can you proove there isn't a deity?

[1robin]

The point was your statement about the Gospels was so wildly inaccurate that it exposed your inability to speak with credibility on the subject; there's a clear consensus among Biblical scholars that its extremely unlikey the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. And its so silly- you act as if you care about evidence and what authorities on these various subjects have to say, but its a total charade- all of your views and positions boil down to dogmatic, faith-based beliefs that are utterly impervious to any facts or reasoning.

It was not you I was responding was it? The reason I ask is you are making the same mistake the author of that post made. You are simply claiming I am wrong without an attempt to prove it. I can claim a bunch of people dissagree with you and what your saying is not true but I realize it would be meaningless without at least an attempt to demonstrate it.

The Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was written by Moses at the end of his life in the wilderness just prior to the Israelites' entry into Canaan.
Joshua, Judges, and Ruth were all likely written during (or immediately prior to) the kingly reign of David over Israel by unnamed, pro-David/anti-Saul, priestly historians.
The large portion of the Psalms were written by King David before and during his reign over Israel. Other authors of Psalms include Moses (Psalm 90), Solomon (Psalms 72 and 127), the sons of Korah (Psalms 42-49; 84-85; and 87-88), the sons of Asaph (Psalms 50 and 73-83), and Ethan the Ezrahite (Psalm 89). A number of Psalms are also written anonymously.
The book of Proverbs was penned largely by King Solomon during his reign—though chapters 30 and 31 were written by Agur and Lemuel respectively.
Authorship of Song of Songs (also known as Canticles) is anonymous, though the majority of scholars have historically cited Solomon as the book's probable author (there is debate because some of the book's terminology probably didn't exist in the Hebrew language until perhaps 500 BC).
Though such a date and parentage is contestable, Ecclesiastes likely finds authorship in the Post-Exilic period and is written in the voice of the character of King Solomon. It may well be the last Biblical book written previous the New Testament.
The prophetical books of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Zephaniah were all written during the Kingdom Era by the prophets whose names are borne by the books' titles.
The books of Samuel are anonymously written and probably came about during the Kingdom Era as well.
Habakkuk and Joel were probably written just prior the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem and were written by the prophets for whom the books are named.
Jeremiah wrote the book of Jeremiah and wrote over a course of years spanning the periods immediately preceding and succeeding the capture of Jerusalem.
The author of Lamentations is anonymous (though some traditions ascribe authorship to Jeremiah) and was likely written in the years immediately after Jerusalem's sack by Babylonian forces.
Obadiah probably wrote just after the Exile in Babylon began, while Ezekiel's and Daniel's respective books spanned the entirety of Israel's 67-year captivity.
The books of Kings were likely penned by their unknown author during the Exile.
Ezra may have compiled both Ezra and Nehemiah and Jewish tradition names him the author of Chronicles, but whatever the case, the books were all written Post-Exile.
Esther, written after the Exile, was likely penned by a Persian Jew.
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were all written after Israel's return from Babylonian and Persian captivity and their authors share names with the books' titles.
The book of Job is of a quite ambiguous origin, but though the author remains anonymous, it too was probably authored during the Post-Exilic Era (though the time of the events portrayed may even have occured millennia earlier, precursing even the Patriarchs).
New Testament Authors
Narratives:
The gospel according to Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collector.
The gospel according to Mark was written by John-Mark.
The gospel according to Luke was written by Luke the Physician.
The gospel according to John was written by John the disciple that Jesus loved.
The Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke the Physician.
Epistles (or letters):
The Pauline Epistles are those written by Paul (Saul) of Tarsus:
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
The Peterine Epistles are those written by Peter of the Twelve:
1 Peter
2 Peter
The Johanine Epistles are those written by John, the disciple that Jesus loved:
1 John
2 John
3 John
And though sharing in three literary traditions — apocalyptic, prophetic, and epistolary — listing John's Apocalypse (also called Revelation) as an epistle will suit our purposes here. This was written by the same John as above.
The book of James was written most likely by James the brother of Jesus.
The book of Jude was written by Jude the brother of James.
The epistle of Hebrews is written anonymously. Some people ascribe it to the Apostle Paul while others prefer Apollos. Most scholars lean toward someone other than Paul (simply because the grammar and use of certain key Pauline terms is markedly different from the whole body of his identified epistolary work). In the end, God didn't see the book's authorship as important to us (if He had, He would have identified the man He used in writing Hebrews), so any guess as to the identity of the author is mere speculation and should have no bearing upon our interpretation of the passages found within.
Study Resources ::
Frequently Asked Questions: Who Wrote the Bible

That is the conclusion of one of the most respected online Biblical scholarship sites, and one I am unfamiliar with but appeared very unbiased. I can provide much more if needed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is no good either.

