Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dr.Who]

The Bible is a set of ancient writings that have been copied and recopied, translated and retranslated over and over again over the centuries. None of it is to be taken literally.

However, none of that disproves the existence of god, only that humans aren't such good record keepers, at least over the long term.

As with ALL writings it should be interpreted literally when using our best judgment we think it is literal and figuratively when using our best judgment we think it is meant to be figurative.

The fact that it has been copied and translated does not change that fact that poems should remain poems and history should remain history etc.

The fact that it has been copied and translated does mean that recent translations may have errors but does not mean that the original is to be discarded.

 

[Dr.Who]

as stated long ago, you can't disprove God. Just like I can't disprove the Greek gods, or the Roman ones. And I can't disprove that if I stand in a dark closet with nothing that lets me see outside the closet...that everything outside the closet does not turn pink...but if I try to videotape it, it will stay the same...Its a stupid idea, but I can't disprove it...I can't disprove that a invisible man is watching me right now from the hallway....

Are you trying to implr that since you can create a silly analogy that it must apply? You can't prove that the world does not turn pink which would be ridiculous so clearly if one can't prove that God does not exist God must be ridiculous too.

Yes obviously that is the inference you are trying to to have us make.

 

[Dr.Who]

For years I have heard, as standard church rhetoric, that the Bible is the inspired word of God. In that context, the meaning of what is written in the Bible then, does not change...God's inspiration would control the continuing message. You church ladies cannot have it both ways.

You have no doubt heard things like this:

"The presupposition of Christianity is that the Bible, as originally written down by people inspired by God, is the infallible word of God in written form. The Bible contains the divine answer to the problems we humans face throughout our lives, as well as the directives of God concerning how He is to be worshiped and served. While some problems of translation do exist, Christians believe that God Himself maintains the integrity and accuracy of His words through the work of the Holy Spirit."

http://www.reformed.org/bible/bible-intro.html

The people in your church either failed to make the distinction between the original text and modern translations or you failed to make the distinction.

Were the people you heard saying that later translations could not have errors? If so then I hope that even if you were a child you could have seen through that.

 

[PLC1]

No, it does not mean his death it still means his kingdom. Some believe it began with his death. The Son of Man is indeed a title for Christ but kingdom does not refer to his coming again. It refers to his authority on earth as king. Christ is King as in Kingdom - king, kingdom, see the connection.

That is an interesting interpretation, but I think it would be difficult to support the idea that Christ is King of the world and has been since Biblical times

Surely just by living in this country you have figured out that Christians think of Christ as king. The word Christ after all means anointed as king. Surely you have heard at least one Christmas song on the radio that mentions it.

Yes I have heard that, of course, in hymns and sermons. Still, Christ's Kingdom was established back in Biblical times? That one seems a little bit shaky, given the history of the world since that time.

I would hope none have that point of view since even non-believers should understand that the kingdom is already considered to have been established.

Even non believers should be smart enough to figure out that a second coming requires a first coming and that the first one is the one where his kingdom on earth is believed to have been established.

The first coming was when He came in the flesh. The second coming is when he comes in his glory, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess and so on. Surely, you've heard hymns and sermons to that effect as well. The second coming is thought of as a turning point in the history of the world to say the least, and isn't something that is believed by most Christians to have already happened.

 

[PLC1]

As with ALL writings it should be interpreted literally when using our best judgment we think it is literal and figuratively when using our best judgment we think it is meant to be figurative.

Of course. It just is not to be taken literally when any sort of judgement tells us it is not literal.

The fact that it has been copied and translated does not change that fact that poems should remain poems and history should remain history etc.

Sure, but what is the history really? Did God part the Red Sea, then drown the pursuing army? Or is that a tall tale, much like the Paul Bunyon Tales? Common sense tells us that it is a tale. Was there a universal flood, or is that a story, perhaps from the Epic of Gilgamesh, or maybe an embellishment of a story about a real local flood? Common sense tells us it is one of the two latter, yet true believers will maintain that it is literal truth.

