can you proove there isn't a deity?

[outhouse]

4. The only possible source known for a moral law is God.

.

Thats is false

People factually have the ability to make good and or bad choices/decisions. then write about what they chose.

The abrahamic moral laws existed in other cultures almost identical, prior to Israelites ever using them.

Conclusion evil proves God exists.

Tis is just plain absurd.

 

[psychoslice]

I think the question "can you prove there isn't a deity" is childish, if there has never been prof and you believe there there is then that is just a belief based on nothing. How can anyone prove there is something when it doesn't exist, you have to find the prof that it does exist first, and then ask the question "can you prove there isn't a deity". If you haven't got prof then there is no question, that is a question to prove that you are right, because you yourself cannot prove there is a deity.

 

[Ingledsva]

You mean the nation? The Hebrew culture? The blood line? I do not understand the questions. My God was around long before 1200 BC as well as his revelation. However Israel did not evolve from the Canaanites nor would that have mattered anyway.

...

Actually the general consensus is that the Israelites were Canaanites.


You can read a very good article about this in ARCHAEOLOGY Magazine - titled - WHO WERE THE ISRAELITES?


They basically see the "Israelites" as Canaanite Nomadic Pastoralists.


*

 

[outhouse]

I think the question "can you prove there isn't a deity" is childish, if there has never been prof and you believe there there is then that is just a belief based on nothing. How can anyone prove there is something when it doesn't exist, you have to find the prof that it does exist first, and then ask the question "can you prove there isn't a deity". If you haven't got prof then there is no question, that is a question to prove that you are right, because you yourself cannot prove there is a deity.

No but evidence in a court of law could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that deities are created by men.

 

[Ingledsva]

4. The only possible source known for a moral law is God.

NOT! This has been shown to be wrong over-and-over.


Such laws are normal logical extensions, by experience, from trying to merge into tribes.



*

 

[1robin]

Israelites as a people did not exist prior to 1200 BC, at that time they were proto Israelites.

The blood line is factually unknown even from 1000 BC.

That was fast. I still do not understand how the date Israel existed as a nation applies to my faith.

Its obvious.


We are talking about real history, not biblical history which is not history. It is theology and mythology some times combined with real history but not always.

No it isn't. Are you saying the bibles dates and the historical dates do not match? Are you saying if God existed then Israel would have always been a nation? Are you saying that only nations older than 1200 BC could have believed in an actual God?

That is false unless you have real evidence. Yahweh was unknown before 1500 BC. he wasnt the national god of Israelites until after 622 BC

I can't justify the time to invest in contending with a claim that I can't see the relevance of. God was very secretive about his name. He had many titles, he had obscure names like "I am", and he did not grant the knowledge of them very often. To what purpose was your statement?

Yes they did. And early on they used the Canaanite religion, their houses and pottery identical.

I am unsure how to go about challenging this. The Israelites recorded that they over and over again betrayed God (a suggestions of the Bible's accuracy) and intermarried, "whored" after other God's, and adopted the ways of other cultures. Finding a lot of similarities and commonalities are exactly what I would expect. How does this prove claims that indicate its existence wrong?

Its obvious.

It certainly becomes no less obscure by claiming it is obvious.

Wonderful, but your required to have faith in Israelites as they are the ones who wrote about your deity

If the OT did not exist at all I would have everything necessary to my faith. The OT only provides the backdrop and context for later events but is not a necessity in anyway to Christianity. I do not believe it wrong (outside of a maximum of 5% scribal error) but it would not render my faith null even if it was.

No they did not. They suffered because many larger more powerful civilizations surrounded them

They routinely defeated much larger and more powerful cultures. In fact they were told to eradicate the Canaanites totally but decided instead to relent. That invariably produced the exact dire effects many years later they were told it would and we both have mentioned. It is impossible that Israel's betrayals of God and their being overcome by enemies they had defeated when they were loyal time after time after time is coincidental.

Gods not a god.

Don't get it and the use of the emoticon crutch where an argument should be makes it worse.

Israelites worshipped a few

They sure did and they sure suffered for it and recorded their own failures in doing so.

Monotheism to yahweh took quite a while after the reforms

As we both have said the OT is a non-stop failure/recovery oscillation. I would expect history to record their disobedience and their success with monotheism and their accompanying cultural success. It does.

What you fail to realize is much of the bible deals with multiple deities.

No, much of the Bible allows that people had many concepts of deities. The Bible and especially is a record of what a people believed and did, right or wrong. Israel fought many wars God did not order. Is that proof no God exists. The OT records false theological beliefs, divorce, murder, and betrayals, was God in favor of them?