An interesting sideline in the same spirit is that everyone on Earth could stand shoulder to shoulder in a single county in Florida.

Since they were not standing shoulder to shoulder what evidence is that? This number can be fit in a camp smaller than 5 miles by 5 miles.

It's just giving a sense of scale.

This is a claim with many factors that must be considered. The Bible contains about 5% scribal error. The most common mistakes were concerning sentences that ended in the same letter, Genealogy cultural preferences (this is irrelevant here), and orders of magnitude. There exists evidence that the 600,000 may have too many zeros.

Except that the 600,000 value is given four different times (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:46, Numbers 12:11, Numbers 26:51), all in close agreement. And in two of those cases, the values are given as subtotals for each of the 12 tribes (which can then be summed to just over 600,000). Do you really think that scribal error happened 14 separate times, and all of them just happened to agree with each other?

Before I add additional aspects that should be considered I wish to ask on what basis are you arguing. Are you saying it was impossible that 600,000 people could be provided for by God? Why are you claiming that? That may help me narrow what I supply in the way of counter claims.

I'm saying that it's unreasonable to think that a million people couldn't find their way out of the Sinai peninsula for four decades.

 

[Ingledsva]

It's just giving a sense of scale.


Except that the 600,000 value is given four different times (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:46, Numbers 12:11, Numbers 26:51), all in close agreement. And in two of those cases, the values are given as subtotals for each of the 12 tribes (which can then be summed to just over 600,000). Do you really think that scribal error happened 14 separate times, and all of them just happened to agree with each other?


I'm saying that it's unreasonable to think that a million people couldn't find their way out of the Sinai peninsula for four decades.

Yep, plus there is no archaeological evidence of such a huge group moving across. At the very least we would find the camps, dumps, and latrines, of a group that massive. A million plus people pooping after the evening meal, and before starting off in the morning, - is a lot of poop.


*

 

[Mycroft]

Except that the 600,000 value is given four different times (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:46, Numbers 12:11, Numbers 26:51), all in close agreement. And in two of those cases, the values are given as subtotals for each of the 12 tribes (which can then be summed to just over 600,000). Do you really think that scribal error happened 14 separate times, and all of them just happened to agree with each other?

Didn't I read somewhere that Mt. Sinai was in the opposite direction of their travel, too, and that it was most likely Mount Horeb that Moses did his 'Now is the Summer of our Discontent'?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is the conclusion of one of the most respected online Biblical scholarship sites, and one I am unfamiliar with but appeared very unbiased. I can provide much more if needed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is anything but a secret, it has been openly debated in Christian circles from the beginning. One of my favorites is:

bethinking.org - Suffering - The Problem of Evil

That issue is the number one impediment to faith. If it falls the rest are child's play. It can't be countered in totality quickly or simply. In the interest of brevity please start with the paper at that site and then we will go from there. It is a rigorous, effective, and comprehensive explanation of what you asked.

Hola...

Haven't been involved in this thread for a while, but I've been lurking, as I'm wont to do on occasion. I read through the link, and found it approachable enough, but far from convincing, to tell the truth.

I understand you're looking for a more focused argument to respond to, so I'll offer a single point as a starting point.
In terms of the probabilistic argument put forth, there are 4 argument discussed, with the second of these being as follows;

Christian theism entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.

It then shows a series of salient points around why Christian theism is logically compatible with evil. Each of the 4 (further) points raised around this concept focus entirely on the impact of such evils on humans, and (in broadbrush summary) indicate that these evils may have flow on effects we are unaware of in terms of drawing people to God. Further, that happiness is not the point of life, but instead it is the bringing of people to God that is the point.

I have a bunch of reactions to that, but to be fair to Craig, he does make the point early that he attempting to refute the arguments from a logical point of view, rather than a humane one.

But it still leaves me wondering about simple things like the Emerald Cockroach Wasp and it's method of providing sustenance for it's young. This might be a petty evil in the scheme of things, but I can discern no reason for this in the 4 arguments provided.

