Prove that God doesn't exist.

[ArmChair General]

"To prove something means the use of science, and acceptable methods of testing. Tests that can repeated by others and get the exact same results."
--You should go and learn Scientific Method. When a theory cannot be disproved for a certain amount of time, it becomes scientific law. Technically, God's existence is scientific law.

You have to actually have a theory first.

Jesus Christ. If I said that there was an invisible flying spaghetti monster flying around in space, but yet I offer no evidence,would you beileve me?

 

[Kelly]

"So your admitting you have no evidence?"
--Unfortunately, you do not consider what I said to be evidence. I, however, do because it is the only logical answer. Besides, I can't show the picture of God and I that I have on my desk--Just kidding.

 

[ArmChair General]

"Wow! your the first beilever who has ever actually admitted that."
--Thanks, there ARE a lot more of us out there (Basilian Catholics, etc.).

"The problem though, is that if these are supposedly inerrant texts, written with divine inspiration. They can't possibly be wrong."
--Not true my friend. Man is imperfect and will always make a mistake or two (not trying to be cynical here). Plus, any Bible available to us today has been through several translations and ,therefore, subject to all sorts of errors. I, and many others read the Bible for the 'big picture.' Part of that big picture is that man is not perfect and screws up things within that picture (Bible). I believe that that is a big message to people who read the Bible.


"Furthermore, your argument has the sound of Moral Relativism to it. It was ok then, because that was how things were back then....Just like slavery was without a doubt OK to do according to the OT, and in the NT, at the very least it was never objected too, and at the most was supported. Depending on how you interpret certain passages."
--Again historical context and human filtering. The proof of this (historical context and human filtering) is in the fact that the Bible seems to contradict itself. 'Do not kill," but the Hebrews killed all sorts of folks. It's crazy to take the Bible literally, word for word. "Big picture!"

Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith.

If you doubt that some of the Bible is in-accurate, then why not just doubt the entire thing?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith.

If you doubt that some of the Bible is accurate, then why not just doubt the entire thing?

No ,no, no

The important parts are right, just the part Kelly disagrees with are wrong.

 

[ArmChair General]

No ,no, no

The important parts are right, just the part Kelly disagrees with are wrong.

thats what I don't get. It sounds like Kelly is molding her faith, shes picking and choosing what to beileve. As long as it doesnt interfere negatively with her life in a secular society too much, shes willing to go along with it.

It seems to me that Kelly is betraying both faith and reason equally.

 

[Kelly]

"You have to actually have a theory first."
--God's existence is obviously a theory to you.

Jesus Christ. If I said that there was an invisible flying spaghetti monster flying around in space, but yet I offer no evidence,would you beileve me?
--If you said that there was SOMETHING flying around in space, I'd believe you. If you said that something was a spaghetti monster (lol), I probably wouldn't believe you.
I'm saying that SOMETHING actively created us (through evolution or whatever means). I'm not saying (for the sake of this thread) that thing the God in the Bible, or Zeus, or some guy in the sky with a beard that forms clouds--that's a matter of belief until we actually see what God looks like (if we ever do get to see God in our lifetimes).

 

[Kelly]

"Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith."
--That was pretty low. Remember, I said BIG PICTURE, not to take everything literally in the Bible. I'm not being selective at all.

 

[ArmChair General]

--God's existence is obviously a theory to you.

Your theory must be falsifiable. So explain to me how I could disprove your theory of Gods Existence. And then lets test it.

--If you said that there was SOMETHING flying around in space, I'd believe you. If you said that something was a spaghetti monster (lol), I probably wouldn't believe you.
I'm saying that SOMETHING actively created us (through evolution or whatever means). I'm not saying (for the sake of this thread) that thing the God in the Bible, or Zeus, or some guy in the sky with a beard that forms clouds--that's a matter of belief until we actually see what God looks like (if we ever do get to see God in our lifetimes).

OK, and if in a hundred years, nobody was still able to disprove that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster roaming around space, according to your logic, it would then become a scientific Fact that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist, right?

 

[ArmChair General]

"Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith."
--That was pretty low. Remember, I said BIG PICTURE, not to take everything literally in the Bible. I'm not being selective at all.

Im not sure how it was low. Its exactly what it looks like. For instance, where in the Bible does it say you can pick and choose what to beileve?

you are a Christian arent you?

 

[Kelly]

"OK, and if in a hundred years, nobody was still able to disprove that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster roaming around space, according to your logic, it would then become a scientific Fact that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist, right?"
--Technically, it would be a Scientific Law even though it weren't true. That's how scientific methodology works. While it's the best we've got to go on for now, it's a human invention not perfect. Nor, is it my logic (which is not perfect either).

"Your theory must be falsifiable. So explain to me how I could disprove your theory of Gods Existence. And then lets test it."
--well, don't you feel you've already done that? But, ok, "God exists. We can't know him through our senses, but by observing nature, cause and effect, space and time and their limitations on us and everything we can observe, we can see that we were actively created by something that had the intention to create."

 

[Kelly]

"Im not sure how it was low. Its exactly what it looks like. For instance, where in the Bible does it say you can pick and choose what to beileve?

you are a Christian arent you?"
--I'm a Catholic. We believe in the big picture approach to the Bible and how it applies to our day and age, not a Fundamentalist who takes the Bible word for word.

 

[Kelly]

There is about 90% in the Bible that was obviously written by men and about 10% that is divinely inspired in my opinion.

 

[ArmChair General]

--Technically, it would be a Scientific Law even though it weren't true. That's how scientific methodology works. While it's the best we've got to go on for now, it's a human invention not perfect. Nor, is it my logic (which is not perfect either).

no thats not how it works...sigh....

I think you need to study up on your knowledge of the Scientific Method.

--well, don't you feel you've already done that? But, ok, "God exists. We can't know him through our senses, but by observing nature, cause and effect, space and time and their limitations on us and everything we can observe, we can see that we were actively created by something that had the intention to create."

Thats not answering the question...

Again, read up on the Scientific Method. How old are you by the way?

 

[ArmChair General]

"Im not sure how it was low. Its exactly what it looks like. For instance, where in the Bible does it say you can pick and choose what to beileve?

you are a Christian arent you?"
--I'm a Catholic. We believe in the big picture approach to the Bible and how it applies to our day and age, not a Fundamentalist who takes the Bible word for word.

ahh..your one of those types of Catholics...haha..I know some Catholic Royalists that would eat you alive for that. lol

 

[Kelly]

"In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth''.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth''.

So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be ``true'' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence."
--This is what I'm saying about Scientific Method.