can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Willamena]

But if God is in no way physical, how do you know God exists? or is it Gods?

Plenty of things exist that aren't physical. A promise; courage; the quality of beauty; the quantity two. These things are meaningful in nature, rather than physical.

 

[McBell]

Well I was certainly justified in hoping you would actually argue the point with evidence. You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

The problem here is that you are so busy picking and choosing what you claim is and is not evidence that it is nothing more than a test of patience for those presenting evidence.

Then you flat out lie claiming that no evidence was presented and that no one has refuted you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Bible is true because in every way it can be verified it is. The testimony is reliable because histories greatest experts on testimony like Greenleaf and Lyndhurst among thousands have exhaustively applied the methodology of modern law and the historical method to it and it passes EVERY test. It is divine because it contains prophecy and knowledge no man had thousands of years ago. In many ways only the past few years have show what men 4000 years ago claimed in almost every field of study. Man literally forgot or ignored the Bible to our own severe detriment, the 'rediscover" it was right all along. I have never seen a Christian ever claim the Bible is right because it says so. It is the most scrutinized and cherished book in history and surpasses every textual standard of any work of any type in ancient history and has converted a huge number of people who set out to prove it wrong. God it seems takes special delight in converting the most hostile empires and scholars to him. It has conquered time, war, death, and the best scholars could cough up against it and it will survive every manmade effort or empire that has or will exist.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

Actually according to recent archaeological digs and of course scholarly examinations of writings, the Bible's descriptions of events do not actually align with what has actually happened in history, as well as that many of the books of the Bible were not written at one point in time but in others, or they were written in divisions, by different authors, had things added or removed. Mark Chapter 16:8 is a good example. Even the book of Isaiah is considered to be broken into 3 pieces. And again while there is a claim of prophecies that have been fulfilled there are many others that have not been fulfilled, though fulfillment itself seems to be a matter of opinion and perspective for instance the prophecy that the Nile would run dry. The Prophecy that Jericho would never be rebuilt, attempting to find the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the prophecy of Tyre (while arguable what exactly Ezekiel meant), the prophecy of great kingdoms in Daniels Dream (The mongol empire was an empire two times larger than that of Alexander the Great).

Take for instance the wars of Canaan between the Israelite's, though many would take these as stories of Gods cruelty, archaeological evidence seems to indicate that for much of the bronze to iron age those areas were relatively peaceful and or under the watchful eye of the Egyptian Empire.

But I am not one to rely on the Bible as an accurate source of history or even a good outlook into the lives of the Israelite's. It does offer a good insight into the theological development of mans attempt to understand God.

 

[1robin]

Actually according to recent archaeological digs and of course scholarly examinations of writings, the Bible's descriptions of events do not actually align with what has actually happened in history, as well as that many of the books of the Bible were not written at one point in time but in others, or they were written in divisions, by different authors, had things added or removed.

That was one long sentence.

1. The Bible is a primary archeological resource even among secular archeologists.
2. There is not one historically reliable piece of evidence inconsistent with the Bible outside of scribal error (at most 5% and all known).
3. I can exactly refute ambiguous claims that some event in history has evidence that disagrees with the Bible but every single time a specific example is given it evaporates with the slightest research. If you present an actual example we can see if it fares any better.
4. Of course the books of the Bible were written at different times. Even parts of single books were. This is exactly what is expected. I do not get the contention.
5. As for authorship, the traditional authors are in most cases by far the best candidate. I think Hebrews and Deuteronomy are the only cases where serious doubt exists.
6. What your doing here is typical. You are maximizing liberal, redactionist, and revisionist scholarship and excluding 2000 years of consistent and conservative scholarship which goes back to with a few years of the Crucifixion.
7. Historical claims are never certainties. They are argued to best fits, most consistent explanations, and probabilities. Of course the most contentious book in history has some scholars on the negative side but if you use a specific example you must conclude the evidence for the Bible is far better than what contends with it.
8. The Bible has an unbroken track record of embarrassing scholars. Entire museums are filled with cultural artifacts for societies scholars denied that the Bible affirmed.

