A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

You cannot prove a negative, so you cannot prove a **god** does not exist.

However, once humans put attributes to a 'god', then that specific 'god' can be disproven.

For example, the book of genesis cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny, hence the book of genesis is bunk. Since the bible of the word of the christian 'god', then the christian 'god' is also bunk.

That does not mean another 'god' does not or cannot exist, just the christian 'god' does not exist.

 

Only if you make an assumption that the Book of Genesis needs to be read literally, instead of as an allegory. Yes, I agree, a literal interpretation of the Bible would lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. A literal interpretation of the Bible is silly, though.

 

Why would you not take 'gods word' literally?

And further more, who’s to say what is to be taken literally and allegorically?

For an omnipotent, omniscient 'god', can't this 'god' can't make it so everyone knows what to take literally and allegorically?

Take Noahs Ark. If that story is to be taken allegorically, then why is there people today out looking for its remains?

 

You've been asked by me personally on many occasions Evil, this is not the first time we have met is it?

Again, the debate between atheism and theism does not revolve around your personal faith choice.

The point is that both atheism and theism have the same evidential requirements and the same shortcoming. Yet, atheists scream the loudest about evidence and make the biggest excuses for their evidential failure - indeed hand waving away faith entirely (even as they use).

However, YOU are routinely down here beating up one side of that evidential picture, but never the other.

Clearly there is a standards issue there, that, quite frankly, your personal opinion has absolutely no bearing on.

 

Only if you assume it is some sort of scientific statement, surely? Is 'Hamlet' bunk? I don't think the plot would stand up to much scientific scrutiny. Genesis is a collection of creation myths and stuff like that, such as most early cultures had, and it's nothing like science. I believe the idea of taking it literally is some sort of heresy, but I always forget the name.

Well, you must have had a fundamentalist education. Until remarkably recently people expressed their ideas about life, the world and everything though 'gods'. Julius Caesar was made a god, for instance. The thing is to ask, 'What did these particular people mean by the expression?' It wouldn't be what modern Hicksville means by the word, surely - and it's an interesting study to see how ideas worked back then. Buddhism, for instance, takes no account of 'gods' at all, but the Buddha took for granted that the things existed, because everyone did then.

It seems to me unlikely that any such beings or processes or whatever 'exist', but the Christian one (as opposed to a 'Judaeo-Christian' one, whatever that might be) strikes me as rather sympathetic. I mean 'God' as mentioned in the sayings of Jesus, not all the rest of all the old how's-your-father.

 

Again, for the wider audience, that point has been made repeatedly, and, inparticular Rstones, the same atheists continue to come back and demand that we Christians follow the fundamentalist tact.

Each of you get angry when anyone tries to tell you what atheism is, yet, many Christian denominations view genisis exactly as described above, and it is indeed part of their official doctrine.

If you demand tolerance of personal opinions with no doctrinal basis, then it should be fairly easy to accept the doctrinal position of many Christians as well - as it is indeed also a repeatedly stated opinion on the issue to boot.

 

Doesn't the concept of faith imply that one lacks proof?

Actually no scientific evidence exists in either direction.
The closest I've heard is scientific evidence that God need not exist to explain everything... Occam's Razor could lead one to put that together as evidence for atheism (the existence of God complicates things), but that is philosophy, not science, and obviously it is not conclusive.

I've looked at the pudding. My faith has only deteriorated in looking closer at the pudding. Are you using the Cook n' Serve by any chance?

Given the evidence, atheism requires less faith. If any religion is tied with it, it's deism... which is about the most general and unmeaningful of all theistic leanings.

In other words, assume God and you'll find anecdotal evidence?
The problem is that this can be said for any god, concept, or whatnot. Science was designed to avoid this human mental trap.

That wouldn't be enough.
There is absolutely no point at which someone could not say "Well, God started that process and controlled the inner workings."

This doesn't really support the existence of God any more than it does evolution.
Evolution has an explanation for altruism that also explains when people who don't believe in God or an afterlife do altruistic things.

 

if that were true you would not post such ignorance.

ie.... if you knew what you were talking about, you would not post what is incorrect.



Now if you knew the truth, you would not be ignorant of fact

truth destroys ignorance

information can be the venue of both the ignorant and honest/truth

 

ONLY if god is understood (labeled/defined)

To suggest 'god' is some dude on a thrown is just stupid.

 

The christian god is labeled/defined. That is precisely why I can say the christian god does not exist.

 

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen
No, you guys spent the thread lying, twisting what I said, etc so why would I even bother discussing it with people bent on lying?

Guess we got our answer.... Hmmm. Faced with a direct question. Like a well hit baseball, he's going, going, GONE!

