Prove that God doesn't exist.

[top gun]

numinus;78075]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.

EXACTLY... SO IT WASN'T A MIRACLE! Sharing food is to you a MIRACLE. Hell I then pay for a MIRACLE every single night!

This is the truth. Over all of time just as today there have been good people & bad people. Some very good people were thought of (usually after death) as more than just good people... Gods, Prophets, Saints whatever.

And sometimes the stories of someone were so good a group from another area would hear of them and then attribute them to "their" good person.

Go see the movie Religilous. It goes right down the line with exact text right out of history and you'll be amazed at just how shallow a lot of religious absolute truly are.

 

[PLC1]

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.

So, you think there is a perfectly rational explanation for the miracles described in the New Testament.

So do I.

Many Christians would disagree, saying that the miracles prove that Jesus was more than just a mortal man.

How about the miracle of the resurrection? Was that just an allegory also, or was there a rational explanation?

 

[numinus]

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

I'm happy to be of assistance.

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

And what ontological proof have I provided atttempts to prove a negative, hmmm?

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

As I recall, aquainas alone gave 5 distinct but related ontological proofs.

Not my fault you can't count, is it?

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!

LMAO.

Then it would be a simple matter to point out exactly where ontology has committed a logical fallacy, no?

As I recall, you have given zero refutation against ontology.

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.

Argue for your own intellectual limitations, then sure enough, they are yours.

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.

This is not even a complete sentence.

 

[numinus]

EXACTLY... SO IT WASN'T A MIRACLE! Sharing food is to you a MIRACLE. Hell I then pay for a MIRACLE every single night!

This is the truth. Over all of time just as today there have been good people & bad people. Some very good people were thought of (usually after death) as more than just good people... Gods, Prophets, Saints whatever.

And sometimes the stories of someone were so good a group from another area would hear of them and then attribute them to "their" good person.

Go see the movie Religilous. It goes right down the line with exact text right out of history and you'll be amazed at just how shallow a lot of religious absolute truly are.

It was a miracle in that there was a radical 'change of heart' among jesus' listeners at that particular time.

And what exactly do you suppose is christianity trying to do except initiate a radical 'change of heart' among the peoples of the world, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

So, you think there is a perfectly rational explanation for the miracles described in the New Testament.

So do I.

Many Christians would disagree, saying that the miracles prove that Jesus was more than just a mortal man.

How about the miracle of the resurrection? Was that just an allegory also, or was there a rational explanation?

What I am saying is that the bible presents a tiered truth.

If a ***** needs to see a miracle to accept the fundamental truth of a message (or to debunk an alleged miracle to reject the same message), then so be it.

You need to understand that christianity offers a way for humanity to join in god's process of creation. We need to fashion human existence into something that is essentially good. That is what your free will is for.

 

[PLC1]

What I am saying is that the bible presents a tiered truth.

So, some is true, some is sort of true, and some is nearly false?

If a ***** needs to see a miracle to accept the fundamental truth of a message (or to debunk an alleged miracle to reject the same message), then so be it.

The miracles were written down to convince the "morons" who need one to believe the "fundamental truth." They probably didn't happen as described, but they're good for convincing morons. Now I'm beginning to see what your point is.

You need to understand that christianity offers a way for humanity to join in god's process of creation.

I think we do that by having children.

We need to fashion human existence into something that is essentially good. That is what your free will is for.

Don't you think human existence is essentially good anyway?

Or, do we only have free will because of Christianity?

That post, like the Bible, can be interpreted many different ways.

 

[numinus]

So, some is true, some is sort of true, and some is nearly false?

Perhaps, if you insist on some arbitrary standard of factual correctness. I can only wonder what kind of historical document could withstand that standard of scrutiny. After all, any historical document would necessarily be written from the writer's distinct and subjective point of view.

What I mean by tiered truth is that an account may be incredulous at face value but true in a different, higher level.

The miracles were written down to convince the "morons" who need one to believe the "fundamental truth." They probably didn't happen as described, but they're good for convincing morons. Now I'm beginning to see what your point is.

Correct.

The different books of the bible were written in different times, in different social and political millieu, and with different target audiences. For instance, revelations was written in that manner perhaps because it was meant for the jews experiencing roman political repression.

Certainly, it was written precisely to fool the morons.

I think we do that by having children.

That is good only for perpetuating the specie. You need something more to fashion a better society.

Don't you think human existence is essentially good anyway?

Yes. Evil comes from corrupting something that is essentially good. This becomes a possibility when one exercises free will without ethical guidance.

Everyone knows that.

Or, do we only have free will because of Christianity?

I cannot see how you can come up with this conclusiion from what I said.

