and THAT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE!?!!?! Sonofabi...'

:D

:p

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. If scientists had to disprove every crackpot idea, we could never make progress. So, it is up to the person or people claiming their own truth to show that that truth is valid.

I am reminded of a certain piece of cookware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)...

Yes and if a scientist makes the extrordinary claim that God doesn't exist then it is the burden is upon him to proof that he doesn't. By your own logic it should be the scientist that disproves him.

Yes and if a scientist makes the extrordinary claim that God doesn't exist then it is the burden is upon him to proof that he doesn't. By your own logic it should be the scientist that disproves him.

You're just rephrasing it. Making a claim that something does not exist is not making a positive claim, it is refuting one. The burden of proof remains on those who insist that God does exist.

Otherwise, hey. "If Wyvern Knights makes the extraordinary claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist then it is the burden is upon him to proof that He doesn't." Fun how that works, I can see why you wanted to do it.

There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than for the existance of Julius Caesar (even if you discount Christian writings).
Also, the earliest of the writings about Jesus come from much sooner after the event than the earliest about Julius Casesar.

That's not a Euclidian proof for his existance, but in the historical sense it is very nearly as good as it gets.

I keep hearing this bullshit, and all I ever see is one questionable quote from Josephus tossed around as though it means something. Put up or shut up with a source, buddy.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Again, the basic rules of logic disagree.

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a hypothesis must be true, solely on the grounds that it has not been proven false. For example, in argument, it could occur:

* "How come you think the loch ness monster exists?"
* "Well, how come you think it doesn't exist?"

Another form of this kind of fallacious argument is, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted.

If a small child believes in fairies, does that mean that fairies automatically exist, simply because scientists have not conducted an exhaustive search of the planet to see whether they exist or not? No, that's ridiculous. If a person claims something exists, it is their responsibility to prove that such a thing exists. As many, many others have stated, it is impossible to prove a negative statement.

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

Le sigh.

First off, I'd like to point out that it's not MY job to prove he doesn't exist. I don't believe in him. He's YOUR fictional deity, and it's YOUR responsibility to prove he exists. Not the other way around.

"Atheists can't prove he doesn't exist, this proves he does" is not proof of anything. It's you trying to reassure yourself, or others.

Now. I shall give a few answers to your questions. A FEW! I'm not going in depth, because that would require work on my part.

1) Proof that he doesn't exist? I don't think I have any. I've never really felt the need to dispute the existance of Jesus. Merely point out the fact that people back then would think of simple magic tricks as miracles. Con men have always existed. Real magic never did. My speculation that Jesus didn't have magical powers comes from the basis that I don't believe in God. No God = no magic Jesus powers. The answer to this would be directly linked to proof against Christianity.

2) The omnipotence paradox (Stone too heavy to lift), proof against Christianity's claims (if Christianity is a hoax, their God specifically probably is as well), the fact that humans are naturally self important, and afraid of death (thinking there's an afterlife, and a powerful being that loves you is quite comforting). And then there's the fact that while Christians try over and over again to deny evidence against God, they never provide any FOR God. The fact that some of our evidence may not be perfect, doesn't automatically make you right. It doesn't exempt you from providing your own proof.

3) The basis that thousands of years ago, people believed Zeus made the lighting, and the rain was God crying. Hows that? Oh, and then there's the contradictions. Want an example?

The ten commandments. You know them right? God's great laws? One of them was thou shalt not kill. I like that one. It fits my chosen morals. But wait? Whats this? Deutronomy! Kill unruly children! Homosexuals! People who worship other gods! HEATHENS! INFIDELS! STONE THEM! Also, I believe right after God tells Moses he can't enter the promised land, we find that the promised land is already occupied. So what next? God helps the Israelites kill said occupants. Genocide. Right after that nice little "thou shalt not kill" law. Nice.

The bible even reflects the fact that it was made by mideval imbeciles. They apparently had a hard time keeping a continuity going. It's no "source of infinite wisdom". It can easily be stated that it doesn't cite real evidence as well.

Hows that? Answered your questions? I should hope so. Cause I'm not getting in depth.

I wrote this in the FSM thread, but I thought i'll copy and paste it here as it is quite relevent:

"You misunderstand completely.

The concept of God, of perfection, of a creater etc... is a nescecerry question where each side of the debate is unknown.

The concept of a basic prime mover if you will, is down to either picking the cause, or the effect, as the beggining of a long chaing of events. The cause being God, the effect being matter just apearing for example.

Each side of the debate is totally unknown and as likely as each other, you cannot show either way to be true or untrue. However, due to many writings about the FSM, and how people should have witnessed him and he should be evident in nature, you can say that is extremely unlikely for him to exist as he is bound by many other issues.

But that has nothing to do with the idea of not disproving God."

He shalt quote himself, to enlighten thy blind ones.

What would constitute proof that god doesn't exist?

Believers have so many outs I don't think anything could disprove the existance of an all powerful being who works "in mysterious ways".

I could make the statement the -1 apples weigh exactly 5 grams and I defy you to disprove it. You would have to produce -1 apple and weigh it. You might argue that negative apples don't exist. Prove it. I say they do.

Fortunately I don't feel complelled to save everyone, so proving the non- existance of this non-entity is not even on my to-do list.

BTW not all atheists are left wing pacifists.

I'm curious here, why does it matter wether or not Jesus existed? I read several times people qouting Harpur's "The Pagan Christ". To disprove the existance of a higher power by disproving a messanger's existance. Christ is not necessarily a person. He was not necessarily a living, breathing being who walked the earth or performed maricals. To this I will concied. To this I do not care. It happened so long ago it really doesn't matter any more than wether or not the Holocaust happened. The fact is, what lessons can be learnt from the story, just like the parable of the prodigal son told by Jesus in the book of Luke, the son may not exist, but the importance of the story is still paramount. There is a difference between truth and fact. It is not factual that a tortise and a hare had a race to settle some petty difference, it is truthful that persistance can overcome skill.

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

It is not on the unbelievers to prove Allah doesn't exist, it is on the believers to prove that he does.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?Well, Brian already was the Messiah, and we can't have two, now can we?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?NS General.

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?I have an edition where it still has to original intro that says, among other things, "This is a work of fiction, the major characters and events are entirely fictional. Any resemblence to real people or events is entirely coincidental".

Really though, these are odd questions. I might as well counter with "What proof do you have that I haven't proof?" and submit that that has evidential strength.
Generally the burden of proof lies with the people the claim existence of a thing or being, seeing as nonexistence is impossible to proof.

Proof positive that god does not exist... I can't get his phone number for my call list as a business, and he never calls to sell me something I'll never need or want durring dinner.

The bible even reflects the fact that it was made by mideval imbeciles.

To interject, my friend, the Bible in its current form (both testaments) has been around since the Christianization of Rome, with the Old Testament in existence long before. I'm not sure on the exact date, but most scholars agree the first written forms of the Torah were produced during the Jewish exile to Babylon around 500-600 BCE. Try not to be so ignorant while pressing your worldview.

The fact is, what lessons can be learnt from the story, just like the parable of the prodigal son told by Jesus in the book of Luke, the son may not exist, but the importance of the story is still paramount. There is a difference between truth and fact. It is not factual that a tortise and a hare had a race to settle some petty difference, it is truthful that persistance can overcome skill.

