Prove that God doesn't exist.

[UShadItComing]

The 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth idea is some people's interpretation of the Bible. Of course, literal interpretation does not stand up to modern science.

IMO you can't suggest that the bible doesn't have to be interpreted literally and still maintain that it is the word of god. If you do then it all becomes quite meaningless. In any case, if you are suggesting that then you are in a small minority I believe and not only that, you are grasping at straws.

Do you believe that there are only two choices, that the Bible is literal and historically factual, or that there is no god?

Those are not opposing choices. I believe that the bible must either be interpreted as literal or it must be discarded as a work of fiction and fantasy. By definition it suits that description IMO because anyone living in a modern world can't interpret the bible as literal. I believe that there is no god but to prove a negative is quite impossible. I may however believe that there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun just outside the earth's orbit. Neither can you prove that it doesn't exist but it's quite reasonable to suspect that it doesn't.

God did leave evidence of his existence in his creation, not in the ancient writings of Man, but, that still doesn't prove the existence of god.

No, god didn't leave any evidence of any kind in any socalled creation. Science has provided with perfectly plausible explanations which support Darwinian theory which tells us that life evolved from most probably one event in the beginning from a very primitive form of life.

Disbelief in the literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't disprove god, either.

Disbelief in a literal translation of the bible leaves you with nothing on which to base your superstitious beliefs. You would be much better off trying to reconcile what the bible says with the real world as many actually do. If you don't then you are doing nothing more than making excuses for the errors contained in your bible.

As of just recently in the last couple of weeks there has been new evidence discovered which could maintain that the bible has been found to be factually incorrect and in error. If that is the case then the bible can no longer be considered the word of god for obvious reasons. If the Christians handle this new evidence in a creative manner then it could be cause for a rewriting of the bible which would then be able to reconcile it's words with modern knowledge. I would suggest that christians don't lose the opportunity.

 

[PLC1]

The 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth idea is some people's interpretation of the Bible. Of course, literal interpretation does not stand up to modern science.

IMO you can't suggest that the bible doesn't have to be interpreted literally and still maintain that it is the word of god. If you do then it all becomes quite meaningless. In any case, if you are suggesting that then you are in a small minority I believe and not only that, you are grasping at straws.



Those are not opposing choices. I believe that the bible must either be interpreted as literal or it must be discarded as a work of fiction and fantasy. By definition it suits that description IMO because anyone living in a modern world can't interpret the bible as literal. I believe that there is no god but to prove a negative is quite impossible. I may however believe that there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun just outside the earth's orbit. Neither can you prove that it doesn't exist but it's quite reasonable to suspect that it doesn't.



No, god didn't leave any evidence of any kind in any socalled creation. Science has provided with perfectly plausible explanations which support Darwinian theory which tells us that life evolved from most probably one event in the beginning from a very primitive form of life.



Disbelief in a literal translation of the bible leaves you with nothing on which to base your superstitious beliefs. You would be much better off trying to reconcile what the bible says with the real world as many actually do. If you don't then you are doing nothing more than making excuses for the errors contained in your bible.

As of just recently in the last couple of weeks there has been new evidence discovered which could maintain that the bible has been found to be factually incorrect and in error. If that is the case then the bible can no longer be considered the word of god for obvious reasons. If the Christians handle this new evidence in a creative manner then it could be cause for a rewriting of the bible which would then be able to reconcile it's words with modern knowledge. I would suggest that christians don't lose the opportunity.

You are not coming even close to disproving the existence of god. All of your arguments are against belief in Christianity. Mankind has believed in gods for much longer than the Bible and its Judeo-Christian beliefs were written down.

Evolution does nothing to disprove the existence of god. Having discovered the means by which life was created doesn't disprove the existence of the creator, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[UShadItComing]

You are not coming even close to disproving the existence of god. All of your arguments are against belief in Christianity. Mankind has believed in gods for much longer than the Bible and its Judeo-Christian beliefs were written down.

Had you read carefully you would have noticed that I couldn't prove a negative any more than you could prove that the celestial teapot doesn't exist. Your point is correct in that mankind has believed in gods for longer than christian beliefs were written down. This reinforces the idea that your christian god is nothing but a later invented fantasy and that is all I really care about establishing. If you are willing to totally reject the bible as a work of fiction then we have nothing much left to disagree upon. If you are going to believe in a god which is not a personal and all-knowing god in the sense of christian teaching then I have no objection to that in the least. If you are going to maintain a belief in the bible then you should at least tailor your arguments to support that belief, not tell me of beliefs which predate christian beliefs.