Emerald cockroach wasp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

you were insinuating there is no such thing as dragons. i simply proved you wrong, despite how much you must need to be right, and may use denial against that dragons existence.
you can be a self proclaimed winner all you want, and i encourage that for yourself. but if you really want to defeat this topic, then give some proof that a deity doesn't exist. people ask all the time "prove there is a deity or a god" and maybe they can't, but if you believe there is not one because they can't provide suffienct enough proof one does exist, then you should be able to prove your belief there isn't one one then.

see? i simply don't know if there is one or isn't myself, so i have no belief against it or for it. i would like proof from both sides on who do believe or disbelieve.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim that a thing exists NOT on the person who doesn't have a belief that the thing exists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim that a thing exists NOT on the person who doesn't have a belief that the thing exists.

No, not really. The burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, regardless of whether the claim is positive or negative. Furthermore, all beliefs must be held on some rational basis, and so there is an epistemic "burden of proof", as it were, that we owe to ourselves- once again, regardless of whether the belief is positive or negative. In other words, the theist is under no special obligation here- whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof, be they atheist or theist, and whoever holds a belief has an epistemic burden of justification, atheist and theist alike.

 

[kloth]

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim that a thing exists NOT on the person who doesn't have a belief that the thing exists.

you can believe that if you want. :beach:

but if "you" are going to go around saying you don't believe that any sort of deity exists, then why not back it up why you don't believe in one? you don't have to, but why speak up if you are not going to back it up?
if people want to believe a unicorn lives in my closet, i can simply prove that it's not true by showing them inside my closet.

maybe there is a way to prove there is no kind of deity that exists, but i don't see how if this deity is in hiding perhaps until the day you die or a judgment day or ???

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, not really. The burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, regardless of whether the claim is positive or negative. Furthermore, all beliefs must be held on some rational basis, and so there is an epistemic "burden of proof", as it were, that we owe to ourselves- once again, regardless of whether the belief is positive or negative. In other words, the theist is under no special obligation here- whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof, be they atheist or theist, and whoever holds a belief has an epistemic burden of justification, atheist and theist alike.

Yes, that is true. That's what I was trying to say, but it clearly came out wrong.

The person withholding belief is not making any claim though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

you can believe that if you want. :beach:

You don't believe that people making claims hold the burden of proof?

but if "you" are going to go around saying you don't believe that any sort of deity exists, then why not back it up why you don't believe in one? you don't have to, but why speak up if you are not going to back it up?

Do I also have to back up my lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster? The tooth fairy? Elves? I withhold belief in these things because I've never seen evidence that they actually exist. If I did, I would have to change my mind.

If a person is saying "god doesn't exist" they are indeed making a claim that they should back up. But a person simply withholding belief in a claim like, "fairies exist" or "god(s) exist" has nothing to back up.

if people want to believe a unicorn lives in my closet, i can simply prove that it's not true by showing them inside my closet.

Not if it's an invisible unicorn.

maybe there is a way to prove there is no kind of deity that exists, but i don't see how if this deity is in hiding perhaps until the day you die or a judgment day or ???

There may be a way, I'm not sure what it would be though. Especially if someone is claiming the thing is invisible.

How do you prove elves don't exist? I used to search everywhere for evidence of Santa Claus and elves when I was a kid (rooftop tracks, footprints and things like that) but I never did find any.

 

[1robin]

It's just giving a sense of scale.

I can't picture a line of men that long, can you?

Except that the 600,000 value is given four different times (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:46, Numbers 12:11, Numbers 26:51), all in close agreement. And in two of those cases, the values are given as subtotals for each of the 12 tribes (which can then be summed to just over 600,000). Do you really think that scribal error happened 14 separate times, and all of them just happened to agree with each other?

I have no idea if any scribal error occurred. I really do not like debating the Pentateuch because it is so old it is hard to corroborate and very it's claims. At best you wind up with possibilities and maybes. fortuneteller a Christians faith concerns primarily the Gospels. I and you can only offer factors that should be considered, events that long ago are never resolved to a certainty.

1. Scribal errors commonly concerned orders of magnitude.
2, Exodus existed as an oral tradition for a while before writer. If one of the member of it's chain of narration got the number off by one zero then all the numbers derived from it would be wrong.
3. There is an issue regarding a possible reversal of terms that I did not understand but several scholars spent much time explaining. It involves the word for soldier and another word I can't remember.

I'm saying that it's unreasonable to think that a million people couldn't find their way out of the Sinai peninsula for four decades.

What I posted above was not that important. This is. God comes with a context. You can't evaluate God without the supernatural or the supernatural without God.

You should not say something is unlikely in the natural so it is with God. They were not lost. They offended God and were supernaturally prevented from entering the promise land. They had trouble with other cultures, their own subversive groups, and supply issues.

I am very pressed for time so could only offer a shell of a response. I wil try and be more comprehensive with the next one.