That's probably the most intelligent thing I've heard on these forums in a long time.

FYI, Agnostics have no grounds whatsoever to even argue, they're the most confused group of them all. :D At least make a decision before you try to back it up.You cannot prove that God exists, you cannot prove that he doesn't exist; so the only sensible position is that you cannot know, i.e. being agnostic. Confusion has nothing to do with it.

Pastafarianism > Agnostism


:-D

Also I'd like that somebody prove that the invisible floating pink elephant that is in my room, didn't create the world, and I know it, because he has told me, that he created the Universe.

Prove that what I'm saying is false.

Also prove that the Unicorns, doesn't exist, and that jedis doesn't exist in other galaxy, very far.

You can't prove anything that I've told that doesn't exist, and as it isn't necessary for the explications of the World, so the science ignore all it, it doesn't have any effect over the reality.

Who mentioned scientists? What has science got to do with God? Answer me that!

Here's the missing day proof
=========
The "Missing Day" Story
Did you know that the space program is busy proving that what has been called myth in the Bible is true? Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore Maryland and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development:

I think one of the most amazing things that God has for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland. They were checking the position of the sun, moon, and planets out in space where they would be 100 years and 1000 years from now.. We have to know this so we won't send a satellite, up and have it bump into something later on during its orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite, and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down..

They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong either with the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out and they said what's wrong?

Well they found there is a day missing in space in elapsed time. They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer. Finally, a Christian man on the team said, You know, one time I was in Sunday school and they talked about the sun standing still. While they didn't believe him,they didn't have an answer either, so they said, Show us. He got a Bible and went back to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with common sense.

There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee. Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy and if darkness fell they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That's right---The sun stood still and the moon stayed---and hasted not to go down about a whole day!

The astronauts and scientists said, There is the missing day! They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes---not a whole day. They read the Bible and there it was about (approximately) a day.

These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes you'll still be in trouble 1000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits..

As the Christian employee thought about it, remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went backwards. The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings: Hezekiah, on his death-bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees? Hezekiah said, It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees. Isaiah spoke to the Lord and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees backward! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes! Twenty three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe!

Isn't it amazing? Our God is rubbing their noses in His Truth! References:
Joshua 10:8 and 12,13
2 Kings 20:9-11
=======
there you go

Also I'd like that somebody prove that the invisible floating pink elephant that is in my room, didn't create the world, and I know it, because he has told me, that he created the Universe.

Prove that what I'm saying is false.

Also prove that the Unicorns, doesn't exist, and that jedis doesn't exist in other galaxy, very far.

You can't prove anything that I've told that doesn't exist, and as it isn't necessary for the explications of the World, so the science ignore all it, it doesn't have any effect over the reality.

Jedis do exist!

THEY DO GOD DAMN IT!

I don't think it's possible to prove a negative. I can't prove there aren't pink and purple spotted dragons either, but I consider anyone who believes in them a little cracked.

My question to any christian is: What makes your particular set of books any more valid than any others? Without of some sort of proof, how do you know what you believe is correct?

Here's the missing day proof
=========
<SNIP>
=========
there you goNice bit of fiction, but you don't really expect anyone to buy that, do you?

Without of some sort of proof, how do you know what you believe is correct?You don't, otherwise it's knowledge and not belief.

eh, whatever
to each their own opinion...
what about all the times that
the bible has been historically
and geographically correct?
how do you account for that?

eh, whatever
to each their own opinion...
what about all the times that
the bible has been historically
and geographically correct?
how do you account for that?The Iliad has been proven to have historically correct info in it, doesn't mean that Apollo actually came down and guided Paris' arrow into Achilles' heel.

This calls for something special:

Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:

"The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.





And there we have it.

Here's the missing day proof
=========
The "Missing Day" Story

-snippage of nonsense-

there you go

Even Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1117.asp) say this is rubbish.

If there really was a God then believers wouldn't have to resort to this level of silliness in an attempt to prove his existence.[/end thread]

Jesus existed. God does not. Jesus was a street preacher/carpenter/hippie. God is a thankfully non-existent megalomaniac.

Why do I say God doesn't exist? There's simply no proof that he does.

This calls for something special:

Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:

"The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.





And there we have it.

:D

Jesus existed. God does not. Jesus was a street preacher/carpenter/hippie. God is a thankfully non-existent megalomaniac.

Why do I say God doesn't exist? There's simply no proof that he does.

Doesn't work that way i'm afraid.

The Iliad has been proven to have historically correct info in it, doesn't mean that Apollo actually came down and guided Paris' arrow into Achilles' heel.However, this is just as likely as a fabricated jealous jewish god incarnating himself into a carpenter who is later nailed to his working material.

However, this is just as likely as a fabricated jealous jewish god incarnating himself into a carpenter who is later nailed to his working material.

And yet if you try and rationalise something like that, you will never 'believe' it.

Doesn't work that way i'm afraid.

What do you mean, it doesn't work that way? :confused:

And yet if you try and rationalise something like that, you will never 'believe' it.Why? And why would there be a need to believe anything? Belief is a fundamentally flawed concept.

Why?

Because it is irational

Because it is irationalHow?

What do you mean, it doesn't work that way? :confused:

If you don't believe in God, then you are forced to believe there was no prime cause and that matter formed from nothing, something equally inconceivable and equally as impossible to prove. Proof has nothing to do with it, at this current time, it is impossibe to know for sure from pure logic. It is not proof of a negative, as there is no 'positive' known alternative to it.

How?

You're saying it's a rational thing to logically accept that man can rise from the dead, perform miracles etc....?

Why? And why would there be a need to believe anything? Belief is a fundamentally flawed concept.

If I believe that if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are C, where is the fundamental flaw?

You're saying it's a rational thing to logically accept that man can rise from the dead, perform miracles etc....??? I can logically accept that. I've seen enough Start Trek episodes... :eek:

Now here's the thing. We don't need proof that there is no god, there's plenty of it.


Now, religious types often fall prey to a logical fallacy of "You can't proove I'm wrong, so therefore I'm right".

The real way to prove there is no god is to prove there is a god. Since god doesn't need to proove he exists, if he does, and we found proof that he existed, he wouldn't have faith anymore, which he needs. Therefore if we proove there is a god, we have proven there is not a god. QED.

If I believe that if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are C, where is the fundamental flaw?

I don't even see how a concept can be 'flawed' anyway, if it is just a concept.

I'm curious, I've browsed the General forums on occassion and quite a lot of it seems to be made up of athiests discussing how Jesus doesn't exist, or christians saying that Jesus does exist, or that George Bush was the worst U.S. President et cetera et cetera.

But a real question that popped in my head;
1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

Please note, this is not an invitation to flame, or bash, or whatever... I'm actually quite curious as to how you could answer this, since the whole belief of God or that Jesus was devine is one of faith and not one of undeniable certainty, and christians are often asked to prove that God exists, which is impossible. So I ask, prove that he doesnt. :)

Who gives a shit?

That's all I have to say.

If I believe that if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are C, where is the fundamental flaw?The believing. If you know that all A are B, and all B are C, then indeed all A are C. If you just say that you believe, you don't really say anything about the issue at all, you only say something about yourself.

1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?





1) Jesus did exist, they believe he wasn't the son of god.