 

what?

the word 'divine' is non verifiable as an outside sourcing of phenomena

incorrect.

accreation; the combining of elements

note: the 'creation' or purely the 'transistion' of mass/energy/time is what the evolution of knowledge is assisting with, understanding

ie... the pinnacle of understanding is that description (the name of the boss/existence itself)

that's what i'm doing NOW

sorry............ already done.

religion is a learned concept, no matter the belief

undestanding is felt even though also 'learned'

big difference in and of reality as to belief can be a creation but to understand can be applied to what is real

what?

way to go. I like it.

ie.... the name to know is the math describing the transition of mass energy time (trinity) of natures process (god itself)

And if someone was (did) to complete that, who would it be (theologically speaking of course)?

Why is the 'name' not spoken? (share you point of view)

How is it that with 'the name' all things can be 'created'?

Share.

any prophecies of aliens? Or clearly have any of the prophets written of 'seeing' them? Are you aware of how 'entanglement' works?

Does that property of nature, actually exist? Are we of 'nature' (the garden)?

Does it transcend time?

in a sense. But the best answer to 'reason' a god is to describe the unknown phenomenon and/or the pursuit of 'life' (longevity).

Funny part is, both are answerable with understanding 'god' (nature itself).

ie... you can live forever and you can understand all that exists, naturally.

i know and love it!

The pinnacle of evolution (all of existence) is for 'existence to comprehend itself'.


'we the people' are ONE (we are of 'it' (god itself))

we live within the body of ........ god itself


so god can be defined, understood and with 'its' name, all things can be created


the best lessons are of life and death and how to live forever.

the rest is superficial.

 

Where do you come up with this??????????????

 

Pretty easy to decide. If the story could not rationally happen, it's allegorical.

They are misguided and are mistaking allegory for history.

 

If you use the strawman version, of course. I can create strawmen and destroy them, too. However, that is not intellectually honest, so I don't do it.

 

Then you would agree some christians are misguided correct?

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...just-got-more-unbelievable-2.html#post4370094

In the above thread, the member is saying the story of the ark is true.

And here in lies the whole problem with taking the bible literally or allegorically. When christians themselves cannot even agree with what should be taken literally or allegorically, then we have a credibility issue on our hands.

If you logically think about this, the christian god can create a galaxy with a billions of stars, yet he cannot get mankind to agree on when his word should be taken literally and when it should be taken allegorically? Simply put, this is nothing but ill faded human 'logic' at work. Hence the christian god is nothing more a myth.

This still does not mean a **god** cannot exist.

 

So the christian god is not defined/labeled?

 

Agreed. ...

 

Agreed. ...

 

Of course. Christians are human. Humans are sometimes misguided.

Different groups of Christians are involved. Catholics (and mainline Protestants) pretty much agree with the allegorical view.

Again, a strawman argument. God designed us with free will. Hence, He doesn't force us to do or think anything (BTW, that's what the story of Adam, Eve, and the fruit are all about, not literal creation). You are using childish views of God (which I do grant a lot of Christians do have) as your strawman.

I agree.

 

Not in the way you defined and labeled the Christian God. Also, basically, the Catholic viewpoint is that God is really almost incomprehensible to humans. I'm not sure that human beings have the mental ability to truly define and label God.

The whole does God exist or not argument is really specious. It doesn't matter. God cannot be proven or disproven. Those words are those involved with science. God is supernatural and is beyond (or more specifically separate from) the realm of science.

 

Doesn't matter one iota. For something as important as 'gods word', everyone should agree. The mere fact that groups of christains do not agree on what should be literal and what is allegorical, shows the bible to be bunk and hence the god the bible speaks of as bunk.

Freewill is irrelevant. Bring up freewill is simply an attempt to bring sanity to the absurd. Bring up freewill is simply an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Freewill in the christian mythology cannot exist. Is god detectable? No? So much for freewill. Where is our choice to find this 'god'? Think before you post.

 

We have the bible, therefore we can take what the bible says and prove or disprove the bible. The bible is the 'word of god' right?

Again, you are simply trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with this nonsense of “I'm not sure that human beings have the mental ability to truly define and label God.”.

If you wish not to think, that’s your choice, but do not insult the rest of us with nonsense.

 

Very few people take the entire Bible literally. I don't.

But who are you to decide how people should interpret the Bible? You seem both illogical and irrational, in that while on the one hand, you seek to criticize those having faith and on the other, you want to tell them how they should practice it.

Of course, Atheists are rarely rational when it comes to their faith, so I guess that's not surprising.

 

Then why take the god the bible speaks of literally?

If religious people want to deny people their rights, tell people they are going to hell if they sin, stand on street corners holding signs that says 'Jesus saves', post on FB on how their god loves them, etc, etc, etc, etc. then that does indeed give me the right to question them and their god.

If you don't like it, then keep you god to yourself an out of my life, my school system, my courts, and my government, just to name a few places where religion people think their god belongs.