Prove that God doesn't exist.

Does God exist?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 63 59.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 44 41.5%

  • Total voters
    106
Numinus, I have a question for you.

Is it a requirement of becoming a christian that you become really angry and rude towards people who do not believe in God?

Is that how christianity works?

If so I am even happier that I am not one.

It has always struck me how ironic it is that christians are so fond of war, discrimination and general viciousness towards their fellow man.

I guess that is what comes from basing your lifestyle on a lie designed to keep people like you in their place being a good boy so that Santa will bring him presents.

LMAO.

I am not rude to you because we have different beliefs.

I am rude to you because, not only are you rude yourself, you are also an arrogant and ignorant bigot, which is an unnecessary tautology since arrogance and ignorance are inseparable from bigotry itself.

Is that clear enough for you or do you need me to dumb that down for your benefit?
 
Werbung:
I see you are being good to get that all important ticket to heaven.

Sitting on a cloud having harps played to you by semi naked men with wings.

I am almost persuaded.

But I can see why christians are so obsessed with homosexuality.

I mean, that heaven scene I described is so camp you must be worried what the neighbours will say.

BTW your insults carry no argumentative weight and they don't bother me but they they do make you sound like a bitter twisted silly old man.
 
I see you are being good to get that all important ticket to heaven.

Sitting on a cloud having harps played to you by semi naked men with wings.

I am almost persuaded.

But I can see why christians are so obsessed with homosexuality.

I mean, that heaven scene I described is so camp you must be worried what the neighbours will say.

BTW your insults carry no argumentative weight and they don't bother me but they they do make you sound like a bitter twisted silly old man.

The naked human form was the icon of humanist art. And if you think that humanism is somehow a wholly christian affair, then you are vainly trying to re-write western history to suit your bigotted views.

Oh, and what you think are insults directed at you are merely factual statements.
 
You have had to concede that the bible is not true.

That god is not ominiscient and omnipotent.

And you still insist he exists.

You do not have a shred of evidence either for god's existence or character and yet you argue as though both are an obvious fact of at least as much weight as the fact of gravity.

That is probably enough to get you officilaly classified as a lunatic.

But then as the great Richard Dawkins says, religion is a form of mental illness
 
numinus;79274]If these conclusions have no logical infirmities -- then why the hell not? Take note that I am not a bit interested in your word play -- only what logically follows from a logical argument.

The only "word play" is you're grasping for invisible straws and declaring them as fact. In science we used building blocks of learned, provable, testable information. And if we go back to the available knowledge back at the time of Jesus until now these discoveries have been steadily compounding in a scientific progression and certainly not in line with your religious dogma.

Your state of blind faith has not evolved into any proof at all of anything. It's a belief in the unseen and the unprovable. Like I said you have every right to believe in the Wizard of OZ.

And if there's ever even one iota of proof I be the first to study it... but over all these many years your whole religious argument is for lack of a better word... stagnant.


You, on the other hand, has taken the ridiculous position that existence is based on scientific evidence. So, when you declare I love you to your wife, children and friends, you weren't actually stating love but a twisted form of tit-for-tat ultimately ending in some form of materially quantifiable gain for you.

That is so endearing.

You WIN the worst analogy award!:D

A persons feelings and their reactions to others are their own. It is a combination of rational thinking involving things like happiness, mutual understanding, compassion, and perpetuating of the species.

It would be more a parable to your position that maybe it was some internal invisible Fairies causing me to be in love.:)


I have proven the existence of god from ontology -- hence a logical truth. How I worship god is entirely my own business. Neither the proof of god's existence, nor my religion has anything to do with science or scientific evidence.

Just because you do not wish to pray has also nothing to do with ontology or your self-declared agnosticism.

I've always said everyone should be allowed to believe, and if it suits them pray, to anything or anyone they want.

But you can't PROVE any of what you say. It's your supposition led by your own personal religious dogma... I'll go further on this in my following post.


You say klingons are incontingent, infinite and necessary?

You see, your semantic nonsense has nothing to do with logic.

I'm saying if one believed in Klingons or your theory... as far as we can PROVE... neither are reality based.

LMAO

So you lied?

As I recall, you believe that it could be anything or nothing.