I need example not generalized claims for a debate.

Mark Chapter 16:8 is a good example. Even the book of Isaiah is considered to be broken into 3 pieces. And again while there is a claim of prophecies that have been fulfilled there are many others that have not been fulfilled, though fulfillment itself seems to be a matter of opinion and perspective for instance the prophecy that the Nile would run dry. The Prophecy that Jericho would never be rebuilt, attempting to find the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the prophecy of Tyre (while arguable what exactly Ezekiel meant), the prophecy of great kingdoms in Daniels Dream (The mongol empire was an empire two times larger than that of Alexander the Great).

Everyone knows about the long, middle, and short endings to Mark. The reason everyone knows about it is because the textual tradition for the Bible exceeds every other work in ancient history by orders of magnitude. All errors are known and indicated, that eliminates all complaints. Even Ehrman admits this and that no errors are contained in core doctrine and exaggerates everything. Isaiah is not broken into pieces it was written with three dissertations of the concept of a messiah. I will grant it is a book that requires study to understand. Prophecies are made for the nation of Israel, Christ's first advent, and what occurs at the second. Your are confusing them but it is understandable. Tyre is a specialty of mine and so I would love to let that settle the issue. I know it and the mistakes (all of them) atheists make about it. Do you wish to let it settle the issue. Jericho is not but if you wish to concentrate on it that is fine with me. I prefer few points to allow depth and sufficiency to be discussed. I can't do drive by machine gun contentions justice. Take your pick.

Take for instance the wars of Canaan between the Israelite's, though many would take these as stories of Gods cruelty, archaeological evidence seems to indicate that for much of the bronze to iron age those areas were relatively peaceful and or under the watchful eye of the Egyptian Empire.

They are not records of cruelty in any sense. They are records of justice against total depravity. This is another area I have spent much time in. If you wish to concentrate here then fine, but pick one or two and let's get serious.

But I am not one to rely on the Bible as an accurate source of history or even a good outlook into the lives of the Israelite's. It does offer a good insight into the theological development of mans attempt to understand God.

That is not a god theory. You do not invent a Hell that you your self is bound for unless you change by preference or speculation. Speculation being speculative (especially primitive man's) usually turns out to be wrong. However in the Bibles case many times only recently has science, cosmology, and philosophy, not to mention history caught up to what men 5000 years ago claimed. Anyway I need you to narrow your claims if you wish to resolve them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The problem here is that you are so busy picking and choosing what you claim is and is not evidence that it is nothing more than a test of patience for those presenting evidence.

Then you flat out lie claiming that no evidence was presented and that no one has refuted you.

What I don't understand is how someone can do this consistently for months, and still get people to respond to them with detailed, well-thought out responses, over and over.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Indeed- a pretty neat trick.

 

[McBell]

What I don't understand is how someone can do this consistently for months, and still get people to respond to them with detailed, well-thought out responses, over and over.

They have more patience?

They like the practice of refutation even if it is an easy target?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They have more patience?

They like the practice of refutation even if it is an easy target?

It just seems akin to me to stopping in the street to engage in a detailed and thorough debate with some drunk, homeless guy raving about how crows are eating his brain.

 

[McBell]

It just seems akin to me to stopping in the street to engage in a detailed and thorough debate with some drunk, homeless guy raving about how crows are eating his brain.

Ah, but cows do not eat brains.
Therefore it is either something other than a cow eating his brain or the cow is eating something other than his brain.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ah, but cows do not eat brains.
Therefore it is either something other than a cow eating his brain or the cow is eating something other than his brain.

Perhaps it's a crow.

 

[Mycroft]

i notice some people who are 100% convinced there can't be any kind of deity. but how can you be so certain? rather than just not be so sure.
what solid proof do you have there is no chance of there being some kind of deity that maybe you are just not aware of?

But a lot are also 100% convinced there is some kind of deity. Can they prove that there is a deity?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That was one long sentence.