2) You can't prove it either way.

3) It counterdicts itself.



1) "counterdicts?" I don't believe that is a word in the english language. Perhaps you should learn to spell before you enter a discussion on the existance of God. :)

2) The bible doesn't contradict itself, unless I have missed something. If you can tell me WHERE it contradicts itself, I will prove or disprove your theory.

Toodles!

Who gives a shit?

That's all I have to say.

Evidently, lots of people.

Now here's the thing. We don't need proof that there is no god, there's plenty of it.


Now, religious types often fall prey to a logical fallacy of "You can't proove I'm wrong, so therefore I'm right".

The real way to prove there is no god is to prove there is a god. Since god doesn't need to proove he exists, if he does, and we found proof that he existed, he wouldn't have faith anymore, which he needs. Therefore if we proove there is a god, we have proven there is not a god. QED.Why would a god need human faith to exist? That would mean it's just a human idea, something completely insubstantial.

Evidently, lots of people.

I still don't give a shit.

The believing. If you know that all A are B, and all B are C, then indeed all A are C. If you just say that you believe, you don't really say anything about the issue at all, you only say something about yourself.

Check your classical epistemology: knowledge requires belief.

Or are you claiming that it is a rational thing to know something, but not to believe it?

EDIT: you avoided the question - you still haven't explained why a belief is fundamentally flawed, just noted that it is a description of a state of mind.

The believing. If you know that all A are B, and all B are C, then indeed all A are C. If you just say that you believe, you don't really say anything about the issue at all, you only say something about yourself.

... I don't follow, when you say you believe you are not trying to make the thing you believe in true to anyone else, it is not it's intention. So saying you believe in something is not intended as logical proof etc...

I still don't give a shit.

Don't post in this thread then.

Would it really matter? Some people still think the earth is flat.

Would it really matter? Some people still think the earth is flat.

Would what really matter?

How do I know that you exist? Have I seen you, do I know you? What proof do I have that any one of you people posting here have any form of existance? The answer to that question is your effect on the world, and how you speak to me as God, Jaweh, Alleh, whatever you want to call him speaks to me. God is not a physical presence, he is a body of ideas, a school of thought. As much(as far as I am concerned) are each and every one of you to me, and I to you.

How do I know that you exist? Have I seen you, do I know you? What proof do I have that any one of you people posting here have any form of existance? The answer to that question is your effect on the world, and how you speak to me as God, Jaweh, Alleh, whatever you want to call him speaks to me. God is not a physical presence, he is a body of ideas, a school of thought. As much(as far as I am concerned) are each and every one of you to me, and I to you.

We're talking to you right now, aren't we?

I still don't give a shit.

Must you flamebait?

The bible doesn't contradict itself, unless I have missed something. If you can tell me WHERE it contradicts itself, I will prove or disprove your theory.

Read the first five books, and you'll see numerous contradictions.

Check your classical epistemology: knowledge requires belief.

Or are you claiming that it is a rational thing to know something, but not to believe it?

EDIT: you avoided the question - you still haven't explained why a belief is fundamentally flawed, just noted that it is a description of a state of mind.Knowledge does not require belief. Knowledge requires testing.
And Belief is the absence of knowledge.

Knowledge does not require belief. Knowledge requires testing.
And Belief is the absence of knowledge.

If your mother said she is going to the mall today, would it be flawed to believe her?

If your mother said she is going to the mall today, would it be flawed to believe her?That's not a matter of belief.

That's not a matter of belief.

Yes it is, you don't know she is. There is no testible evidence, you just believe her.

That's not a matter of belief.

Yes it is. Your mother could be going to the grocery store instead, or going to see her boyfriend. ;)

Yes it is. Your mother could be going to the grocery store instead, or going to see her boyfriend. ;)And? See how belief would be out of touch with reality?
If my mother were to say to me that she plans going to a mall, then that's just that. There is no point in believing what she would in fact do or if she is really planning this at all. Although I can assume she would do as she said, I prefer not to speculate.

And? See how belief would be out of touch with reality?
If my mother were to say to me that she plans going to a mall, then that's just that. There is no point in believing what she would in fact do or if she is really planning this at all. Although I can assume she would do as she said, I prefer not to speculate.

Assuming is beleiving.

And? See how belief would be out of touch with reality?
If my mother were to say to me that she plans going to a mall, then that's just that. There is no point in believing what she would in fact do or if she is really planning this at all. Although I can assume she would do as she said, I prefer not to speculate.

Do you automatically assume that she's lying?

Knowledge does not require belief.


So I can know that '1+1=2' and simultaneously not believe that '1+1=2'?

Care to give me an example of some factual proposition that you know, but don't believe?

Sorry, but this is kind of a silly question. If you could prove it one way or the other, there would be one religion/non-religion. That's simply how faith is. If you can prove something, it becomes fact. And it doesn't take much to believe fact, even if you'd rather not sometimes. :)

If you can prove something, it becomes fact.

Are you claiming that something is not fact until it is proven?

There is nothing to suggest that God exists, assuming that a divine intelligence is responsible for the incredible complexity of the universe is ad hoc, religion cant describe reality to any proper extent, science can. Saying that God exists is tantamount to saying fairies exist at the bottom at the garden.

And yet, I would like to believe that there is some God or higher meaning to our existence, but logically I cant subscribe to this viewpoint, therefore in the interests of humanity progressing, I will say God doesnt exist.

Are you claiming that something is not fact until it is proven?

Scientifically speaking, I'd say yes. I believe certain things to be "truth" in my mind which I can't scientifically prove, but I won't call them facts.

And I guess I should add the disclaimer that just because something is proven, it doesn't necessarily become fact, either. Prove a theory once and it remains a theory. *shrug*

Scientifically speaking, I'd say yes. I believe certain things to be "truth" in my mind which I can't scientifically prove, but I won't call them facts.

And I guess I should add the disclaimer that just because something is proven, it doesn't necessarily become fact, either. Prove a theory once and it remains a theory. *shrug*

a theory can be disproven outside the bounds of its context, or level of description but it still works that level of description, its tentative.

You can't prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he does not exist. It all comes down to which way you want to believe.

There is nothing to suggest that God exists, assuming that a divine intelligence is responsible for the incredible complexity of the universe is ad hoc, religion cant describe reality to any proper extent, science can. Saying that God exists is tantamount to saying fairies exist at the bottom at the garden.

And yet, I would like to believe that there is some God or higher meaning to our existence, but logically I cant subscribe to this viewpoint, therefore in the interests of humanity progressing, I will say God doesnt exist.

It is ad hoc, but not any more of an unrealistic assumption than assuming that "the incredible complexity of the universe" came from a series of freak accidents over billions of years. Honestly, either one is a serious stretch of the imagination.

I think fanaticism can keep humanity from progressing, but not religion or belief in God. Monks in the first few centures AD were basically the only progressive force in Europe, at least, for quite some time. And what of the Jesuits? And plenty of other religious thinkers...

I think that religion and science can be perfectly compatible. They have been compatible "in the flesh" in countless men and women of science in the past.

So here's to God existing and the progression of humanity. ;)

a theory can be disproven outside the bounds of its context, or level of description but it still works that level of description, its tentative.

