Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dr.Who]

The subject at hand is "Prove God doesn't exist". This is a weak attempt to try and make someone prove a negative because one cannot prove something in the first place.

Face it your whole fantasy is 100% unprovable. It is a story without any scientific backing whatsoever. In fact much Biblical documentation is actually easily contradicted and/or disproven by modern scientific knowledge.


One goes with the best evidence that one can obtain. You on the other hand have no, zero, notta bit, of evidence. You have an Aesop's Fable. If we take science out of the equation we might as well all believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy and Peter Pan.[/COLOR]

You have just jumped off the deep end and demonstrated you own faith.

There are tons of things in the bible that have been proven. There is nothing in the bible that is contrary to science since science does not disallow miracles or God or the supernatural.

 

[samsara15]

Have you seen any talking snakes lately? Has the Sun stopped in the sky anytime recently? Why don't people live to be 900 years old any more?

A lot of the Bible simply cannot be taken literally. It was written for superstitious people who lived two thousand years or more ago. Trying to justify it, word by word, in terms of today's science, is plain silly.

 

[PLC1]

Have you seen any talking snakes lately? Has the Sun stopped in the sky anytime recently? Why don't people live to be 900 years old any more?

A lot of the Bible simply cannot be taken literally. It was written for superstitious people who lived two thousand years or more ago. Trying to justify it, word by word, in terms of today's science, is plain silly.

Yes, besides which much of it was meant to be allegory, a lot of the descriptions of events in the Bible were passed down by word of mouth for generations before being committed to paper, it's been written and rewritten, translated and retranslated over the centuries to the point it can't be taken literally.

The word "Bible" simply means "books". If a random collection of books written today were to be taken as historical fact, it might be a little bit difficult to prove that the events in the writings of Stephen King or J.K. Rowling actually happened.

 

[top gun]

You have just jumped off the deep end and demonstrated you own faith.

There are tons of things in the bible that have been proven. There is nothing in the bible that is contrary to science since science does not disallow miracles or God or the supernatural.

Samsara already jumped on this with...

Have you seen any talking snakes lately? Has the Sun stopped in the sky anytime recently? Why don't people live to be 900 years old any more?

A lot of the Bible simply cannot be taken literally. It was written for superstitious people who lived two thousand years or more ago. Trying to justify it, word by word, in terms of today's science, is plain silly.

Thanks Samsara... particularly liked the talking snake part!

And there are tons of other things. The age of the earth. Many of the "miracles" are now known to be regular and repeated events.

I mean I could say that aliens caused everything in the Bible and I be on equally solid ground. It's a STORY. It's fine to believe it but there's nothing that you can prove about it... nothing.

I'm sorry...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Its 4 years of undergraduate psychology and another 3 and 1/2 years of post-grad in counselling -- all in an ACADEMIC SETTING, meaning none of your politically-correct nonsense.

She told me to tell you you're amusing, and that she would forgo the pleasure of putting you in your place. She has other, more pressing things on her mind.

That's too bad, with that much education I sort of figured she's the brains in the family. Does all of her vast training let her tell the difference between homosexuals and transsexuals? I know you haven't ever been able to figure it out, maybe she could explain it to you.

So, why aren't you citing any of her published works proving that being gay is evil? I assume she's done orginal work to prove the points you keep trying to make. Got citations? Or is all of her work classroom stuff and she hasn't been out in the real world?

Has she read Dr. Louanne Brizendine's book, THE FEMALE BRAIN? It's based on Dr. Brizendine's lifework and she cites more than 1000 peer review journal articles as well. Her research follows the development of the female brain from conception through menopause. Good book.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I should thank you, since you've given as much, if not more, than what you received.

Thank you for noticing, Nums.

I'm afraid you could wait till hell freezes over and still, homosexuality will no more accrue to a moral good than lazily watching tv.

Love is good, just because you can't see that doesn't make if false.

Why don't you try to focus for a change and accept the fact that the books of the bible were written by PEOPLE trying to convey a MESSAGE, directed at a particular AUDIENCE, in the best way they know how.

So they lied about God giving them permission to own slaves and beat them to death? To commit rape, genocide, and kidnapping?

