Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dawkinsrocks]

That might make you feel better but it is not much of a rebuttal.

BTW, christians getting angry at my views is a sure sign that they cannot answer them.

It must be awful dedicating your life to something as ridiculous as christianity.

It would be like me devoting my life to santa claus.

Except that might be fun.

 

[numinus]

That might make you feel better but it is not much of a rebuttal.

BTW, christians getting angry at my views is a sure sign that they cannot answer them.

It must be awful dedicating your life to something as ridiculous as christianity.

It would be like me devoting my life to santa claus.

Except that might be fun.

Only opinions based on facts and logic deserve any rebuttal.

Your opinions contain neither facts nor logic.

Duh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh and this thread does????

Depending on sophistry like the fact that you cannot prove non-existence seems to work for you.

It has to cos you have got nothing else.

If I had to depend on an argument for my beliefs as desperate as the OP of this thread I would give up my beliefs and find better ones.

Which is why, I guess, I am not a christian

 

[numinus]

Oh and this thread does????

Certainly. Just because you post in this thread, and your posts are painfully bereft of logic, doesn't mean the rest of the thread has no logic,

Duh?

Depending on sophistry like the fact that you cannot prove non-existence seems to work for you.

Do not worry yourself too much. No one here expects you to understand theoretical physics anyway.

It has to cos you have got nothing else.

If I had to depend on an argument for my beliefs as desperate as the OP of this thread I would give up my beliefs and find better ones.

Which is why, I guess, I am not a christian

Why don't you set aside your arrogant bluster for second and face facts.

You are not a christian because you are simply too dumb to appreciate the religion's philosophical foundations.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yes, I am just too stupid to accept a book fo fairy tales as evidence

 

[top gun]

numinus;78042]
Why don't you set aside your arrogant bluster for second and face facts.

You are not a christian because you are simply too dumb to appreciate the religion's philosophical foundations.

REALLY!

It looks a lot more like Dawkinsrocks is confronting a totally unprovable theological delusion that you have chosen to hold dear... and as such you try to project onto him your own weakness of proof.

Coming at this debate from any other angle than an already religious indoctrination one would have to be skeptical at LEAST and probably end up as Agnostic... if not make the full jump to Atheist.

Reasoning: When you see EXACT copies of previous so called religious events in one place that have been cut & pasted to fit another religious sect one can't help but say whoa........

Then if you see an abundance of contradiction or extremely relevant event omission in the story and/or paper trail... bad sign.

Then end up with scientific tests that can in many cases be used to quantitatively dispute some things stated as religious fact.

Evolving into an attempt to discredit those discoveries by what could be called mystical non-evidence.

You know all the golden oldies of Evangelists...

A certain event is in God time not man's (so it like a trick. The story itself was sent down to be absolute and crystal clear... but God really wants to keep y'all in the dark on "timing".

Or another goodie... Carbon Dating is proven extremely accurate, but only until the time that the bible says the earth was created 6 thousand years ago or so. After that the wheels immediately fall off Carbon Dating so dinosaurs MUST have been on earth with man.

One could go on for days with such major discrepancies so I think at the end it comes down to this.

Having a pure but unprovable faith in something is something that anyone wanting it should absolutely be allowed to believe in. But trying to put it on to anyone else as "provable" immediately puts one at a severe, I'd say fatal, disadvantage.

 

[PLC1]

And as allegories go, wouldn't you say that the message far outhweighs the telling?

If by "the message" you mean the philosophy Jesus expounded, as recorded in the four gospels that survived the meetings at Nicea, then you have a good point. If "the message" means that the "miracles" described in those gospels actually happened as described, then that is a pretty difficult position to defend.

As for scientific hypotheses, I have read nothing that claims something coming from nothing in a cosmological scale. In that sense, science is irrelevant to the fundamental question of cosmology.

If by "fundamental question of cosmology" you mean questions like "why are we here?" and "what happens when we die"? and "how did the universe get started?" then I agree. Science has no answers to those questions.

I don't really understand the so called "big bang" idea, and doubt that you do either. It does, on the surface, sound a lot like god saying, "Let there be light", but then ,I really don't understand that one either.