1. The Bible is a primary archeological resource even among secular archeologists.
2. There is not one historically reliable piece of evidence inconsistent with the Bible outside of scribal error (at most 5% and all known).
3. I can exactly refute ambiguous claims that some event in history has evidence that disagrees with the Bible but every single time a specific example is given it evaporates with the slightest research. If you present an actual example we can see if it fares any better.
4. Of course the books of the Bible were written at different times. Even parts of single books were. This is exactly what is expected. I do not get the contention.
5. As for authorship, the traditional authors are in most cases by far the best candidate. I think Hebrews and Deuteronomy are the only cases where serious doubt exists.
6. What your doing here is typical. You are maximizing liberal, redactionist, and revisionist scholarship and excluding 2000 years of consistent and conservative scholarship which goes back to with a few years of the Crucifixion.
7. Historical claims are never certainties. They are argued to best fits, most consistent explanations, and probabilities. Of course the most contentious book in history has some scholars on the negative side but if you use a specific example you must conclude the evidence for the Bible is far better than what contends with it.
8. The Bible has an unbroken track record of embarrassing scholars. Entire museums are filled with cultural artifacts for societies scholars denied that the Bible affirmed.

I need example not generalized claims for a debate.



Everyone knows about the long, middle, and short endings to Mark. The reason everyone knows about it is because the textual tradition for the Bible exceeds every other work in ancient history by orders of magnitude. All errors are known and indicated, that eliminates all complaints. Even Ehrman admits this and that no errors are contained in core doctrine and exaggerates everything. Isaiah is not broken into pieces it was written with three dissertations of the concept of a messiah. I will grant it is a book that requires study to understand. Prophecies are made for the nation of Israel, Christ's first advent, and what occurs at the second. Your are confusing them but it is understandable. Tyre is a specialty of mine and so I would love to let that settle the issue. I know it and the mistakes (all of them) atheists make about it. Do you wish to let it settle the issue. Jericho is not but if you wish to concentrate on it that is fine with me. I prefer few points to allow depth and sufficiency to be discussed. I can't do drive by machine gun contentions justice. Take your pick.


They are not records of cruelty in any sense. They are records of justice against total depravity. This is another area I have spent much time in. If you wish to concentrate here then fine, but pick one or two and let's get serious.

That is not a god theory. You do not invent a Hell that you your self is bound for unless you change by preference or speculation. Speculation being speculative (especially primitive man's) usually turns out to be wrong. However in the Bibles case many times only recently has science, cosmology, and philosophy, not to mention history caught up to what men 5000 years ago claimed. Anyway I need you to narrow your claims if you wish to resolve them.

You really need to go and check up on the information again.

They aren't generalized claims.

You may consider yourself an expert on the Tyre Prophecy, but only after playing around with the words do you become such. Ezekiel makes it quite evident that the destruction of Tyre will be by Nebeduchenazzer...except it wasn't...it was by Alexander the Great. Main City Tyre prospered for many years. And to a degree it still exists.

Of course they used the Bible, that's why Archeaologist were rather put off when they realized that they could not find evidence of the events that occurred in the Bible.

No evidence of a war in Egypt.

No major campaign in Canaan.

Only recently has there come to light evidence of a House of David.

Heck most are now looking at it as the Israelite's were Canaanites themselves....

Scribal error? So Judas didn't immediately go and hang himself as it says in the Gospels? Did he wait buy land fall and have his stomach burst open as it says in Acts instead?

So Pauls description of the events following Jesus's resurrection follow with the Gospels? So according to Paul Jesus was first seen by James, then the 12, then the 500, then Paul. In the Gospels following the resurrection the first to see Jesus was Mary Magdalene.

And of course you go into the talk of liberal I am ignoring nothing, for over 2000 years it was assumed that these books were to be taken literal, it was only until the 19th century when people started looking into the information, had the resources (much of it powered by the church), do you find that the stories don't match up with the evidence.

So here's a target

Where is evidence of the Israelite's as slaves in Egypt as recorded in the book of Exodus?

 

[kloth]

But a lot are also 100% convinced there is some kind of deity. Can they prove that there is a deity?

you can start a thread on that if you would like (even though there are many already up like that). however, i will not be changing the subject on this thread.