Agreed. But context can be VAST and really nearly impossible to limit.

ok forgive the overtly dawkinist stance, but believing in God is probably mistaken, ie delusive. But I just dont see the point, except for making people happy/content. I guess thats reason enough, more power to them.

ok forgive the overtly dawkinist stance, but believing in God is probably mistaken, ie delusive. But I just dont see the point, except for making people happy/content. I guess thats reason enough, more power to them.

A delusion is belief in something that is obviously untrue. The existence of God is neither obviously untrue, nor unlikely enough to even remotely approach the territory of delusion. In its most abstract form, the existence of God is at worst 50-50.

Nobody has ever offered any evidence that even remotely convinces me that the existence of God is implausible or even improbable.

It is ad hoc, but not any more of an unrealistic assumption than assuming that "the incredible complexity of the universe" came from a series of freak accidents over billions of years. Honestly, either one is a serious stretch of the imagination.

I think fanaticism can keep humanity from progressing, but not religion or belief in God. Monks in the first few centures AD were basically the only progressive force in Europe, at least, for quite some time. And what of the Jesuits? And plenty of other religious thinkers...

I think that religion and science can be perfectly compatible. They have been compatible "in the flesh" in countless men and women of science in the past.

So here's to God existing and the progression of humanity. ;)

not so sure, assuming God exists is something of scientific inquiry, so I dont think the two are compatible. While I agree that you can have perfectly good politicians, scientists etc who have religious beliefs I also believe that more often than not people can invoke religion to prevent progress.

Secondly, science only deals with what is presented before it, so far on the basis of evidence there is no suggestion that a divine creator is responsible for the universes existence, we cant assume anything, but let us at least not assume divine intelligence. So far as I can see, what explains the universe are axioms that exist both inside and outside of it and which are more strange and incomprehensible than anything we can imagine, but definately not by proxy, an anthropomorphic divine intelligence.

Agreed. But context can be VAST and really nearly impossible to limit.

I agree completely

not so sure, assuming God exists is something of scientific inquiry, so I dont think the two are compatible. While I agree that you can have perfectly good politicians, scientists etc who have religious beliefs I also believe that more often than not people can invoke religion to prevent progress.

Secondly, science only deals with what is presented before it, so far on the basis of evidence there is no suggestion that a divine creator is responsible for the universes existence, we cant assume anything, but let us at least not assume divine intelligence. So far as I can see, what explains the universe are axioms that exist both inside and outside of it and which are more strange and incomprehensible than anything we can imagine, but definately not by proxy, an anthropomorphic divine intelligence.

Well said. I think that there's a great potential for preventing progress as well.

I wish I had a bit more time to respond, but I'm headed to dinner.

Assuming God exists is scientifically not a valid thing to do. But I think really any origin theory is scientifically invalid. And I'm out for now. Merry Christmas!

Has anyone mentioned that there are scientists who believe in God and that they are simply gaining greater understanding of his works and methods? I'm tired and can't be bothered reading through the arguments.

Well said. I think that there's a great potential for preventing progress as well.

I wish I had a bit more time to respond, but I'm headed to dinner.

Assuming God exists is scientifically not a valid thing to do. But I think really any origin theory is scientifically invalid. And I'm out for now. Merry Christmas!

merry christmas to you too

I'm impressed.

This table is real. I know that. Do I believe in the table? Why would I?

There is no proof that God is real, only that your belief in Him(/Her/It) is misinformed or misguided.

The point of every organised religion so far is to create money or power for the people in the know. People like the pope, may actually believe, but he's not the true top.

The best I can do is believe in myself, as everything, including knowledge, is based off that belief, if you don't believe in yourself, then everything is open to speculation. You have to find religion in yourself, and if it's not there, maybe there isn't anything.


To the people who follow a holy book. Would you be of your current religion if that book never existed? You cannot tell.

taking it away from existentialism, here's a concept.

we evolved, and most of our instincts and ideas are based upon evolutionary competition in the individual, family, and collective sense. This is very difficult to dispute. That said, conventional religious people have consistently sustained higher reproductive rates, spread their ideas, and built God-friendly societies at a faster and more constistent rate than atheists, agnostics, and off-beat religionists have. You can believe that or not, but I think the numbers demonstrate it. There's literally billions of believers in the biblical God, but atheists are typically confined to small professional enclaves, strip bars, and prison cells.

Therefore, from an evolutionary point of view, God exists. If you don't believe it, you are simply opening yourself up to eventual genetic extinction, what theists call damnation. It's all the same thing. Every good or hateful thing in the bible is really a technique for creating large and relatively stable societies as quickly as possible, and therefore assuring, as well as possible, the ultimate preservation of the idiosyncratic mutations which define each of us as individuals, and can be preserved for all time only if they survive in the gene pool long enough for us to figure out the whole biological immortality thing. Since people with spiritual sentiments consistently survive and breed over nonbelievers in most populations, God is inevitable.

But I spent Christmas roaming the parking lot for loose change for the vending machine, so maybe I should keep my opinions to myself.

You can't prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he does not exist.

we can and have disproved that certain gods existed

First, prove that Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Why? And why would there be a need to believe anything? Belief is a fundamentally flawed concept.

You don't actually believe that, do you? :)

A delusion is belief in something that is obviously untrue. The existence of God is neither obviously untrue, nor unlikely enough to even remotely approach the territory of delusion. In its most abstract form, the existence of God is at worst 50-50.

Nobody has ever offered any evidence that even remotely convinces me that the existence of God is implausible or even improbable.

What about the existence of a delusion --is that probable?

You can't prove that God exists, nor can you prove that he does not exist.Through what criteria would you start the research into this matter?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ooh ooh!!!
*waves hand frantically*

Rumsfeld, right?
A few times before he "resigned" ?

I don't think one can "prove" anything. Science only permits theories based upon available evidence. It is perhaps unfair that one should prove something doesn't exist. I could think of any number of things a assert them to exist because one could not prove their non-existence. In any event, here are a few of my observations specifically concerning the Christian God:

1) What proof do you have that there isn't a God?

We have yet to detect the presence of God in the material world. Some people purport to "feel" the presence of God, but this phenomenon in inconstant and usually conforms to a person's preconceived notions about God. It is not usual that a person will psychologically perceive things that do not exist, especially when these feeling are continuously reinforced by a community. People have invented thousands of god and invariably feel their presence.

Some have pointed to "miracles" to verify the existence of God, but what past peoples may have regarded miracles are today seen as natural events. There seems to be evidence that all occurrences have physical causes, and it seems unlikely that God periodically intervenes in the physical world. If God created the universe, why would he need to periodically intervene? Shouldn't he had created it so he did not have to intervene?

It is conceivable that God exists outside space and time. This sounds a bit like an escape clause, but it is conceivable. But then, we must also allow that other things might exist in such a state: heaven, demons, pink ponies, etc., and while we may allow for the possibility that things exist outside space and time, there is no way to qualify these items. There might be one God or a hundred Gods, an evil God or a benevolent God and so forth. Considering this, this is extremely unlikely that the thing outside space and time will be the Christian God.

And there are also peculiarities about the Christian God. Among them, He seems to generally reflect the values of the people who conceived him. He also seems to take an undue interest in Earth and humans considering the expanse of the universe. It is also odd that God would have a chosen people: the people who happened to conceive Him. There is nothing to differentiate the Christian God from other gods which have been developed throughout history. I invite people to look at fake religions like Pastafarianism to illustrate some of these problems.