Are you really going to sit there and tell me god said that slavery is ok, as opposed to people saying slavery is ok given the particular political dynamics and social millieu they were writing in?

If you were using a real Bible instead of the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible certified by the Pope, then you would know that in scripture God gives people the right to own slaves and beat them to death. That's blasphemy, to speak evil of God.

It is not enough for you that jesus said, love your neighbors as yourself, eh? You need to refashion the entire history that culminates to that particular statement in that particular event?

Tell me, what makes you think that the people who do not 'love their neighbors as themselves' -- one of the central commandments of the christian faith -- will do so if you edited the ot, of all things?

Its like saying that the people who are not faithful to their wives (against the pope's moral teaching) would simply fasten condoms if the same pope said so.

The church becomes party to an academic travesty (the extent of its consequences one simply cannot fathom) while achieveing absolutely NOTHING

.
The church is already party to a travesty by saying that God endorsed slavery, beating slaves to death, rape, genocide, and kidnapping. Removing those obvious lies from the Bible will not do anything to the historical account of what those violent goatherders did--all it does is take away their claimed permission from God.

Now you are saying that the people who own slaves and sell children today use the bible to justify it, eh?

And if such ignorant people exist today, you would believe that the justification is indeed in the bible, eh?

Of course, it's Scripture, it's in the Bible. You folks are still killing gays, aren't you?

Nonsense. Lots of changes happened in the catholic church since vatican 2. One of the most important, in my opinion, is the conciliatory stance it has started to adopt in matters involving just about every aspect of civilized society. For someone claiming infallibility in moral matters, that is a huge step, indeed. The fact is, the church has gone out of its way explaining the logic in its teachings, (as if rationality itself needs to be justified ad nauseum) and has subjected itself to every individual's personal judgement and scrutiny.

These are not the actions of a tyrant -- something you unjustly paint the church to be.

There is no rationale for persecuting gay people, nor is there for persecuting transsexual people. Has the Ratzipper Pope apologized for burning Joan of Arc at the stake? She was burned for being a transsexual and refusing to wear women's clothing. Raise your hands everyone who has read the trial transcript of Joan's trial... I only see one hand up and it's mine. Check it out, Nums, the Catholic Church still has the transcript archived.

 

[Dr.Who]

Have you seen any talking snakes lately? Has the Sun stopped in the sky anytime recently? Why don't people live to be 900 years old any more?

A lot of the Bible simply cannot be taken literally. It was written for superstitious people who lived two thousand years or more ago. Trying to justify it, word by word, in terms of today's science, is plain silly.

You are right that not all of it is to be taken literally. Obviously when Jesus claims to be a door he is talking figuratively.

Nevertheless, just because an event described is miraculous that does not mean that it is silly. You are making a grave error to think that since something has not been witnessed recently that it never happened.

After all, our science has a law that says that matter can never be created nor destroyed. Yet at the same time the Big Bang is an example of a widely believed scientific theory about the whole universe being created from nothing. In fact, many physicists believe that matter is being created from nothing constantly. If the God of the universe can create the entire universe from nothing then certainly that same God could control the details of that creation. And an example of one miraculous event opens the door to the possibility of all miraculous events. And if that matter is coming from nothing then we can say that it is not coming from the natural world; we would have to conclude that it is coming from beyond the natural world -the supernatural world. That does not mean that we know anything about the supernatural, except that matter comes from it, nor does it confirm what the bible says about the supernatural. All it does is demonstrate that there is something other than just the natural.

So just what scientific information would one use to determine that some people never lived to be 900 years old? Considering that the average life expectancy used to be about 40 years old and that now we have a realistic expectation of living to be 120 or more if we live right who is to say that it will not grow to be 140 or 160? In fact, actual scientists are proposing that people may live to be several hundred years old. In a world with far less polutants, a different atmosphere, a more wholesome diet, and a better gene pool, it starts to seem quite reasonable that some people could have lived to be 900. Add to that the divine intervention of God to maintain a persons healthy body and one needs to demonstrate that God does not exist before one can say that some people never lived to be 900. And guess what? No one has demonstrated that God does not exist.