All the proof I need that deities do not exist is the simple fact that no one can show me the one they think exists. Need more?

like i said before, just because someone can not prove a deity exists that they may or may have not made up, doesn't mean there is not one that does exist that maybe does not make itself known for a reason. but nobody i have ever came across has been able to prove if that is the case or not.

The burden of proof is in the hands of those who believe in a deity, there has never been anyone who could prove there was one, so why waist your time trying to prove there isn't one, its really that simple.

seems like many people are burdened by wanting proof of a deity but can't find it, they seem angry about it or upset, so maybe they can find solid proof there is not a deity that is not in hiding for now.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Plenty of things exist that aren't physical. A promise; courage; the quality of beauty; the quantity two. These things are meaningful in nature, rather than physical.

That leaves you stuck with some pretty weird metaphysical commitments-it sounds like you're claiming that there is something to a promise, for instance, some thing or some entity, floating out in Plato-land somewhere perhaps, which exists apart from the physical events involved in making a promise; the utterance of the promise (comprised of making various noises), the various brain states corresponding to formulating and expressing the promise, and so on. Similarly with courage and beauty; there is something that exists, some non-physical essence of these things, apart from any of their (physical) instantiations- i.e. individual people performing acts of courage, certain (physical) things that we judge to be beautiful and so on... Not sure we really want to burden ourselves with an invisible realm populated by these mysterious entities, particularly when there seems to be no good reason for postulating them in the first place.

 

[Willamena]

That leaves you stuck with some pretty weird metaphysical commitments-it sounds like you're claiming that there is something to a promise, for instance, some thing or some entity, floating out in Plato-land somewhere perhaps, which exists apart from the physical events involved in making a promise; the utterance of the promise (comprised of making various noises), the various brain states corresponding to formulating and expressing the promise, and so on. Similarly with courage and beauty; there is something that exists, some non-physical essence of these things, apart from any of their (physical) instantiations- i.e. individual people performing acts of courage, certain (physical) things that we judge to be beautiful and so on... Not sure we really want to burden ourselves with an invisible realm populated by these mysterious entities, particularly when there seems to be no good reason for postulating them in the first place.

Well, there is something to the promises that I make. Can't speak for others though.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, there is something to the promises that I make. Can't speak for others though.

Sure. There's plenty of stuff "to" a promise. But non-physical stuff? Doesn't look like it. Doesn't seem to be any more to a promise than the utterances, actions, and brain-states of the person(s) involved in the promise- and all of these are physical. No need to invoke Plato-land.

 

[Quagmire]

That leaves you stuck with some pretty weird metaphysical commitments-it sounds like you're claiming that there is something to a promise, for instance, some thing or some entity, floating out in Plato-land somewhere perhaps, which exists apart from the physical events involved in making a promise; the utterance of the promise (comprised of making various noises), the various brain states corresponding to formulating and expressing the promise, and so on. Similarly with courage and beauty; there is something that exists, some non-physical essence of these things, apart from any of their (physical) instantiations- i.e. individual people performing acts of courage, certain (physical) things that we judge to be beautiful and so on... Not sure we really want to burden ourselves with an invisible realm populated by these mysterious entities,

Ideals are, in fact, mysterious entities to many people.

particularly when there seems to be no good reason for postulating them in the first place.

There ya go.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then it follows your stance must include....substance begets spirit....
and spirit cannot exist without having been born....
and all of life is terminal without continuance.

All of life as chemistry.

Well that sounds pretty but do you have anything to back up the claim that "spirit" exists at all? Or at least some defining terms for it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Its funny that he continues to say this bit about "life is terminal", "life is chemistry", "life has no purpose", and so on, as if that was supposed to be a refutation, or negative evidence. Unfortunately, there is nothing at all absurd about this possibility- in fact, that's sort of what the evidence suggests life is; chemistry, without inherent purpose, and terminal. Its a cold, hard world we live in- if you're scared, go to church.

 

[McBell]

Well that sounds pretty but do you have anything to back up the claim that "spirit" exists at all? Or at least some defining terms for it?

Don't hold your breath...