Elohim and Yahweh were two different deities, El and Yahweh were compiled together, redacted after 622 BC

At best they are a compilation of a two names not two God's. Many of the names ascribed for God were Israelite adoptions or inventions. Most never have an agreement from God concerning them. At best your adopting some extrapolation from the deep end of historical unreliability. Why in the world if you actually want to discover whether the Bible is true or not are you only speaking about the percentage of it that concerns the least historically reliable backdrop. In other words why are you discussing the least resolvable end of the spectrum instead of the most resolvable? I do not know, but it appears you wish to hide your objections in the space historical ambiguity and a lack of resources make possible.

yet scholars claim the exodus never happened as written.

Even if that is true it would have no effect on what I claimed. The fact Israelite grave markers suggest workers from that period died from exertion and Hebrew place names suggest very strongly it is not wrong but even if it was my statement stands.

I will use this one to illustrate my chief complaint here.
The corroboration of this is affected in several ways.

1. The original language use was applied using a pre 18th century idea about slavery. ANE slavery was closer to servitude than chattel slavery.
2. The term used was interpreted far later by the English word slavery and is taken in the context of chattel slavery which it wasn't.
3. Egypt has very little records of any kind. The ones that survive were mostly the public records intended to convey propaganda. Entire dynasties made attempts to wipe out of record former dynasties. The sex of a pharaoh was propagandized and then obliterated. Names were changed, deeds invented, and wars never fought were claimed as victories and then most of that was lost.
4. IOW it is impossible to state with any certainty events that did not flatter a leader, effect everyone, or that were inconvenient.

Why in the world would any ambiguity over the Exodus mean the apostles died to protect a lie they invented? Why are you discussing the least (by far) resolvable claims concerning the most important text in human history if you actually want to know the truth?

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Adam is probably mythical and has no real place in history at this time.

Now you have gone so far back even the question of whether the story was allegory or literal or a combination of both was ever intended. Adam could have been the first primate with a soul. The first Nephesh being with self awareness, the first man who God interacted with, or a symbol of mankind in general. The only thing certain is you have no certainty about which one was intended or if any are untrue. What is the point to this? These are objections in the form of questions and are all about things where no certainty is possible. It looks more like a tactic than a discussion.

900 BC Israelites worshipped Elohim, Yahweh, Baal, and Asherah gods wife. So your wrong.

That has nothing to do with what I said, so no I am not wrong. In fact it strongly suggest I and the Bible were right. This is exactly what is expected from reading the Bible. The wayward Israelites worshiping other God's is a constant theme of the OT. Them doing so is proof it is accurate.

No they did not.

They had their own deities, they defined differently.

Your abrahamic god evolved, which often mirrored the people and their cultural needs.

No, you have fragmentary (very fragmentary) and incomplete evidence the Hebrews adopted God's from other cultures at times. This is also two independent forms of one genetic fallacy. Even if you could, and no one ever will prove, that one God evolved into another that would not make that God untrue. You can't possibly know the God of the Hebrews named Yahweh was an evolution of some other God even if it was true. You are taking more advantage of the ambiguity concerning these ancient concepts that would be done by any one actually interested in the truth. It is like me saying the battle reports from Gettysburg are untrue and no battle was ever fought because of ambiguity in logistics records from the month prior and the natural absence of corroboration for their claims.

These books evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years.

They factually were not written down in one time period.

The only way possible to know this is to have a copy of them that is much earlier than the one your disparaging and prove it was excepted. Where is it? The only occurrences where we have discovered books much older than the oldest possessed at the time shows absolute preservation. The dead sea scrolls proved that beyond question. The textual tradition of the Bible is greater in every category by many factors of magnitude than any other work of any other kind in any time period of ancient history. There is no second even close enough to consider. If I find hauntingly accurate transmission in every book that has enough older copies to make the determination meaningful then why in the world are you using the most obscure books to argue they are the sole exception? The evidence you are not interested in whether my faith is justified but are instead interested in using every conceivable tactic to object to the most obscure parts of the Bible in an irrational attempt to reject the whole is piling up fast.

Because you dont kow how the books were written, nor why.

You dont know the real history surrounding these books, people, culture or religious views.

No one knows that mush about the historicity of people from this time frame. We have fragmentary snap shots and even they are confusing without actual written records. Once again that has nothing to do with either my faith or my statement. I have no need of the Pentateuch outside fleeting context. My faith is in the Gospel accounts and my personal experience with what they claim. Billions have had the same experience and that would still be just as true if the entire OT did not even exist.

Your wrong again

Israelites history doesnt go back that far.

It only goes back to 1200 BC when they were proto Israelites.

I deal a little with the late Canaanite culture but not much.

That is probably why I did not quote Israelite history as the source for my claim.