Evolution does nothing to disprove the existence of god. Having discovered the means by which life was created doesn't disprove the existence of the creator, quite the opposite in fact.

Evolution does a good job of suggesting that creation of human beings is much les likely than Darwin's theory of evolution. That discredits and disproves any credibility the bible ever could have had. I have no interest in taking it to another level and discussing the possibility of a totally different concept in the belief in a god. To destroy any notion that christianity is anything more than superstitious belief is all I wish to do here.

Suffice to say that christians will do the job for me on any of the opposing religions, of which there are literally thousands I believe, both surviving and extinct.

 

[PLC1]

Had you read carefully you would have noticed that I couldn't prove a negative any more than you could prove that the celestial teapot doesn't exist. Your point is correct in that mankind has believed in gods for longer than christian beliefs were written down. This reinforces the idea that your christian god is nothing but a later invented fantasy and that is all I really care about establishing. If you are willing to totally reject the bible as a work of fiction then we have nothing much left to disagree upon. If you are going to believe in a god which is not a personal and all-knowing god in the sense of christian teaching then I have no objection to that in the least. If you are going to maintain a belief in the bible then you should at least tailor your arguments to support that belief, not tell me of beliefs which predate christian beliefs.



Evolution does a good job of suggesting that creation of human beings is much les likely than Darwin's theory of evolution. That discredits and disproves any credibility the bible ever could have had. I have no interest in taking it to another level and discussing the possibility of a totally different concept in the belief in a god. To destroy any notion that christianity is anything more than superstitious belief is all I wish to do here.

Suffice to say that christians will do the job for me on any of the opposing religions, of which there are literally thousands I believe, both surviving and extinct.

I am not trying to prove the existence of god, which would be impossible at any rate.

And, you're correct that it is impossible to prove a negative, so that pretty much leaves any discussion about the existence or non existence of god as a stalemate.

My point was that your arguments were not about the non existence of god, but against Christianity. Even if the Christian Bible were proved to be a fraud, which isn't much of a stretch if the opposing side insists on its literal historical accuracy, that doesn't disprove the existence of god.

As for this:

Evolution does a good job of suggesting that creation of human beings is much les likely than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Evolution does a good job of explaining just how human beings were created, along with all the rest of the intricate web of life we see on Earth. Saying that one must choose between evolution or creation is much like asking whether a modern automobile was created, or whether it evolved from simpler machines. It is not an either/or question.

 

[UShadItComing]

I am not trying to prove the existence of god, which would be impossible at any rate.

And, you're correct that it is impossible to prove a negative, so that pretty much leaves any discussion about the existence or non existence of god as a stalemate.

My point was that your arguments were not about the non existence of god, but against Christianity. Even if the Christian Bible were proved to be a fraud, which isn't much of a stretch if the opposing side insists on its literal historical accuracy, that doesn't disprove the existence of god.

As for this:



Evolution does a good job of explaining just how human beings were created, along with all the rest of the intricate web of life we see on Earth. Saying that one must choose between evolution or creation is much like asking whether a modern automobile was created, or whether it evolved from simpler machines. It is not an either/or question.

So now you agree with my original point? I don't agree with your automobile analogy but it's mainly because it doesn't make a lot of sense. And besides, I never said one had to choose between evolution and creation if they didn't want to do that. However if they are questioned on the issue then they have little choice but to answer or run from the question. For this reason I feel that christians should keep their religion superstitions to themselves if they don't want to face the music. I could care less if the go to church and do ridiculous things in the privacy of their church but I do care when they try to force it on the brights.

 

[PLC1]

So now you agree with my original point? I don't agree with your automobile analogy but it's mainly because it doesn't make a lot of sense. And besides, I never said one had to choose between evolution and creation if they didn't want to do that. However if they are questioned on the issue then they have little choice but to answer or run from the question. For this reason I feel that christians should keep their religion superstitions to themselves if they don't want to face the music. I could care less if the go to church and do ridiculous things in the privacy of their church but I do care when they try to force it on the brights.

I would think that the "brights" could grasp the idea that there is no conflict between evolution and creation. That is the point of the automobile analogy.