The fact that it has been copied and translated does mean that recent translations may have errors but does not mean that the original is to be discarded.

but most of the original has been lost.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is an interesting interpretation, but I think it would be difficult to support the idea that Christ is King of the world and has been since Biblical times

For our discussion it is not relevant if all the world recognized Christ as King. It only matters if the bible makes the claim. The bible does make the claim and one of the places it makes it is when it says that the Son of Man establishes his kingdom.

Yes I have heard that, of course, in hymns and sermons. Still, Christ's Kingdom was established back in Biblical times? That one seems a little bit shaky, given the history of the world since that time.

It is pretty clear that the bible claims his earthly kindgom was established by biblical times.

The first coming was when He came in the flesh. The second coming is when he comes in his glory, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess and so on. Surely, you've heard hymns and sermons to that effect as well. The second coming is thought of as a turning point in the history of the world to say the least, and isn't something that is believed by most Christians to have already happened.

yep.

 

[Dr.Who]

Of course. It just is not to be taken literally when any sort of judgement tells us it is not literal.

We do have to use our judgment to decide when it is to be taken literally or figuratively - just as we do with all written word. Often we are wrong both with the bible and with other written words.

Sure, but what is the history really? Did God part the Red Sea, then drown the pursuing army? Or is that a tall tale, much like the Paul Bunyon Tales? Common sense tells us that it is a tale. Was there a universal flood, or is that a story, perhaps from the Epic of Gilgamesh, or maybe an embellishment of a story about a real local flood? Common sense tells us it is one of the two latter, yet true believers will maintain that it is literal truth.

Many people do have different ideas of what that means and you can count yourself as one who has an opinion too. "Common sense" is often right and often wrong.

but most of the original has been lost.

The copies are so good that we can know with a high degree of certainty what was in the originals. This of course is exactly why we can say that the story of the woman taken in adultery was not in the originals.

 

[PLC1]

We do have to use our judgment to decide when it is to be taken literally or figuratively - just as we do with all written word. Often we are wrong both with the bible and with other written words.



Many people do have different ideas of what that means and you can count yourself as one who has an opinion too. "Common sense" is often right and often wrong.



The copies are so good that we can know with a high degree of certainty what was in the originals. This of course is exactly why we can say that the story of the woman taken in adultery was not in the originals.

Common sense is usually right. Recognizing common sense is the difficult part.

Written words, wherever they're found, are often wrong.

 

[Dr.Who]

Common sense is usually right. Recognizing common sense is the difficult part.

Written words, wherever they're found, are often wrong.

Could be. Or not.

It seems to me that behind every written word someone (probably the author) thought that it represented common sense.

 

[PLC1]

Could be. Or not.

It seems to me that behind every written word someone (probably the author) thought that it represented common sense.

Perhaps, and perhaps the same can be said for the spoken word. Still, a whole lot of total nonsense gets said and written down.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Are you trying to implr that since you can create a silly analogy that it must apply? You can't prove that the world does not turn pink which would be ridiculous so clearly if one can't prove that God does not exist God must be ridiculous too.

Yes obviously that is the inference you are trying to to have us make.

no I am saying that you can not disprove things like that...its impossible.

Prove to me there is no Santa Clause....you can't...does not mean there is no Santa, and does not mean there is one as well...it simply means that you can not prove a negative.

this is a basic idea of science...it has nothing to do with God...

the simple fact is, the question is a bad question as it asks something that is impossible...in order to boost the idea that the inverse is then true...

the completely absurd idea about the world being pink, has nothing to do with saying the idea of God is silly....its showing how even something so completely dumb...can't be proved...that the idea you can't prove a negative will apply to anything.

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps, and perhaps the same can be said for the spoken word. Still, a whole lot of total nonsense gets said and written down.

True enough. Do you suppose that even more total nonsense is believed every day by regular Joe's exercising what they think is common sense but is really a violation of logic using multiple logical fallacies?