Not that I have proven He does. I make my statement as a matter of faith. It is plausible and not inconsistent with science. If it were I doubt the founders of science - almost all religious men - would have created it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, besides which much of it was meant to be allegory,

That's true.

a lot of the descriptions of events in the Bible were passed down by word of mouth for generations before being committed to paper,

Which part? Can you name a chapter that we know to be passed down by word of mouth? Because the last time I read it most parts actually claim in the writing themselves to be written from the mouth or hand of the author. And the parts that do not make such a claim are well known to be written from the mouth or hand of the author. Unless you are claiming that when God dictated the account of the creation to Moses that that is an example of an oral history then what you say is just a theory about the bible's authorship. But that is not what you meant is it?

You mean that the stories of Moses were passed down from person to person as an oral tale for generations and then were written down. Even though the books of Moses themselves explain that Aaron wrote them as Moses spoke them. so we have at least one evidence that they are not an oral tradition? What evidence do you have that they are an oral tradition?

it's been written and rewritten,

Do you mean copied and copied? Yes it has. So what? There are few copyist errors in the bible. Very few.

translated and retranslated over the centuries

Yep it has been translated. But not one of the translations has altered a single one of the copies. the copies of the manuscripts are still unaltered by any of the translations.

to the point it can't be taken literally.

Well assuming that you can figure out which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts are supposed to be figurative none of the processes that have delivered the manuscripts we have warrant dismissing the literal parts. Case in point: the bible describes the temple of the Jews. Archology tells us that the temple was actually there when the bible says it was there. clearly that is one part that can be taken literally.

Do you want to change your statement from "it' cant be taken literally to "some of it" can't be taken literally? You would be right that figurative parts should not be taken literally. But would you be right that some literal parts can't be taken literally? Lets agree on a part that is meant to be taken literally and then you show us why it can't be taken literally.

You wont be able to.

 

[Dr.Who]

And there are tons of other things. The age of the earth. Many of the "miracles" are now known to be regular and repeated events.

I mean I could say that aliens caused everything in the Bible and I be on equally solid ground. It's a STORY. It's fine to believe it but there's nothing that you can prove about it... nothing.

I'm sorry...

The age of the earth is not given in the bible. How can you possibly discredit a book for something that is not in it?!!

The definition of miracle is not limited to events that are not also regular repeatable things.

You could say that aliens caused it. You would not believe it unlike the authors of the bible. And you are welcome to start your own faith based movement if you want. Could you prove anything about your movement?

Because there are tons of things in the bible that have been proven. In fact there are far more things that have been proven than have not yet been proven. Consider the numerous names and place names and descriptions of history that are completely true. If you made a list of them it would fill a large voluminous book. yes you could find other things that are not yet proven. But since when do unproven details discredit proven ones?

Do you care to restate your statement that "nothing" about it that is proven? Maybe you want to say that some things are not proven instead? That would be accurate - not very meaningful - but accurate.

 

[PLC1]

That's true.


Which part? Can you name a chapter that we know to be passed down by word of mouth? Because the last time I read it most parts actually claim in the writing themselves to be written from the mouth or hand of the author. And the parts that do not make such a claim are well known to be written from the mouth or hand of the author. Unless you are claiming that when God dictated the account of the creation to Moses that that is an example of an oral history then what you say is just a theory about the bible's authorship. But that is not what you meant is it?

Which part? I chose the gospel of Matthew at random, and came up with this:

Various estimates have placed the date of Matthew's composition anywhere from AD 50 - to AD 100. But before a date can be decided, its relation to the Gospel of Mark must first be addressed. If Mark was written first, then Matthew must have a later date (and vice-versa). The most widely accepted hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for various reasons. Matthew even reproduced about ninety percent of Mark, while Luke reproduced about sixty percent. [9] Without going into much detail on the dating of Mark's Gospel, [10] it was probably written somewhere between AD 50 and AD 55. Consequently, Matthew's Gospel could have reasonably been written anywhere between AD 55 and AD 60.