 

[kloth]

You don't believe that people making claims hold the burden of proof?

Do I also have to back up my lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster? The tooth fairy? Elves? I withhold belief in these things because I've never seen evidence that they actually exist. If I did, I would have to change my mind.

If a person is saying "god doesn't exist" they are indeed making a claim that they should back up. But a person simply withholding belief in a claim like, "fairies exist" or "god(s) exist" has nothing to back up.

Not if it's an invisible unicorn.

There may be a way, I'm not sure what it would be though. Especially if someone is claiming the thing is invisible.

How do you prove elves don't exist? I used to search everywhere for evidence of Santa Claus and elves when I was a kid (rooftop tracks, footprints and things like that) but I never did find any.

no, because the the people who say there is no deity for sure seem to be the ones who live with the most burden of not getting the proof that suits them for their needs.
believers in a deity (whether it's blind faith or whatever) don't seem to be as burdened about people who don't believe even if they try and show them. the non believers i notice get hostile often with their disbelief.

i am only talking about a deity. nothing else. there's lots of things you haven't seen on earth that actually do exist, but you may not ever get any proof it exists, even with the net. it's things like that, that make me take things in stride instead of being certain, everybody acts certain these days, what does it get them? making mistakes and the saying "i didn't know" over and over. i don't think assuming is a good thing, especially with people these days.
i agree with the last statement. that's why i said "saying" to begin with.

i wasn't talking about an invisible unicorn, just a unicorn. but if they wanna say an invisible one, them step inside and when you don't bump into this invisible unicorn. if they want to believe it's there in spirit? well that's their right, and maybe it is. i wouldn't know or care at that point. i won't say it isn't or is there in spirit, but if they didn't say invisible or spiritually to begin with then i will suspect they are grasping as they go along.

i am not concerned with elves. but if there is a solid way to proove there is no deity at all then i would like to know. but i guess that part is obvious.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

no, because the the people who say there is no deity for sure seem to be the ones who live with the most burden of not getting the proof that suits them for their needs.
believers in a deity (whether it's blind faith or whatever) don't seem to be as burdened about people who don't believe even if they try and show them. the non believers i notice get hostile often with their disbelief.

I dunno what you mean by burdened, exactly, but I'm a non-believer, and I'm laid-back, happy and fine with whatever questions anyone wants to ask. Then again, I'd never say there's no deity for sure...only that I don't believe in one. Maybe that's the difference?

i am only talking about a deity. nothing else. there's lots of things you haven't seen on earth that actually do exist, but you may not ever get any proof it exists, even with the net. it's things like that, that make me take things in stride instead of being certain, everybody acts certain these days, what does it get them? making mistakes and the saying "i didn't know" over and over. i don't think assuming is a good thing, especially with people these days.
i agree with the last statement. that's why i said "saying" to begin with.

Absolutes are a trap, I could agree with that. But if someone told me they'd discovered a new strain of bacteria, I'd believe it since I'm investing nothing of myself in the belief. If they told me there was a new strain of bacteria, and that I should let them inject it into my brain, I'd be LESS believing. In either case, my belief would not be absolute.

i wasn't talking about an invisible unicorn, just a unicorn. but if they wanna say an invisible one, them step inside and when you don't bump into this invisible unicorn. if they want to believe it's there in spirit? well that's their right, and maybe it is. i wouldn't know or care at that point. i won't say it isn't or is there in spirit, but if they didn't say invisible or spiritually to begin with then i will suspect they are grasping as they go along.

I doubt anyone cares what anyone else believes...but if you ask me to donate to an invisible unicorn sanctuary, your belief has a direct impact on me. Much like the bacteria example, I now need to evaluate your belief, and determine my thoughts on it.

i am not concerned with elves. but if there is a solid way to proove there is no deity at all then i would like to know. but i guess that part is obvious.

There's no way to disprove a non-interventionist God. If you refer to an interventionist God, then you'd have to set-up a scenario where you could measure God's intervention. And it would rely on a whole bucketload of assumptions.

For example, there have been studies around prayer and it's effectiveness. This proves that God doesn't seem to answer prayers when those prayers are being performed as part of a scientific study.
How compelling that is in terms of 'proving no God' you'd have to decide for yourself. For me, I look at it in the complete reverse. I had no belief in God as I had no reason to believe in God. Studies around prayer are certainly not challenging to my belief, given their results, and therefore my lack of belief remains unchanged.

 

[roger1440]

You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

Yeah, what he said. what's a guy to do, produce a non-deity? LOL

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God, if you exist, make my posts appear inane.