Poor ignorant agnostic. You cannot even claim what you believe in without confessing the lie you know is underneath all your bravado.

Not at all.

Could be anything is just a statement that we don't have positive scientific proof yet (and let's face for totally self serving purposes even when that happens religious zealots will never accept it).

Could be nothing is just a statement that everything that is now here (the basic elemental building blocks) have always been just in varying forms.

And... let's just be honest. You saying a single person or a single entity created everything just leads us back to... then who created that person or entity.


How silly of me. Of course you can't be embarassed. What one is ignorant of, one cannot possibly feel shame of as well.

Although you might want to cut-down on the use of fairy. You might inadvertantly set mare off.

Noooooooooope... like I said... I am a little bit embarrassed (for you) only because of your staunch Wizard of OZ explanations.:o

As far as Mare... I take all people as they come and try to evaluate their intentions. Mare seems caring and intelligent without a lot of voodoo posts... and that's good enough for me.

I try to look at people & life like this...

People don't care how much you know.
Until they know how much you care.
 
religious dogma
(sometimes referred to as religious doctrine)

"People often take the truths of a tradition on faith accepting
the testimony of others but find that the inner kernel of the religion,
its luminous essence, remains elusive." - Karen Armstrong

"The most effective way to close down the human mind and to manipulate its sense of self is to program into it some form of dogma. A dogma will always vehemently defend itself from other information and repel any alternative opinion which contradicts its narrow, solidified view. Dogmas become a person's sense of security and means of retaining power, and humanity tends to cling to both until its knuckles turn white. Dogmas take endless forms, and when you can persuade different people to hold opposing dogmas, the manipulation of conflict and control through "divide and rule" becomes easy." - David Icke

Throughout history unscrupulous men have corrupted sacred writings.
Sacred texts have been corrupted by individuals believing they were clarifying conceptual understanding while in fact such editing, correcting, redacting, combining, re-editing and re-correcting corrupted the sacred text even further - moving the sacred text farther and father away from the original and real conceptual understanding of the original authors.

Many times, even when the sacred text itself has not been overtly corrupted, conceptual corruption occurs when a ‘sacred text interpreter' changes the conceptual structure of the sacred text - perhaps from that of a metaphorical allegory to that of a literal interpretation.

Mankind's storehouse of knowledge has been looted repeatedly over time.
In China when a dynasty fell newly empowered officials went back and rewrote the history of the past hundred or more years to shine a more favorable light on those currently in power.

The libraries of the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Venetians, as well as countless others have been destroyed by religious zealots adhering to the conquering invader's or to the usurper's religious or poltical doctrine when such writings were at odds with accepted religious or poltical dogma of the invaders or the religious or poltical dogma of the usurper's supporters as was the case in the Roman Empire of 400 AD.

"From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened." - George Orwell

In the past politics and religion was not neatly partioned into
two distinct compartments or catagories but were one and the same.


Both deal with the structure of human cultural social systems.
The culture of a fellowship of men, a social unit, will continually change over time regardless of
attempts to the contrary and even without an intent to change there is still corruption of original conceptualizations.

Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths all orginally believed in a single entity named God. They also believe that those that adhere to the popular and commonly held ideology of their particular brand of religion are the 'chosen ones' and that individuals, through their ‘leap of faith' and adherance to the popular and commonly held ideology or dogma of their cult, will attain an afterlife.

Conceptual thinking of afterlife defers from cult to cult. One expectation never differs and that is the idea that one must make a "leap of faith" or in other words, abandon all reason, to be brought into the 'chosen ones' fellowship or 'circle'.

All religious dogma requires believers to suspend belief in their senses,
their experience and their understanding of natural reality.

This is required because no person in a natural state of mind can accept the myths of the religious fellowship as ‘fitting' with their own understanding of natural reality which excludes miraculous supernatural events.

The myths of the religious fellowship seem to point to existence of miraculous supernatural experiences - in Christianity labeled an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

People expect natural reality to conform to their current understanding of natural reality. Yet people must constantly reevaluate their understanding of natural reality as experience and knowledge are gained, both consciously and subconsciously.

literalist zealots

Zealots of literalist religious thought believe the words of sacred text are a literal, accurate translation - an undisputably accurate copy of actual events.
To be a literalist you must reject reason and believe these sacred texts are written
and copied by men who will not change the facts, the nuance or the reality as presented by the original author.