2) What proof do you have that Jesus doesn't exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasn't the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

Well, the concept of a Messiah with extra-physical powers does not seem very likely, nor does his purpose seem to make much sense. How did God determine what a sin is? Why do sins need to be forgiven? Why do sins separate people from God? Are we responsible for the sins committed by our former selves? How does sacrificing innocent people forgive the sins of another? How could God be a human? The entire concept of the resurrection does not seem to be very logical. There are stories of resurrection in other religions, but this may be attributed to a shared human biology.

There is little historical evidence that Jesus existed, but we know that mythological figures usually have some basis in reality, so we may conclude that Jesus existed. Even so, isn't is far more likely that people incorrectly thought Jesus was the Messiah, rather than Jesus actually being the Messiah?

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

How do we know that any book is false? Still, we must ask why the Bible was introduced so late in human history and why only to a specific people in particular languages. The Bible was written by people who may have been incorrect in their observations. They certainly had bias, embellishments, and the legacy of a common culture and oral tradition. We know that the Bible is not entirely scientifically accurate. The Earth was not created in seven days (many mythologies underestimate the age of the world). The first humans came out of Africa, not the Middle East, and so forth. If humans are meant to read the Bible metaphorically, isn't there many interpretations of the Bible? How are we suppose to determine which is correct? One might say the Bible was divinely inspired, but why does it concern itself so mush with the history of the Jews and their concerns?

All said, isn't it more likely that Christianity is one of the many religions which have graced us?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I laughed so hard they first time I heard that.

<snip>

You present some really good arguements. Some food for thought, for a lot of people.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I laughed so hard they first time I heard that.Nevertheless, it is true. Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence at all, for anything. On both sides of the dispute at issue. And while there is no evidence for or against the existence of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, there are, however, severe flaws in the details of the passed down traditions about this perceived God and especially about his assumed interaction with the physical world and humans in particular. Also in the respect that these traditions more often than not fail to correspond with recorded history or the findings of archeology.

You don't actually believe that, do you? :)

:D

1) What proof do you have that Jesus doesnt exist, or if you believe that he did exist but wasnt the Messiah; what proof do you have of this?

Theres a decent chance the man himself did exist, and he sounded like a really nice guy.

2) What proof do you have that there isnt a God?

If theres just no evidence for something whatsoever, and any evidence that is offered is invariably shit, it doesnt exist. hell, even when arguing from a supposedly logic based standpoint, theists poke more holes in their beliefs than they patch up.

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

It lacks consistency. It contains a large number of passages that contradict other ones. This alone would make it worthless as any kind of factual basis. Also, it never offers any evidence for what it says. People cite the bible as evidence, but its just their beliefs written down. It offers no support because it is in itself unsuported.

Also the way God gets tricked in the book of Job just makes him look bad.

Nevertheless, it is true. Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence at all, for anything. Depends on whether what is claimed/hypothesized strongly suggests there ought to be evidence.
If I claim there is a horse in your bathroom, and you go look and see no evidence of it, then that is quite certainly evidence that the claim is false.

I think a couple of people are getting a bit off track. I asked for proof, certainty; not arguements against.

But I also think we've also established this is impossible, as are attempts to find proof for... (unless God turns up tomorrow). Meh, this thread has served its purpose. I've successfully been able to prove that God's existance is possible, as unlikely as it seems. Likewise, I can admit that his non-existance is also possible.

I guess we'll never know for sure, until we die that is. :D

3) On what basis do you know that the Bible is false?

There are so many contradictions in the Bible that you can practically act however you want and find something that backs you up in the Bible. The bible itself is also full of illogical things which we know can't happend. For example, noone can give birth and still be a virgin.

I believe that the world was created by a flying noodly mass with two meatballs, and that when I die my eternal soul will be transported to heaven, which includes a beer volcano and stripper factory.

PROVE ME WRONG.

I also THINK that humans are decendant of single celled organisms. This opinion is based on observable microevolution (if you question this I refuse to stoop to talking to you, it has been repeated in numerous high school classes by myself and others) and my opinion that such minor changes could over great time, accrue to the point of speciation, and the rise of multi-celled organisms and eventually homo sapiens.

Also, a question. Many say that science cannot explain where everything came from, I ask: Does the Bible (or other religious text) do a better job? In the beginning there was a word... I think that the crazy (but mathmatically feasible) explanations of a self causing universe are more satisfying than a word popping up out of nothing (not even space, because the word had not made space yet) and then this word simply created things. COOL. Science and religion are different because if you are interested, you can learn and understand the HOW of evolution or physics, Science is not interested in WHY that is for religion or yourself to figure out.

In answer to the Original Post. I cannot, and am not interested in, proving that Jesus did not exist or was not the Messiah. But I am disgusted by attempts to have any form of creationism (not implying christianity, simply refering to any explanation in which the world was created by somone or thing who had some sort of diplomatic immunity when it came to the laws of physics) taught in schools. Because once you begin teaching one persons version of intelligent design, you MUST teach all versions, and there just is not enough time for that, so long as all of us humans remain constrained by the 24 hour day.

Oh and one probably could prove that jesus looks nothing like his caucasian representation. He was a middle eastern Jew, living poorly (so outside lots and dark as chocolate) not a blonde haired blue-eyed white guy. Thats something that always pisses me off, I think that jesus was a good guy with his heart in the right place, and people making him out to be something he wasnt really gets my goat, or grinds my gears, or however else you want to say annoys me.

There are so many contradictions in the Bible that you can practically act however you want and find something that backs you up in the Bible. The bible itself is also full of illogical things which we know can't happend. For example, noone can give birth and still be a virgin.

Prove it.

Depends on whether what is claimed/hypothesized strongly suggests there ought to be evidence.
If I claim there is a horse in your bathroom, and you go look and see no evidence of it, then that is quite certainly evidence that the claim is false.If I go and look, I do have evidence, you know. But in respect to the biblical god it's a little more difficult, given the assumed transcendent nature of this deity, which is of course pretty comfortable for those who rather argue in favor.

Prove it.

easily done, as far as anyone can prove anything. (like that if I let go of an apple it will fall, you can always say "God might pick it up" but that sort of argument has no practical bearing.

Humans are incapapble of asexual reproduction, niether males nor females are equipped for it. Second, a female does not have all of the genetic material neccesary for a male, the Y chromosome had to have come from someplace, whether that was from a broomhandel covered in semen shoved up against her cervix, or a more traditional method of insemination, a males reproductive gametes had to have been introduced to her uterus in order for her to concieve a male child. (This is assuming that they did not have the technology for egg harvest in B.C.E.

Prove it.


Hahahhaha, you need proof for that? Should I also proove to you that the heaven is blue? But there is actually one way to get pregnant without having sex and that is if you go to a sperm bank but I doubt they had that technology when Jesus lived. But anyways, the fact is that you need sperms to get pregnant and you cant give birth without them. I hope you have enough sense to get that.

If you want some evidence that the bible is false I can give you some. For example, it is said that god created the world in seven days but we all know that that isn't possible and we know that the universe is a couple of billion years old.

Noone can come back from the death as it is said that Jesus did.

A sea can't divide itself in two part so people can walk through it as Moses did.