Fifty five or sixty years is more than long enough for a story being told and retold to have been embellished many times over in order to make it more interesting. That seems to me the best explanation for stories like turning water into wine, raising Lazerus from the dead, and feeding a whole crowd from one little kid's lunch. Such stories are simply not to be taken seriously.

Do you mean copied and copied? Yes it has. So what? There are few copyist errors in the bible. Very few.

Yep it has been translated. But not one of the translations has altered a single one of the copies. the copies of the manuscripts are still unaltered by any of the translations.

You know that the manuscripts were unaltered by translation, how again? I've had some experience translating from English to Spanish and back, both modern languages as we know, and am more than aware of the pitfalls of translation. Translating from dead languages to modern ones has to have even more pitfalls, many of them unknown.

Take the word "virgin", for example. The original word meant a young woman, or a woman who had not given birth. The virgin birth of Jesus, then, did not mean that Mary and Joseph had not consummated their marriage, but that the Messiah was the first born son. That was a big deal for a couple of reasons: Ancient prophecy said that the Messiah would be the first born son. Further, being the first born son meant that Jesus would inherit whatever Mary and Joseph accumulated in this life.

But, the mistranslation led to a whole doctrine of "immaculate conception".

Well assuming that you can figure out which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts are supposed to be figurative none of the processes that have delivered the manuscripts we have warrant dismissing the literal parts. Case in point: the bible describes the temple of the Jews. Archology tells us that the temple was actually there when the bible says it was there. clearly that is one part that can be taken literally.

I think you just answered your own question. The parts that can be taken literally are the parts that can be shown to have happened by archeological evidence. There is no such evidence for the Garden of Eden nor for Noah's ark. Both of those stories are simply allegorical. There is no evidence that the Red Sea actually parted. That is simply a legend.

Do you want to change your statement from "it' cant be taken literally to "some of it" can't be taken literally? You would be right that figurative parts should not be taken literally. But would you be right that some literal parts can't be taken literally? Lets agree on a part that is meant to be taken literally and then you show us why it can't be taken literally.

You wont be able to.

OK, you win that point. Some of it can't be taken literally. Most of it can't be taken literally. Of course, if the Bible talks of a temple, and such a temple has actually been found, then the existence of said temple can be taken literally.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which part? I chose the gospel of Matthew at random, and came up with this:

Fifty five or sixty years is more than long enough for a story being told and retold to have been embellished many times over in order to make it more interesting. That seems to me the best explanation for stories like turning water into wine, raising Lazerus from the dead, and feeding a whole crowd from one little kid's lunch. Such stories are simply not to be taken seriously.

First you make the statement that parts of the bible WERE passed down from generation to generation.

Now that I ask you for an example your best argument is that 50 or 60 years is enough time for it to have been told and retold. All you have done is demonstrate that it is plausible for it to have been passed down not that it has been.

The similarities between Matthew and Mark are not relevant is they can just as easily be the result of the two authors having spend a lot of time together and even sharing notes or outright sharing some material directly. (The statement that Matthew reproduced about 90% of Mark is obviously wrong since we can actually count the verses that are the same and Matthew contains about 2/3 of the same verses as Mark.)

So it seems to be that the best explanation for the same stories being in Matthew that are in mark are that the authors witnessed the same stories and collaborated with each other when writing their letters.

Both your and my explanation are plausible but yours requires that the authors of the letters be liars and mine requires that miracles be possible. However, we would expect that a book that was passed down in an oral tradition would exhibit different styles based on the different tellers of the tales. The book of Matthew has all the hallmarks of a letter that was written by one author who borrowed from one other author.

Your last line: "Such stories are simply not to be taken seriously." was not supported in any way by the evidence you presented.

 

[Dr.Who]

You know that the manuscripts were unaltered by translation, how again? I've had some experience translating from English to Spanish and back, both modern languages as we know, and am more than aware of the pitfalls of translation. Translating from dead languages to modern ones has to have even more pitfalls, many of them unknown.

Take the word "virgin", for example. The original word meant a young woman, or a woman who had not given birth. The virgin birth of Jesus, then, did not mean that Mary and Joseph had not consummated their marriage, but that the Messiah was the first born son. That was a big deal for a couple of reasons: Ancient prophecy said that the Messiah would be the first born son. Further, being the first born son meant that Jesus would inherit whatever Mary and Joseph accumulated in this life.