No one needs to "answer or run" from evolution. There is enough evidence for evolution that it can't really be dismissed in any logical way. No one should need to deny science in order to embrace god. If such a doublethink as that becomes necessary, then the individual's religious convictions are flawed.

 

[UShadItComing]

I would think that the "brights" could grasp the idea that there is no conflict between evolution and creation. That is the point of the automobile analogy.

No one needs to "answer or run" from evolution. There is enough evidence for evolution that it can't really be dismissed in any logical way. No one should need to deny science in order to embrace god. If such a doublethink as that becomes necessary, then the individual's religious convictions are flawed.

To say that there is no debate between evolution and creation is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard for a long time. I said there shouldn't be because creation is nothing more than silly superstitious belief. In any case, your automobile analogy didn't work and you don't seem to want to explain how you meant it. It doesn't matter.

The fact of the matter is that many need to argue against and deny science a great deal and they fall under the label of ID'ers, at least in part. And of course the notion of ID is very flawed and so are a great number of christians' ideas very flawed.

 

[PLC1]

To say that there is no debate between evolution and creation is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard for a long time. I said there shouldn't be because creation is nothing more than silly superstitious belief. In any case, your automobile analogy didn't work and you don't seem to want to explain how you meant it. It doesn't matter.

The fact of the matter is that many need to argue against and deny science a great deal and they fall under the label of ID'ers, at least in part. And of course the notion of ID is very flawed and so are a great number of christians' ideas very flawed.

I didn't say that there was no debate, but that there is no conflict between the concept of god and the theory of evolution. The reason that there is a debate is that some people insist on a narrow interpretation of the Bible that has been disproven by science, and they aren't willing to give up their belief. Yes, there are those who find in necessary to argue against science in order to maintain certain beliefs, but not to have a belief in god.

There is no conflict between science and god. In fact, the more we learn, the more we know that there are mysteries that can't be explained by unguided natural forces alone. Evolution is one of them, and stands as the best testament to god. How can one deny god after seeing the tool he used to create life?

 

[UShadItComing]

I didn't say that there was no debate, but that there is no conflict between the concept of god and the theory of evolution. The reason that there is a debate is that some people insist on a narrow interpretation of the Bible that has been disproven by science, and they aren't willing to give up their belief. Yes, there are those who find in necessary to argue against science in order to maintain certain beliefs, but not to have a belief in god.

There is no conflict between science and god. In fact, the more we learn, the more we know that there are mysteries that can't be explained by unguided natural forces alone. Evolution is one of them, and stands as the best testament to god. How can one deny god after seeing the tool he used to create life?

Conflict or debate, call it how you like. I've told you that I am arguing against the concept of a god as defined by christianity and you are ignoring that. That is what is total rubbish and I'm here to say so, not to go further and imagine a god in some other concept which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion as far as I can tell.

One can deny a god because there is no evidence to support that a god used a tool of any sort to create life. Indeed science has a perfectly plausible explanation for how life may have sprung up unaided by any god. That is still a theory but it is a much more acceptable theory than the theory of a god of some sort initiating life. Do you have any evidence to support your theory? I have abundant evidence to support mine if you want to hear it. I suggest your read Richard Dawkins', 'The Ancestor's Tale', and save me the bother. You would learn more much quicker that way.

Briefly, if you choose to get into some other concept of a god, you would need to reconcile the fact that a god couldn't creat himself/herself/itself. We need to rely on science to tell us sometime in the future when the human brain has developed enough to understand such concepts. For now it's over both your head and mine too.

Where do you want to go with this topic? I will continue with you as long as you are willing to be reasonable and accept ideas. If not then I have better things to do.

 

[The Scotsman]

Briefly, if you choose to get into some other concept of a god, you would need to reconcile the fact that a god couldn't creat himself/herself/itself.

.........hmmmmmmm.........Julius Caesar allowed himself to be deified by the Roman Senate in 44 BCE, this was a major departure from tradition and frowned upon by most of the Knights and Senatorial classes but the people approved. As the senate allowed more and more autocratic power to be placed in the hands of the Emperors they demanded and obtained Divine status; they were in effect living Gods. Thus, in accordance with their divine status they demanded sacrifices to, amongst other things, prove the loyalty of the population........which ultimately brough them into conflict with other religions such as the Christians who refused to make sacrifices to the Emperors and thus brought them into conflict with Rome......