In other words you must deny the reality of CORRUPTION.

"I have a question for literalists: If the Bible is the revealed Word of God, and God is all knowing, why did God only reveal "facts" that a primitive people 3,000 years ago thought were the truths about the universe?

God certainly knew of the existence of North America, the structure of the solar system, the laws of physics and other currently well known facts. Why didn't he reveal Bernoulli's Principle so the ancients could fly?

The reason that the only things "revealed" in the Bible were ancient myths is because the Bible was written by men, not God. The fact that the Bible is a series of mythical stories does not diminish in any way the teachings that are in it. We can still learn a lot from the Bible on how to live, but let's not get carried away. God had nothing to do with it." - Paul Goldman
 
You have had to concede that the bible is not true.

Nope. I had to concede that the truth in the bible is beyond your puny mind to comprehend.

That god is not ominiscient and omnipotent.

Nope.

I have given the solution to the omnipotence paradox using fopl and set theory.

I have already stated that god's foreknowledge does not, in any way, hinder free will. You choose to do what you will, whether god knows it or not.

And you still insist he exists.

I do not insist anything, especially on low brows like you who cannot understand the inescapable logic being presented. I simply let them carry on with their delusion of choice.

You do not have a shred of evidence either for god's existence or character and yet you argue as though both are an obvious fact of at least as much weight as the fact of gravity.

Everything exists therefore there must be a first cause, infinite, incontingent and necessary.

Everything falls down to the earth therefore there must be gravity.

The logic is simple, even for morons like you.

That is probably enough to get you officilaly classified as a lunatic.

Coming from a know-nothing ***** like you, that is a comforting thought.

But then as the great Richard Dawkins says, religion is a form of mental illness

Apparently, your idol doesn't know nietchze. Atheism causes people to go certifiably insane.
 
So god is not omnipotent and omniscient?

That is my opinion as well as the opinion of most christian scholars. But there are a number of people who do view God as absolutely omnipotent and omniscient. If you wish to disprove the existence of God you will need to disprove the existence of both views and not just one.

Of course many great minds throughout history have been trying to disprove God and generally conclude that God can't be disproven. Why do you try so hard?
And most people think that?
Most Christian scholars.
Your analogy about the hotel is flawed because if it had an infinite number of rooms it could never be full.

It is not an analogy and it is not mine. It is one that has been proposed by mathemeticians and logisticians. They generally agree that it has not been resolved.
If you are happy to give up ominscience and omnipotence to save the notion of god then you have something of a pyrrhic victory and I do not believe that most people think of god in that way.

Having a more accurate view of God rather than a less accurate view is not a pyrrhic victory. I do not give it up to save a notion of God but to have a more accurate understanding. I sometimes wonder though if you reject a belief in God to save something of yours that you very much want.
At least you can see that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive which is a step in the right direction.

I suspect that they are mutually exclusive but I may be wrong. There are limits to logic. After all (as listed below) the idea of a square circle is illogical so if I propose that God should make one I do not prove that God does not exist but rather that there are limits to logic.
Perhaps yu could give us some idea of the extent/limit of god's power?

Yes, He cannot act contrary to his nature.

Here are some others:

"God is omnipotent. But omnipotence does not mean that God can do literally everything.

As the shorter catechism says "God can do all His holy will."

God cannot sin...God cannot lie...God cannot change His nature.
God cannot deny the demands of His holy character.
God cannot make a square circle, for the notion of a square circle is self–contradictory.
God cannot cease to be God. But all that God wills and promises He can and will do."
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html

You will note that some of that is from the shorter catechism which was written in the 1640's. It is also subscribed to by large numbers of people.
 
My point, of course, was that you can't prove the existence of god any more that Dawks, or anyone else, can prove the non existence of god. I'm not peddling agnosticism, or any other "ism", actually. I stated my opinion on the matter clearly, and then admitted that I can't prove it any more than you can.


You are almost correct. It CAN be proven but it has not been proven. God only needs to show Himself and it will be proven. It is the statement that God cannot be disproven that cannot be done.

So if God shows himself to YOU then to you it will be proven. You will believe it subjectively since no one else can verify what you tell them.