I would guess that since the written word is produced after the thinking process and not before that it cannot be more fallacious. Every written error was first a error of thought. The sum of written errors is not going to be greater than the sum of errors of thought.

Tell me again, why are we debating this?

 

[Dr.Who]

no I am saying that you can not disprove things like that...its impossible.

Prove to me there is no Santa Clause....you can't...does not mean there is no Santa, and does not mean there is one as well...it simply means that you can not prove a negative.

this is a basic idea of science...it has nothing to do with God...

the simple fact is, the question is a bad question as it asks something that is impossible...in order to boost the idea that the inverse is then true...

the completely absurd idea about the world being pink, has nothing to do with saying the idea of God is silly....its showing how even something so completely dumb...can't be proved...that the idea you can't prove a negative will apply to anything.

A negative can be disproven. But, in fact the request to prove that there is no God is not even a request to disprove a negative. It is a request to make a case in the absence of enough evidence. I believe the point of the thread was to make people realize that there is not enough evidence to disprove the existence of God so people ought to stop saying there is no God until an exhaustive search has been completed.

Various silly notions can have strong cases made against them. For example if one proves that Santa Clause was created by a particular person at a particular time that would prove that Santa, is not real. Despite the fact that it is generally agreed that Santa is imaginary I don't believe we have the evidence to show that Santa was created by an author of some story, but it would be the way to disprove Santa. But if someone found the manuscript of the first story of Santa that would be pretty good proof that he is imaginary - i.e. it is possible to prove that Santa is imaginary. For example, an analogous figure to Santa would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And since we know for a fact that on a certain date a certain person fabricated the existence of the Spaghetti Monster we can say with a high degree of confidence that it is imaginary.

If the claims for God had been made as an imaginary story we could make the same case. However, the authors of the claims for God specifically state that they are not making an imaginary story. What we commonly have is assertions that the stories of God are myths but without any evidence to support the statement.

 

[PLC1]

True enough. Do you suppose that even more total nonsense is believed every day by regular Joe's exercising what they think is common sense but is really a violation of logic using multiple logical fallacies?

I would guess that since the written word is produced after the thinking process and not before that it cannot be more fallacious. Every written error was first a error of thought. The sum of written errors is not going to be greater than the sum of errors of thought.

Tell me again, why are we debating this?

I think it started out as a discussion of the Bible and whether or how much of it can be taken literally.

So, is it more reliable than any other printed word? Why?

 

[clarkatticus]

A negative can be disproven. But, in fact the request to prove that there is no God is not even a request to disprove a negative. It is a request to make a case in the absence of enough evidence. I believe the point of the thread was to make people realize that there is not enough evidence to disprove the existence of God so people ought to stop saying there is no God until an exhaustive search has been completed.

Various silly notions can have strong cases made against them. For example if one proves that Santa Clause was created by a particular person at a particular time that would prove that Santa, is not real. Despite the fact that it is generally agreed that Santa is imaginary I don't believe we have the evidence to show that Santa was created by an author of some story, but it would be the way to disprove Santa. But if someone found the manuscript of the first story of Santa that would be pretty good proof that he is imaginary - i.e. it is possible to prove that Santa is imaginary. For example, an analogous figure to Santa would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And since we know for a fact that on a certain date a certain person fabricated the existence of the Spaghetti Monster we can say with a high degree of confidence that it is imaginary.

If the claims for God had been made as an imaginary story we could make the same case. However, the authors of the claims for God specifically state that they are not making an imaginary story. What we commonly have is assertions that the stories of God are myths but without any evidence to support the statement.

The same logic to disprove santa can be used to disprove god, there is no differance. Proving or disproving god is senseless, in your mind faith convinces you that god is the only answer to that which you cannot explain. There is no proof that God was or was not created at a certain time by a certain person, the current set of beliefs that are held by the differing faiths are just logical enhancements added over the years for political or scientific reasons. Just because I don't have the answer, doesn't mean god is the answer. Why would I care if you believe in god and I do not? Why would you care?