Have I presented enough illogical things to you or do you want me to continue?

Certain scientists have been trying to prove that God doesn't exist...to no avail. Atheists think there was no beginning which basicly says that all of our scientific laws are wrong. Science declares everything has had its beginning. So who is correct, the atheists or scientists?

Noah's Arc has been found and so has numerous other Biblical Artifacts. Certain atheists started searching for decades to disprove God and the Bible...to no-avail. Except to become believers of course.

I realize that the atheists are a majority here and across the World of the Internet but why are you, the atheists correct and christians wrong?

I'm not posting to prove nor disprove anything, mainly because it doesn't matter to you, too much, what I say or what sources I provide for you will just automatically dismiss it as hogwash. Which also proves, and this is kind of funny but is pretty accurate or atleast that's how I feel, how close minded some are even the ones who say others are close-minded, hmmm....hypocrypsy comes to mind...oh well.

Fact is that scientists for many years, along with the atheists, have been searching to disprove God's existance and today have been unable to provide any proof what so ever to discredit the Bible and God. They haven't accomplished that nor will they ever. God works in mysterious ways.

How much fuel do you think the Sun burns or the stars for that matter? Scientifically, it should have already run out of the fuel that makes it burn, it has not and the scientists can't explain it.

Actually, there is a lot in this world that can't be explained does that necessarily mean it didn't happen, I think not.

For those who declare the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God exists, I beg to differ. We believe in God. So, the burden of proof lies with the non-believers, for since you do not believe in God, and the believers do believe in God, it is you who needs to prove and provide evidence of his "non-existance" Good Luck.......you'll need it because for thousands of years they've been trying and had no-avail. Neither will you. :)

Certain scientists have been trying to prove that God doesn't exist...to no avail. Atheists think there was no beginning which basicly says that all of our scientific laws are wrong. Science declares everything has had its beginning. So who is correct, the atheists or scientists?

Noah's Arc has been found and so has numerous other Biblical Artifacts. Certain atheists started searching for decades to disprove God and the Bible...to no-avail. Except to become believers of course.

No it has not ... people keep claiming to see outlines here and there but no one has ever even shown it was a ship much less THAT ship

come on I was really starting to think you were not a troll for a bit but this is just idiotic.

Hell even if you did manage to find the arc all that would show is in fact some small kernal of truth managed to get wrapped in the myth ...

I realize that the atheists are a majority here and across the World of the Internet but why are you, the atheists correct and christians wrong?

I'm not posting to prove nor disprove anything, mainly because it doesn't matter to you, too much, what I say or what sources I provide for you will just automatically dismiss it as hogwash. Which also proves, and this is kind of funny but is pretty accurate or atleast that's how I feel, how close minded some are even the ones who say others are close-minded, hmmm....hypocrypsy comes to mind...oh well.


So because we don't accept any random bit that you could happen to bring up as proof we are the hypocritical ones?

How about just having standards? sheesh

Fact is that scientists for many years, along with the atheists, have been searching to disprove God's existance and today have been unable to provide any proof what so ever to discredit the Bible and God. They haven't accomplished that nor will they ever. God works in mysterious ways.

No good scientist ... trying to prove a negative is idiotic ... they can try to show that recorded events happened in different ways then claimed but other then that...

How much fuel do you think the Sun burns or the stars for that matter? Scientifically, it should have already run out of the fuel that makes it burn, it has not and the scientists can't explain it.

Bull shit show where a real scientist says that

Actually, there is a lot in this world that can't be explained does that necessarily mean it didn't happen, I think not.

For those who declare the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God exists, I beg to differ. We believe in God. So, the burden of proof lies with the non-believers, for since you do not believe in God, and the believers do believe in God, it is you who needs to prove and provide evidence of his "non-existance" Good Luck.......you'll need it because for thousands of years they've been trying and had no-avail. Neither will you. :)

You don't prove a negative ... You can only fail to prove a positive. If you dont understand why this country is in sore need to cut out all these BS courses and teach some good ol science courses in school cause obviously people are not learning enough of it when they are there.

<snip>

<snip>

Neither of these are proof of his inexistance, nor proof that a devine impregnation of Mary is impossible. You're simply making yourselves look foolish by trying to disprove God's existance by means of science, if you've read the contents of this thread, you would have found that these arguements can be whisked away by explaining that if God is all powerful (and exists), then he can certainly disobey the laws of science.

Which is exactly what makes the lack of God's existance not provable, and likewise the actual existance of God, not provable also.

Science can't test either Hypothesis. Therefore, claiming that x is impossible is false. You dont know for sure, you can only believe one theory of another.

The bible itself is also full of illogical things which we know can't happend. For example, noone can give birth and still be a virgin.

Your failure to keep up with developments in science is alarming to say the least. There is no reason why a virgin cannot give birth.

I think a couple of people are getting a bit off track. I asked for proof, certainty; not arguements against.

But I also think we've also established this is impossible, as are attempts to find proof for... (unless God turns up tomorrow). Meh, this thread has served its purpose. I've successfully been able to prove that God's existance is possible, as unlikely as it seems. Likewise, I can admit that his non-existance is also possible.

I guess we'll never know for sure, until we die that is. :D

No you have not determined thing one about the possibility or non possibility of his existence

Meerly our ability to show one way or another, Our abilities do not necessarily reflect on reality.

I should probably quote this by Wikipedia, to help further people's understanding that it is stupid to try to make definitive that this or that claimed by x source (ie The Bible) is impossible.

Nature of relevant Proofs/Arguments

Since God (of the kind to which the Proofs/Arguments relate) is either an entity in the Universe nor a mathematical object it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God[2] mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question. John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in Physics are the ideas of Quantum Mechanics which are paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data[3]. However you cannot do experiments on God, and (if God exists) God created the laws of Physics and is not necessarily bound by them, so it will inevitably be more difficult to reason reliably about God.

One approach is to treat (particular versions of) the existence of God or Naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data(or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other[4] Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way. In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However since an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the Prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice-versa.

Link to this article can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existance_of_God).

No you have not determined thing one about the possibility or non possibility of his existence

Meerly our ability to show one way or another, Our abilities do not necessarily reflect on reality.

No? Strange... considering that for centruries we have been unable to prove or disprove God's existance. Same for things within the bible, we have merely been able to present an arguement for or against - and yet we continue to argue, one great big debate.

Since neither side has proven themselves, and since neither side has also been able to disprove the other, I think it is fair to say that either arguement is possible.

Neither of these are proof of his inexistance, nor proof that a devine impregnation of Mary is impossible. You're simply making yourselves look foolish by trying to disprove God's existance by means of science, if you've read the contents of this thread, you would have found that these arguements can be whisked away by explaining that if God is all powerful (and exists), then he can certainly disobey the laws of science.

Which is exactly what makes the lack of God's existance not provable, and likewise the actual existance of God, not provable also.

Science can't test either Hypothesis. Therefore, claiming that x is impossible is false. You dont know for sure, you can only believe one theory of another.

Why did you even start this tread? It's clear that you'll ignore every scientifical fact there is against God by simply saying "god is above science". We could go on the whole day and present facts that the bible is false but you still wouldn't care because before you even read our arguments against God you had made up your mind that there are no evidence against Gods existance. You probably even knew what we were going to say because these things are constantly debated.