That post, like the Bible, can be interpreted many different ways.

Every writtent word may be interpreted in many different ways. That is why we need logical rigor, no?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps, if you insist on some arbitrary standard of factual correctness. I can only wonder what kind of historical document could withstand that standard of scrutiny. After all, any historical document would necessarily be written from the writer's distinct and subjective point of view.

"...arbitrary standard of factual correctness." The above paragaph may be the best piece of gnoseological obfuscation I have ever read--I may have to green you for it.

So the Bible is a series of truths, half-truths, and out-right lies (to convince the morons) and manipulate the free-will of people by managing their sources of information to make them do what some religious bozo wants them to do?

Or are you saying that God wrote the Bible to manipulate people and thus circumvent their God-given free-will?

Certainly, it was written precisely to fool the morons.

I hate to say it, Nums, but THEY GOT YA! You need to realize that there is a difference between "logical rigor" and intellectual "rigor mortis".

 

[numinus]

"...arbitrary standard of factual correctness." The above paragaph may be the best piece of gnoseological obfuscation I have ever read--I may have to green you for it.

Obfuscation?

Are you even aware that any history is so much dependent on the point of view of the one writing it? Is it even reasonable to expect that you have taken history 101?

Please spare me from your ignorant editorializing.

So the Bible is a series of truths, half-truths, and out-right lies (to convince the morons) and manipulate the free-will of people by managing their sources of information to make them do what some religious bozo wants them to do?

I have already answered your truths, half-truths and lies nonsense in the other thread.

As for manipulating the free will of people, there is academic consensus that revelations was written to succor the jews suffering from roman occupation. The mortal fear of the 4 horsemen you are currently experiencing is completely your own doing.

Or are you saying that God wrote the Bible to manipulate people and thus circumvent their God-given free-will?

LMAO.

Did I say god himself wrote the bible?

Or is that desperation creeping in?

I hate to say it, Nums, but THEY GOT YA! You need to realize that there is a difference between "logical rigor" and intellectual "rigor mortis".

LMAO some more.

All your strawman arguments are merely fart in the wind. The funny thing is that you would rather suffer this silly 'i got you' exercise rather than part with your religious bigotry.

How truly pathetic.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Luminus, thankyou for sharing your unique understanding of the bible with us.

As far as I can tell from your vitriolic ramblings the bible was not written by god and is largely allegorical.

Hmm, great basis for devoting your life to something.

 

[numinus]

Luminus, thankyou for sharing your unique understanding of the bible with us.

As far as I can tell from your vitriolic ramblings the bible was not written by god and is largely allegorical.

Hmm, great basis for devoting your life to something.

I am happy to be of assistance.

Perhaps now you can distinguish the difference between reading the bible and reading a phone book.

Duh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You have made some bizarre observations but that last one takes the biscuit.

Nevertheless I will try to respond.

A phone book is a factual document that serves a useful purpose.

The bible is a fictional document that serves no useful purpose but does support the delusion that god exists and justifies all manner of nastiness.

I'll take the phone book.

 

[numinus]

You have made some bizarre observations but that last one takes the biscuit.

Nevertheless I will try to respond.

A phone book is a factual document that serves a useful purpose.

The bible is a fictional document that serves no useful purpose but does support the delusion that god exists and justifies all manner of nastiness.

I'll take the phone book.

Sure you will.

I could hardly imagine anything else suited for your intellectual capabilities anyway.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You keep heaping scorn on my intellect don't you.

It is the last resort of the desperate christian who has no legitmimate response to the points I raise but who isn't smart enough to ditch their half baked superstitious views and get some coherent ones.

 

[top gun]

numinus;78119]I'm happy to be of assistance.

If laughing my self to death could actually kill me!

And what ontological proof have I provided atttempts to prove a negative, hmmm?

You haven't... the questioned is phrased that way for everyone else so they can't.

As I recall, aquainas alone gave 5 distinct but related ontological proofs.

Not my fault you can't count, is it?

No... zero PROOFS... Faith and fable like "stories" like a child's FAITH in Santa Claus.

Then it would be a simple matter to point out exactly where ontology has committed a logical fallacy, no?

You do understand that there are many things that mat seem relatively "logical" in context of a "story" that hold no truth whatsoever. Many Asops Fables are "logical" but of course not true.

Proof requires testable circumstance or to even get part way there at least a preponderance of other evidence that points in that direction such as in science.

As I recall, you have given zero refutation against ontology.

Just because there's a "philosophy" about something doesn't make it true. People used to firmly believe the world was flat. Prove to me in the absolute that God exists. Can't do it.

Go take a real science class & also take the family out to see the movie Religilous...