 

[PLC1]

Conflict or debate, call it how you like. I've told you that I am arguing against the concept of a god as defined by christianity and you are ignoring that. That is what is total rubbish and I'm here to say so, not to go further and imagine a god in some other concept which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion as far as I can tell.

No, I pointed out that your arguments were against the Christian god, not against the concept of god. The challenge issued in the title of the thread is to prove that god doesn't exist. It doesn't say anything about any particular god.

Of course, you can't prove the non existence of the Christian god, either, as that would entail proving a negative. The best you have been able to do so far is to show that the young earth and Bible as literal history ideas are bunk. I think most of us would agree that they are bunk, whether or not we believe in the Christian god, some other god, or no god at all.

One can deny a god because there is no evidence to support that a god used a tool of any sort to create life. Indeed science has a perfectly plausible explanation for how life may have sprung up unaided by any god. That is still a theory but it is a much more acceptable theory than the theory of a god of some sort initiating life. Do you have any evidence to support your theory? I have abundant evidence to support mine if you want to hear it. I suggest your read Richard Dawkins', 'The Ancestor's Tale', and save me the bother. You would learn more much quicker that way.

Here, again, you are using the idea that evolution necessarily happened all on its own. There is no evidence at all that it did (or didn't). You are trying to use science to argue a point that is in the realm of metaphysics. It is an apples and oranges kind of argument.

Once again, there is no conflict between science and the concept of god, nor between evolution and a belief in Christianity, only between science and some people's interpretation of ancient writings.

As for the origin of life, that is another matter. Science has never demonstrated abiogenesis, the ability of non living matter to produce life. For life to have sprung up without intelligent guidance, it would have had to come from spontaneous generation, a concept that has never been shown to be even possible.

Briefly, if you choose to get into some other concept of a god, you would need to reconcile the fact that a god couldn't creat himself/herself/itself. We need to rely on science to tell us sometime in the future when the human brain has developed enough to understand such concepts. For now it's over both your head and mine too.

Where do you want to go with this topic? I will continue with you as long as you are willing to be reasonable and accept ideas. If not then I have better things to do.

If you want to set yourself the more conservative goal of proving the non existence of the Christian god, then, by all means, let's see your argument.

 

[UShadItComing]

No, I pointed out that your arguments were against the Christian god, not against the concept of god. The challenge issued in the title of the thread is to prove that god doesn't exist. It doesn't say anything about any particular god.

Of course, you can't prove the non existence of the Christian god, either, as that would entail proving a negative. The best you have been able to do so far is to show that the young earth and Bible as literal history ideas are bunk. I think most of us would agree that they are bunk, whether or not we believe in the Christian god, some other god, or no god at all.



Here, again, you are using the idea that evolution necessarily happened all on its own. There is no evidence at all that it did (or didn't). You are trying to use science to argue a point that is in the realm of metaphysics. It is an apples and oranges kind of argument.

Once again, there is no conflict between science and the concept of god, nor between evolution and a belief in Christianity, only between science and some people's interpretation of ancient writings.

As for the origin of life, that is another matter. Science has never demonstrated abiogenesis, the ability of non living matter to produce life. For life to have sprung up without intelligent guidance, it would have had to come from spontaneous generation, a concept that has never been shown to be even possible.




If you want to set yourself the more conservative goal of proving the non existence of the Christian god, then, by all means, let's see your argument.

Either we're on different wave lengths or you're being purposely contrary. Doesn't matter to me either way. I've already told you that I couldn't prove that there is no god and I've also told you that the evidence supports the non-existence of a christian god. What do you want to hear now?

 

[PLC1]

Either we're on different wave lengths or you're being purposely contrary. Doesn't matter to me either way. I've already told you that I couldn't prove that there is no god and I've also told you that the evidence supports the non-existence of a christian god. What do you want to hear now?

I guess we're on different wave lengths. Mine came from the title of the thread.

 

[UShadItComing]

I guess we're on different wave lengths. Mine came from the title of the thread.

Mine didn't and I explained that to you right from the beginning. Have a nice day.

 

[The Scotsman]

Mine didn't and I explained that to you right from the beginning. Have a nice day.

.....my my giving up already after so short a time......how disappointing I do soooooo love your posts......so.....hmmmmm...so delicate!

BTW care to comment on old Gaius' elevation to the rank of God?