If He shows Himself to 300 people then it will be proven to 300 people. When does the evidence stop being subjective and start being objective?

All the people who claim experiences with God do offer evidence. Likewise others do offer evidence against the existence of God. Dawkins is wrong when he says there is no evidence. The evidence is just not compelling for him.
 
More insults

No substance.

No wonder you believe the fairy tale

You are a good christian.

Angry, abusive, ignorant and gullible.

None of us are good Christians - we all have faults. But you have faults too. It just shows we are human and that human nature is to have faults.

Numinus is more likely frustrated with your insults and rudeness and frankly often illogical statements.

It explains why he says what he says to you though it does not excuse it. It also explains why I sometimes get irritated with you and act less Christlike than I would want to. I am sorry for those times.

Is there anything in your belief system that encourages you to be a better person, even when it is hard?
 
My problem with your proof is that you have transmogrified a supposedly "necessary" SOMETHING into a "NECESSARY BEING". We have no idea what our ultimate origin is, to postulate an anthropomorphic "god" or "being" is not supportable. We "assume" that something happened because we think we are here, but we have no proof of what that "something" is/was.


You are correct that if the laws of nature are correct then there must be a necessary something. Of course the laws of nature could be wrong. it just might be that the universe sprung into existence with no cause. But once we abandon causality then all the rest of what we know is merely what we want to believe.

so if we assume that causality is true then we must conclude that SOMETHING created the universe and that something must necessarily be supernatural.

If you combine the need for a supernatural with the revelation that many have had then one can start to form a picture of what that something must be like - albeit through a glass darkly.
 
The causality argument only pushes back the question.

Where did the 'creator' come from?

The laws of nature do demand that there must be something that created it all. But that something is supernatural and so the laws of nature do not demand that it was created. That something very well might be from everlasting to everlasting.
Even if you could establish that there has to be a 'creator' you have no grounds to make any statements about the character of that 'creator'.

you would not have the same grounds to make any statements about the character of god but you just might have other grounds to make statements about the nature of God. Which is what we claim.

So christians invent stuff to fill the massive holes in their pseudo scientiffic sophistry.

But now you lack the proof that any of it was just invented and that it was not revealed by God. While Christians claim to make statements based on faith you do not share that luxury. When you make statements that are faith based you act contrary to your claims about yourself.

Numinus has had to concede that God is not omnipotent and omniscient but when asked to give some scope of god's limited power he starts getting all hot under the collar cos he can't.

I don't remember Numinus conceding that. I made that statement but not as a concession since I believed it long before I met you.
[/QUOTE]
 
More pseudo science.

The argument from causality is self defeating.

You are left with the problem of explaining what caused god.

And you don't have an answer.

But you will probably make one up and then go into some arcane explanation that makes as little sense as what it seeks to explain.

I don't think that any Christian need to explain what caused God since just about all of us think that He was uncaused. That is the thing about supernatural beings - they don't need to follow the laws of nature.
 
God cannot make a square circle, for the notion of a square circle is self–contradictory.

Actually, this is would be an exercise in differential geometry.

Take a circle drawn on a plane. Warp the plane, stretch it in some parts, contract it in others, rotate it in along whatever axes among the infinite degrees of freedom imagineable and view it in one of the infinite view points possible.

I'm quite sure you'd see a square somewhere.
 
Werbung:
We also know that, when we eliminate all probable explanations from a field of possibility, whatever remains, though improbable, must be true. Its been done this way before, it is being done this way presently.
You are misquoting it, I think. Eliminating "probable" explanations is pointless. The quote is more correctly: when we eliminate all other possible explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true. In the Dark Ages people could not imagine electronic computers, that doesn't mean that computers are "god". We have just begun learning about the Universe, to suggest that we have already ruled out all the "possible" or even "probable" explanations is ridiculous.

Your mind is ridiculously open if you can state with absolute conviction, god's non-existence and yet cannot state your own existence, equally. And while these sort of statements are sufficient for morons like dawk, it really sounds absurd for people using logical rigor.
I said your proof was not proof, I never said God didn't exist. You don't have to resort to changing my posts in this discussion. I think that a Creative Force does exist, but I don't think your proof is anything like adequate. You don't like "froth"? How about sophistry?
 
Back
Top