If God existed as christianity claims he does, why would he even want us to doubt his existance? Why would he make people atheist if he's so almighty? If he exist he's really done a poor job with mankind.

Give us some proof that god exists. Come on, you're trying to put all the responsability on us but if you're claiming that he exist you must have some proof right? Sure you have some proof because who would be foolish enough to believe something without any facts that can back it up? So bring 'em up! I'm waiting!

No? Strange... considering that for centruries we have been unable to prove or disprove God's existance. Same for things within the bible, we have merely been able to present an arguement for or against - and yet we continue to argue, one great big debate.

Since neither side has proven themselves, and since neither side has also been able to disprove the other, I think it is fair to say that either arguement is possible.

No in the fact that this thread has not shown it, specially with the false start of asking to disprove a negative.

This thread has shown us OUR inability to argue either way true

And personally god is a non falsifiable entity but I have no delusions on what this thread has shown.

For those who declare the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God exists, I beg to differ. We believe in God.

So, to sum up: you refuse to listen to sense, therefore we have to listen to idiocy.

Noah's Ark has not been found, stars do not 'burn' and the statement: 'Atheists think there was no beginning which basicly says that all of our scientific laws are wrong.' is too foolish for words.

Frankly, I find Atheism to be much more of an extraordinary point of view than the existence of God.

No? Strange... considering that for centruries we have been unable to prove or disprove God's existance. Same for things within the bible, we have merely been able to present an arguement for or against - and yet we continue to argue, one great big debate.

Since neither side has proven themselves, and since neither side has also been able to disprove the other, I think it is fair to say that either arguement is possible.

Is it possible to disprove the existence of square-circles or married-bachelors?

Your failure to keep up with developments in science is alarming to say the least. There is no reason why a virgin cannot give birth.

Oh sorry, I actually wrote that you can give birth and still beeing a virgin by going to a sperm bank but I erased it because i didn't feel it was going to contribute anything to the so called "discussion".

Frankly, I find Atheism to be much more of an extraordinary point of view than the existence of God.

That's a frightfully glib remark; would you like to explain your reasoning?

Oh sorry, I actually wrote that you can give birth and still beeing a virgin by going to a sperm bank but I erased it because i didn't feel it was going to contribute anything to the so called "discussion".

What about Parthenogenesis?

For those who declare the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God exists, I beg to differ. We believe in God. So, the burden of proof lies with the non-believers, for since you do not believe in God, and the believers do believe in God, it is you who needs to prove and provide evidence of his "non-existance"Some folks believe that the moon is a cube. But as long as they cannot bring forward any evidence it will remain just that: a belief, which has no connexion at all to reality. Belief is something entirely within a mind, which is why it is completely unsuitable for explaining anything in the real world.

What about Parthenogenesis?Mary was an aphid?

Mary was an aphid?

Parthenogenesis isn't limited to aphids.

<snip>

Its funny, I actually created this thread because people like you exist, and debate on the General forums.

I didn't create this thread to actually prove God's existance. Infact, I've said this multiple times, along with the fact that I recognize that God's existance is unlikely, using the laws of rationality. Although by nature, I do believe in it, which is irrelevent to the topic of this thread.

Im not exactly sure why you havent picked this up, because if you have indeed read this thread's contents, you will find that my entire arguement has been that God's existance (and associated things like the Bible, etc) cannot be disproven, nor proven to become a certainty one way or another.

So if it is a case that there will never become an actual resolution, nor will anybody prove their side of the argument, why do we bother presenting so-called facts to each other, why do we bother acting like it is impossible for each other to be wrong about what we believe in, the idea that God is preposterous, and when people have this attitude, it annoys me greatly.

Anybody claiming to have certainty in the the matter of existance verses non-existance, Christian or Athiest, is bigoted in my opinion. Because the lack of proof of either side, only shows me that either arguement is possible, which inherently makes the point that I am trying to make.

That God (and the Bible) is possible. See below the definitions of bigoted, and possible.

Definitions of bigoted on the Web:

* blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigoted

Definitions of possible on the Web:

* capable of happening or existing; "a breakthrough may be possible next year"; "anything is possible"; "warned of possible consequences"
* something that can be done; "politics is the art of the possible"
* potential: existing in possibility; "a potential problem"; "possible uses of nuclear power"
* an applicant who might be suitable
* conceivable: capable of being imagined; "that is one possible answer"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Possibility comprises that which one can achieve, or alternatively one's potential. The Latin origins of the word hint at ability.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible

Belief is something entirely within a mind, which is why it is completely unsuitable for explaining anything in the real world.

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for an example from you of a factual proposition it is logically coherent to know but not to believe. Any chance?

Anybody claiming to have certainty in the the matter of existance verses non-existance, Christian or Athiest, is bigoted in my opinion. Because the lack of proof of either side, only shows me that either arguement is possible, which inherently makes the point that I am trying to make.

That God (and the Bible) is possible. See below the definitions of bigoted, and possible.

I suggest you read your own definitions of 'bigoted' my friend:

Definitions of bigoted on the Web:

* blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigoted

To claim certainty doesn't necessarily lead to intolerance towards other positions.

Oh, and while I agree that the existence of a Deity is possible I don't accept that the Bible might be literally true. God/s are incapable of being disproved because no empirical evidence can relate to them, the Bible can be disproved.

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for an example from you of a factual proposition it is logically coherent to know but not to believe. Any chance?Knowledge comes from experience and testing assumptions. Belief comes from lack of experience and not testing assumptions. Belief is insubstantial.

Knowledge comes from experience and testing assumptions. Belief comes from lack of experience and not testing assumptions. Belief is insubstantial.

Knowledge requires belief.

Are you claiming that you can know 'the horse is grey', but not believe it without contradiction?

That's a frightfully glib remark; would you like to explain your reasoning?

I'd be happy to, without conceding glibness.

To assert Atheism is to assert a level of understanding of the Universe that's far beyond the capacity of any technology or philosophy at our disposal. It's like asserting that we are alone in the Universe. That's a pretty expansive and bold statement. At the very least, the law of averages argues against it.

Most people who are Atheist insist that it's not that they're against the idea of God, they just need proof. I reject that assertion because they hold that burden of proof to a higher standard than anything else. Atheists believed in Black Holes long before their existence was proven. Why? because scientists said they existed. Well most scientists believe in God, too, yet that's not good enough anymore.

Frankly, applying Occam's Razor to this problem leaves me thinking that a God, who created life from lifeless material is a simpler and easier scenario than those which attempt to go the primordial soup route. (Think entropy.) Therefore, to dismiss God as the simplest answer to the question implies a level of knowledge and understanding that, quite frankly, smacks of arrogance and closed mindedness.

God/s are incapable of being disproved because no empirical evidence can relate to themWell, that applies only to gods who hide.

I suggest you read your own definitions of 'bigoted' my friend:

To claim certainty doesn't necessarily lead to intolerance towards other positions.

Oh, and while I agree that the existence of a Deity is possible I don't accept that the Bible might be literally true. God/s are incapable of being disproved because no empirical evidence can relate to them, the Bible can be disproved.

Of course it does. If people say that I have a moose in my bathtub, and that it is fact, then it is intolerant to any belief that I do not have a moose in my bathtub. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove it? Not really... I can go see for myself, but I can never prove it to you.