There exists several reasons that I have not spent much time trying to investigate the specific claim you have made.

1. No one can resolve these events from that long ago. It is the earliest period of recorded history and by far the most unreliable.
2. Writing materials were almost impossible to come by unless your were rich.
3. They did not last long anyway and have long ago turned to dust in 99.9% of cases.
4. Even when available they are fragmentary and in ancient languages (some unknown) which do not allow for any kind of certainty.
5. The rich wrote accounts many times to create history not record it as in Egypt.
6. However the main reason is that no matter what the accuracy of the Pentateuch it has no bearing on my faith and it's justification whatever. I never think about the first 5 books, and almost never debate them (for the above reasons) and they had nothing to do with my faith. I don't believe in God because of anything Moses said.

Now why don't you pick some NT books where historical corroboration is far more likely if you actually wish to discuss something that can be resolved?

 

[1robin]

NOT! This has been shown to be wrong over-and-over.

Well I did not realize you would say NOT. How could anything be true if you said NOT to it. No one can contend with such rational and evidence based scholarship. NOT.

Not only is that wrong. That can't possibly be right. Natural law indicates what is. It never indicates what should be.

Such laws are normal logical extensions, by experience, from trying to merge into tribes.

That explains part of ethics and does nothing what so ever to indicate anything is actually right or wrong. You have simply (and for no reason other that preference) redefined morality as equal to what a group decides.

This is the easiest theological argument there is but we need something to evaluate first.

I will make it even easier: If I killed ever form of life in existence tomorrow for fun in what way can you prove I had actually done anything wrong? (for the sake of making a point I wish to, lets instead say it was all human life in existence instead of all life).

 

[1robin]

Thats is false

People factually have the ability to make good and or bad choices/decisions. then write about what they chose.

Well which part makes that a moral truth?
Is the fact I choose a morally creative act? Does my writing it down inscribe it on the moral fabric of the universe?

The abrahamic moral laws existed in other cultures almost identical, prior to Israelites ever using them.

For the 12th time that makes no difference and is a genetic fallacy. I did not bring up the ten commandments. I said morality.

Prove murdering every human on earth is actually wrong without God.

Tis is just plain absurd.

Is that why philosophers sitting on boards at Oxford and Cambridge and even one with 4 earned and six honorary degrees has claimed as I have, and as histories most intelligent have for thousands of years just what I did? Says more about your statement than mine or theirs. Anyway your big chance to actually prove any claim you have made in the last several thousand words is actually true is bolded above. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

No but evidence in a court of law could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that deities are created by men.

No they could not. In fact the Gospels have been said by two of (if not the two) of histories greatest experts on law and testimony said they met every test in modern law and the historical method for reliability (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) and they are only 2 of thousands of histories brightest to have exhaustively argued the opposite of what you claimed. The evidence that has convinced billions is not proof it is true, but it is certainly indicative of it's evidential quality.

 

[outhouse]

Prove murdering every human on earth is actually wrong without God.




.

Circular reasoning

Only god is said to have murdered every living thing on the planet, less a family and a few animals.

 

[outhouse]

1robin.

Your trying to use, magic and the supernatural to prove a deity exist.

To date, there is no scientific evidence to suggest any deity ever created exist, outside mythology. The reason why is obvious to most.

 

[psychoslice]

No but evidence in a court of law could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that deities are created by men.

Well that's it, court of law or whatever, it just can't be done, hence why bring up the question in the first place.

 

[McBell]

Prove murdering every human on earth is actually wrong without God.

No need.
the fact that you cannot prove that god exists shows that god is not a requirement for morals.

Nice try though.

Is that why philosophers sitting on boards at Oxford and Cambridge and even one with 4 earned and six honorary degrees has claimed as I have, and as histories most intelligent have for thousands of years just what I did? Says more about your statement than mine or theirs. Anyway your big chance to actually prove any claim you have made in the last several thousand words is actually true is bolded above. Good luck.

Is you argument really nothing more than how many people agree with you?
So if I find more people with more degrees that disagree with you, does that mean you will accept that you are wrong?

 

[outhouse]

Well that's it, court of law or whatever, it just can't be done, hence why bring up the question in the first place.

All Im saying is in a court of law, I can prove that deities dont exist.

It is the only way the OP's question works.




Scientifically, you cannot test something that never existed to begin with. This males OP's question, scientifically invalid.

 

[Ingledsva]

NOT! This has been shown to be wrong over-and-over.

Such laws are normal logical extensions, by experience, from trying to merge into tribes.

Well I did not realize you would say NOT. How could anything be true if you said NOT to it. No one can contend with such rational and evidence based scholarship. NOT.

Not only is that wrong. That can't possibly be right. Natural law indicates what is. It never indicates what should be.