 

[1robin]

God, if you exist, make my posts appear inane.

God's help may not be necessary for that. Just kidding.

 

[kloth]

I dunno what you mean by burdened, exactly, but I'm a non-believer, and I'm laid-back, happy and fine with whatever questions anyone wants to ask. Then again, I'd never say there's no deity for sure...only that I don't believe in one. Maybe that's the difference?



Absolutes are a trap, I could agree with that. But if someone told me they'd discovered a new strain of bacteria, I'd believe it since I'm investing nothing of myself in the belief. If they told me there was a new strain of bacteria, and that I should let them inject it into my brain, I'd be LESS believing. In either case, my belief would not be absolute.



I doubt anyone cares what anyone else believes...but if you ask me to donate to an invisible unicorn sanctuary, your belief has a direct impact on me. Much like the bacteria example, I now need to evaluate your belief, and determine my thoughts on it.



There's no way to disprove a non-interventionist God. If you refer to an interventionist God, then you'd have to set-up a scenario where you could measure God's intervention. And it would rely on a whole bucketload of assumptions.

For example, there have been studies around prayer and it's effectiveness. This proves that God doesn't seem to answer prayers when those prayers are being performed as part of a scientific study.
How compelling that is in terms of 'proving no God' you'd have to decide for yourself. For me, I look at it in the complete reverse. I had no belief in God as I had no reason to believe in God. Studies around prayer are certainly not challenging to my belief, given their results, and therefore my lack of belief remains unchanged.

obviously there are many non believer people who are frustrated and angry with people who believe because they feel as though they are fools or liars. you don't represent all non believers, that's a common thing people assume I notice.
some non believers are also upset that if there is a deity that they should make themselves known so people know. I guess it depends how long you have been involved with religious type talk. I been at it for a long time, myself.

seeing is believing to me, even with bacteria. :beach:

you doubt anyone cares what anyone else believes? yeah, sure. nobody ever argues or fights or has wars over that, everyone believes in freedom of religion these days and live and let live with their faith.

if those can't prove something does or doesn't exist. then why believe them if they express their belief?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God's help may not be necessary for that. Just kidding.

*chuckles*

I set that one up for ya...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

obviously there are many non believer people who are frustrated and angry with people who believe because they feel as though they are fools or liars. you don't represent all non believers, that's a common thing people assume I notice.

Of course I don't represent all non-believers. Just one. I suppose, on the other hand, your value-laden stereotypes are actually far more accurate in terms of making a point?

some non believers are also upset that if there is a deity that they should make themselves known so people know. I guess it depends how long you have been involved with religious type talk. I been at it for a long time, myself.

Really? Your arguments don't seem to suggest much development, so I'm a little surprised. Thing is, a non-believers isn't going to be upset about 'if there's a deity' anything. They don't believe there is a deity.
They might get frustrated at theists, they might get frustrated at religion, they might get upset at all sorts of things, but they aren't getting upset at a deity for anything. It's a logical impossibility.
Naturally, there are people who self-identify as atheists, yet manage to be mad at God. This minority are not, of course, atheists. They are most likely rebelling.

seeing is believing to me, even with bacteria. :beach:

I know. The pride you take in this is quite mind-blowing. I suppose you don't believe in atoms?

you doubt anyone cares what anyone else believes? yeah, sure. nobody ever argues or fights or has wars over that, everyone believes in freedom of religion these days and live and let live with their faith.

Yeah, okay, fair point. Some people do care what others believe. I phrased my point poorly.
What I meant was that most people care more about a person's beliefs in terms of how it impacts on them. So, if you thought (for example) that the world was created by a blue-skinned alien called N'wanda, I really couldn't care less. But if you want to teach my kids that at school, I become very interested. Or if your religion demands the sacrifice of a rooster every second day through some horrifically painful torturous method, then again, I get interested, as my sensibilities have been offended. Rather than your beliefs, it's your actions (which are, of course, informed by your beliefs) that are the cause of conflict, and in particular how those actions impact on me, whether directly or indirectly.

if those can't prove something does or doesn't exist. then why believe them if they express their belief?

You've lost me. I'm not quite sure what that was in response to. But to try and answer, I'd offer the following to consider;

1) I can believe in the sincerity of their belief. That's different from believing in the object of their belief.
2) I don't believe in absolutes. In absolute terms, nothing is proven, ever. So I could choose to only believe in that which is proven in absolute terms, but shrouding myself in disbelief in such a manner is not of benefit. Better to base my beliefs on evidence and reasonableness, and accept that I'll be wrong sometimes.