Note, that the definition did not say and is hostile to, a minute but important difference.

Also, on your beliefs... I can accept those as your beliefs. Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are not. Neither of us can prove it, can we? :p

Knowledge requires belief.

Are you claiming that you can know 'the horse is grey', but not believe it without contradiction?Knowledge does in no way require belief.

Of course I can know 'the horse is grey'. But what point is there in believing? Believing thus has no connexion to the particular horse's color, it's just an idea in the mind. And the fact that nobody contradicts the idea does not make it more accurate in any respect. If the horse is indeed green, pink, or whatever, you could still believe it's grey and possibly no-one would contradict you. Your belief does in no case say anything about the horse's actual color, but only about you and your supposition.

Im not exactly sure why you havent picked this up, because if you have indeed read this thread's contents, you will find that my entire arguement has been that God's existance (and associated things like the Bible, etc) cannot be disproven, nor proven to become a certainty one way or another.

Well I belive that a giant cookie created the world. Now it's up to you do disprove that a cookie can't create the world.

I'd be happy to, without conceding glibness.

To assert Atheism is to assert a level of understanding of the Universe that's far beyond the capacity of any technology or philosophy at our disposal. It's like asserting that we are alone in the Universe. That's a pretty expansive and bold statement. At the very least, the law of averages argues against it.

Most people who are Atheist insist that it's not that they're against the idea of God, they just need proof. I reject that assertion because they hold that burden of proof to a higher standard than anything else. Atheists believed in Black Holes long before their existence was proven. Why? because scientists said they existed. Well most scientists believe in God, too, yet that's not good enough anymore.

Frankly, applying Occam's Razor to this problem leaves me thinking that a God, who created life from lifeless material is a simpler and easier scenario than those which attempt to go the primordial soup route. (Think entropy.) Therefore, to dismiss God as the simplest answer to the question implies a level of knowledge and understanding that, quite frankly, smacks of arrogance and closed mindedness.

I personally just don't require an imaginary friend in the sky. I know that we don't know everything about everything in the universe, but I don't see the evidence for an intelligent designer, aka God. As far as the origin of life goes, we do have a certain amount of knowledge about how that happened, just not enough to say definitively. And entropy only applies the way ID folks mean it in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, it receives energy constantly from the Sun.

If God exists and he has all sorts of punishments for me in the afterlife because I didn't believe in him, well, that's my problem, I suppose. He might have done a better job with things, frankly, and I know school children who behave better than he is recorded to have done.

Unlike the militant atheism that's become fashionable of late, I really don't care what you or anyone else believes. If believing in God gives you comfort, I'm happy for you. All I ask is that you don't try to convert me, and don't pity or patronize me. We'll get along fine.

Knowledge does in no way require belief.

Of course I can know 'the horse is grey'. But what point is there in believing? Believing thus has no connexion to the particular horse's color, it's just an idea in the mind.

So you know the horse is grey, but don't believe the horse is grey?

'Knowing' that the horse is grey is similarly no connection to a particular horse's colour, as judging something to be known requires a belief in your own particular epistemological system, whatever it may be, and there is no way to guarantee that that system actually flawlessly produces truths.

You reject belief on the basis that it is a relational thing, and yet the same is true of knowledge.

I personally just don't require an imaginary friend in the sky. I know that we don't know everything about everything in the universe, but I don't see the evidence for an intelligent designer, aka God. As far as the origin of life goes, we do have a certain amount of knowledge about how that happened, just not enough to say definitively. And entropy only applies the way ID folks mean it in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, it receives energy constantly from the Sun.

If God exists and he has all sorts of punishments for me in the afterlife because I didn't believe in him, well, that's my problem, I suppose. He might have done a better job with things, frankly, and I know school children who behave better than he is recorded to have done.

Unlike the militant atheism that's become fashionable of late, I really don't care what you or anyone else believes. If believing in God gives you comfort, I'm happy for you. All I ask is that you don't try to convert me, and don't pity or patronize me. We'll get along fine.

Sounds great to me. I suspect we would get along fine.

I will point out though, and this may just be my misinterpreting your meaning, but people who believe in God aren't necessarily in it for the comfort. God isn't a security blanket that helps us to deal with our mortality, as has often been suggested. I believe in God simply because my experiences and understanding draw me to that conclusion.

Knowledge does in no way require belief.

Of course I can know 'the horse is grey'. But what point is there in believing? Believing thus has no connexion to the particular horse's color, it's just an idea in the mind. And the fact that nobody contradicts the idea does not make it right in any respect

Actually...

Definitions of belief on the Web:

* any cognitive content held as true
* impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/B]

You seem to hold true that the horse is grey, therefore it is a belief. Say for the example that the horse is grey.. then you

a) have a belief that the horse is grey

b) have the knowledge that the horse is grey

Suppose you are colour-blind, and the horse is actually brown

Then you simply have the belief that the horse is brown.

You do not have belief or knowledge. You can have belief AND knowledge, or just belief. Ie, you believe that your name is XXXX. You also know this to be fact.

So you know the horse is grey, but don't believe the horse is grey?

'Knowing' that the horse is grey is similarly no connection to a particular horse's colour, as judging something to be known requires a belief in your own particular epistemological system, whatever it may be, and there is no way to guarantee that that system actually flawlessly produces truths.

You reject belief on the basis that it is a relational thing, and yet the same is true of knowledge.Belief is no relational thing, it lacks any relation.

Ill give you proof.

Jesus symbol was a fish.

Huh, huh? That proves everything.

1- Fishermen are renowable liars.
2- "There is something "fishy" about it"
3- Fish are liars. Watch Finding Nemo.

Sounds great to me. I suspect we would get along fine.

I will point out though, and this may just be my misinterpreting your meaning, but people who believe in God aren't necessarily in it for the comfort. God isn't a security blanket that helps us to deal with our mortality, as has often been suggested. I believe in God simply because my experiences and understanding draw me to that conclusion.

You aren't misinterpreting me. I was being a little vague, I suppose. Certainly believing in God isn't a security blanket for everyone. I have had people come back and say, "Would you deny people the comfort and joy of believing in God?" when I've talked about not believing in him. Believe for whatever reasons you have for believing, whether that's because it fits your view of the world better that their should be a God or because you find that believing in a deity comforting.

Well I belive that a giant cookie created the world. Now it's up to you do disprove that a cookie can't create the world.

I cant prove you wrong. Neither can you prove yourself right, so being without a certainty, I guess both arguements are entirely possible. (That the cookie did, and that it didnt).

Actually...



You seem to hold true that the horse is grey, therefore it is a belief. Say for the example that the horse is grey.. then you

a) have a belief that the horse is grey

b) have the knowledge that the horse is grey

Suppose you are colour-blind, and the horse is actually brown

Then you simply have the belief that the horse is brown.

You do not have belief or knowledge. You can have belief AND knowledge, or just belief. Ie, you believe that your name is XXXX. You also know this to be fact.There is, however, a difference between holding anything true and researching or testing its properties and thus gain information about the thing at issue. Knowledge is more than just holding something true.

In the example: if you actually tested the horse's color (i.e. the reflected light's properties), you know about it. While if you believe in grey as the horse's color it is of no relevance what the actual color of the horse is, and in fact just holding it true is rather pointless.