But, the mistranslation led to a whole doctrine of "immaculate conception".

I know that the manuscripts were not altered by translation because I understand the nature of translation versus the nature of copying.

When you translate something you make a new version of it and leave the original untouched. When someone translated the Greek word for Virgin into, say, German, the original manuscript still existed and still had the Greek word in it.

If someone creates a whole doctrine based on a translation and not on the original manuscript they may or may not create an error. But what they have not done is alter the original.

 

[top gun]

The age of the earth is not given in the bible. How can you possibly discredit a book for something that is not in it?!!

The age of the earth was established by Catholic religious scholars I believe by back tracking from the time of known events in the Bible.That's how this whole the earth is like 6000 years old malarkey got started in the first place.

The definition of miracle is not limited to events that are not also regular repeatable things.

And again... another thing that you cannot prove is in any way different than any other time it happens naturally in a "non-miracle" way.

You could say that aliens caused it. You would not believe it unlike the authors of the bible. And you are welcome to start your own faith based movement if you want. Could you prove anything about your movement?

NOPE! Because just like yours (as far as we can tell... and we've had a long time to look) all made up.

Because there are tons of things in the bible that have been proven. In fact there are far more things that have been proven than have not yet been proven. Consider the numerous names and place names and descriptions of history that are completely true. If you made a list of them it would fill a large voluminous book. yes you could find other things that are not yet proven. But since when do unproven details discredit proven ones?

Do you care to restate your statement that "nothing" about it that is proven? Maybe you want to say that some things are not proven instead? That would be accurate - not very meaningful - but accurate.

Wow... if your authentication of miracles, angles and talking snakes is based on... Well they knew people's names and they understood some basic geography from traveling around... that's not really gonna prove any of the hocas pocas stuff now is it? And that's the stuff in doubt... not that there was a John and there was an Egypt.

Look believe what you want. My position is clear. Religion was used in a time when the people did not have scientific knowledge. It was used to try and explain what they did not understand... it gave people an early loose government sort of rules and it gave them hope in bad times or times of conflict.

This is EXACTLY what native Americans derived from their many spirit Gods. It's simply a human trait to try and come up with answers for things that confound you.

People need to not think of the selling of religion in our times with our advanced knowledge. Think how easy it would be to be a wizard to people only scientifically advanced somewhat more than cavemen.

Me and a Bic lighter and I'd have been the GREAT PROPHET.

REALLY NEED TO WATCH THIS...

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you just answered your own question. The parts that can be taken literally are the parts that can be shown to have happened by archeological evidence. There is no such evidence for the Garden of Eden nor for Noah's ark. Both of those stories are simply allegorical. There is no evidence that the Red Sea actually parted. That is simply a legend.

Yes the parts that have been shown to have happened through archeological have been shown to be literally true.

The most you can say about the parts that have not been shown to have happened through archeological evidence is that they are not supported by archeological evidence. If you make the leap of logic and go on to say that they must be allegorical or a legend then you have made an error.

For example it was very common to knock the bible because it spoke of the city of Jericho and for a while people thought that Jericho never existed. People concluded that Jericho must have been allegorical. Then some archeologist went and found Jericho.

A lack of evidence is not evidence for the falsity of a thing.

 

[Dr.Who]

Wow... if your authentication of miracles, angles and talking snakes is based on... Well they knew people's names and they understood some basic geography from traveling around... that's not really gonna prove any of the hocas pocas stuff now is it? And that's the stuff in doubt... not that there was a John and there was an Egypt.

Look believe what you want. My position is clear. Religion was used in a time when the people did not have scientific knowledge. It was used to try and explain what they did not understand... it gave people an early loose government sort of rules and it gave them hope in bad times or times of conflict.

I did not say that I believe in miracles based on the verified parts of the bible. I said that you can't make the statement that there are no verified parts because there are verified parts.

My belief in miracles has always been clearly stated as based on faith.

Your obviously is too.