Nor do I think you do.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And let us not foget there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of god.

Here endeth today's sermon

 

[numinus]

Yes, I am just too stupid to accept a book fo fairy tales as evidence

That settles it then.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Indeed

Now why don't you address my threads about the death of christ and the desperation of christian 'logic'?

Oh and while you are at it, how about the cannibalism of roman catholics when taking communion.

Christ must have been very fat for all those catholics to still be eating his body and drinking his blood.

I wish I was smart enough to understand that

 

[numinus]

REALLY!

It looks a lot more like Dawkinsrocks is confronting a totally unprovable theological delusion that you have chosen to hold dear... and as such you try to project onto him your own weakness of proof.

Coming at this debate from any other angle than an already religious indoctrination one would have to be skeptical at LEAST and probably end up as Agnostic... if not make the full jump to Atheist.

Reasoning: When you see EXACT copies of previous so called religious events in one place that have been cut & pasted to fit another religious sect one can't help but say whoa........

Then if you see an abundance of contradiction or extremely relevant event omission in the story and/or paper trail... bad sign.

Then end up with scientific tests that can in many cases be used to quantitatively dispute some things stated as religious fact.

Evolving into an attempt to discredit those discoveries by what could be called mystical non-evidence.

You know all the golden oldies of Evangelists...

A certain event is in God time not man's (so it like a trick. The story itself was sent down to be absolute and crystal clear... but God really wants to keep y'all in the dark on "timing".

Or another goodie... Carbon Dating is proven extremely accurate, but only until the time that the bible says the earth was created 6 thousand years ago or so. After that the wheels immediately fall off Carbon Dating so dinosaurs MUST have been on earth with man.

One could go on for days with such major discrepancies so I think at the end it comes down to this.

Having a pure but unprovable faith in something is something that anyone wanting it should absolutely be allowed to believe in. But trying to put it on to anyone else as "provable" immediately puts one at a severe, I'd say fatal, disadvantage.

Eh?

What the hell are you babbling about?

As far as the thread topic goes, I have provided ONTOLOGICAL PROOF.

As far as the christian bible goes, I have been instructed, since grade school, that the bible IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ AS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

If by "the message" you mean the philosophy Jesus expounded, as recorded in the four gospels that survived the meetings at Nicea, then you have a good point. If "the message" means that the "miracles" described in those gospels actually happened as described, then that is a pretty difficult position to defend.

The miracles and the parables presented in the four gospels serve only to highlight the message.

For instance, I am convinced that there is a deeper miracle being conveyed in the multiplying of bread and fish prior to the sermon on the mount.

The food did not 'miraculously multiply'. The miracle was that the crowd suddenly had a change of heart and shared the food they must have brought along with them.

If by "fundamental question of cosmology" you mean questions like "why are we here?" and "what happens when we die"? and "how did the universe get started?" then I agree. Science has no answers to those questions.

I meant, from where/what did everything come from?

I don't really understand the so called "big bang" idea, and doubt that you do either. It does, on the surface, sound a lot like god saying, "Let there be light", but then ,I really don't understand that one either.

Nor do I think you do.

I may not be competent to teach these topics in a formal, academic setting, but make no mistake, I have a very good grasp of them. I even have the background education for it.

 

[numinus]

And let us not foget there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of god.

Here endeth today's sermon

What one cannot comprehend doesn't exist for him, I suppose.

What else can I say?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What one cannot comprehend doesn't exist for him, I suppose.

As schizophrenics prove every day.

 

[top gun]

Eh?

What the hell are you babbling about?

As far as the thread topic goes, I have provided ONTOLOGICAL PROOF.

As far as the christian bible goes, I have been instructed, since grade school, that the bible IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ AS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.

Capice?

You're killing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know that no one can ever prove a negative and nothing more.

You have zero evidence God does exist and you now it. You can have buckets of FAITH... but you have no proof.

Your "proof" is has exactly the same weight as all the other religions of the world that are completely different than yours... that would be none!

And you're right. The Bible isn't to be read as a historical document. It's to be read like Caveman drawings or Mayan paintings. Man's attempt to describe what we now know are perfectly normal events he just did not have the ability or scientific knowledge to understand at the time.