1. That explains part of ethics and does nothing what so ever to indicate anything is actually right or wrong. You have simply (and for no reason other that preference) redefined morality as equal to what a group decides.

This is the easiest theological argument there is but we need something to evaluate first.

2. I will make it even easier: If I killed ever form of life in existence tomorrow for fun in what way can you prove I had actually done anything wrong? (for the sake of making a point I wish to, lets instead say it was all human life in existence instead of all life).

1. There is no right or wrong outside of what people collectively come up with over time through experience, and growing brain power, to contemplate the end results of certain actions. Obviously different groups came up with different laws and rules.


For instance - your "God's people" the Hebrew, decided it was moral to marry and have sex with babies 3 years and 1 day old. Murder people that had other religions, hold slaves, torture to death people whom didn't hold their sex laws, etc.


These generally improve for the majority over time - for instance most civilized countries now don't allow one religion to murder the others.


2. Collective-humanity over time have decided such to be wrong (and growing self awareness and self preservation) - and that is why it would be "considered" wrong. Note that "considered," by the collective.


If aliens arrive and kill all of us - is this actually wrong? Or are they just getting rid of a problem - as we get rid of bugs? Right and wrong come from the collective through experience of actions over time.


After all - the animals and the earth would probably find it wonderful if humans were gone from the earth.



*

 

[psychoslice]

All Im saying is in a court of law, I can prove that deities dont exist.

It is the only way the OP's question works.




Scientifically, you cannot test something that never existed to begin with. This males OP's question, scientifically invalid.

Yes that is true, and you would think it would end there.

 

[kloth]

I think the question "can you prove there isn't a deity" is childish, if there has never been prof and you believe there there is then that is just a belief based on nothing. How can anyone prove there is something when it doesn't exist, you have to find the prof that it does exist first, and then ask the question "can you prove there isn't a deity". If you haven't got prof then there is no question, that is a question to prove that you are right, because you yourself cannot prove there is a deity.

if it's childish, then why bother?
it's not a matter of finding something to prove it's not there, it's a matter of proving it doesn't exist to begin with.
there may be some things you can not prove, but then why go around saying it doesn't exist if you are not sure if it does or doesn't?

I can prove there is one. using logical math applied to science.

please don't hijack my thread and change the subject, especially when there are already countless threads to prove a deity exist that people are all over all the time.
this thread is to prove there is NOT a deity.

Adams fall was not Adam's choice it was God's Will.

another hijacker. you know a comment like that is going to get people riled up.

I cannot prove that there is no deity, BUT one can prove that:

- a deity didn't create the Universe (science is not quite there yet)
- a deity didn't create the Earth (gravity did)
- a deity didn't create life on Earth (science is not quite there yet)
- a deity didn't create humans (evolution is well understood)

As for earlier deity concepts we also know that god or gods do not cause:
- earthquakes
- comets
- rain or draught
- storms
- lightning and thunder
- disease
- famine
- etc

So the God that is claimed to have caused any of the mentioned points is disprovable.

In my opinion every god is a God-of-the-gaps, because every supposed work by that God (like creating the Universe, or us, or doing miracles or in any way manipulating objects and/or forces inside the Universe) must necessarily depend on a lack of knowledge of the real reason. And if God isn't thought to be able to manipulate any objects or forces in our Universe, then he is definitely not omnipotent - he's not potent at all.

And most of the gaps have been closed by science, so now God has retreated from just behind the clouds, to deep space, and must now reside outside space and time, even.

So while we cannot be sure that a God does not exist, that God will have to be so subtle or distant that we cannot detect him or any of his supposed work, and that God can therefore be assumed to be non-existent.

Any claim of what God is supposed to be able to do (or is supposed to have done in the past) is scientifically testable. So far every test has been negative, ie. God is not evident in any of humankind's endeavours to learn about how nature works.

if we are not sure there is a deity, then how can we tell what's disprovable? especially when you say you have proof that a god did not do all kinds of things you listed, but not really explain your proof on how you know a god didn't cause all those things.
I guess concrete proof would be nice, solid physical proof. maybe it's impossible to do even if there is lets say a deity that really does exist.

I shall rise to this challenge.

As a Hindu Advaitin, we believe/accept a non-dual version of a 'deity' as being the Supreme Soul (Brahman) and the human Ego ('I') becomes merged within it when Moksha (Salvation) occurs.

Before Moksha, God is worshiped in deity form (if God is worshiped at all - one can just as 'easily' attain Moksha through Hatha Yoga or as an Atheist).

You don't have to actually believe in God to attain the 'God-state'. It happens automatically through certain practices.

Before this happens, there is a deity. After this happens, there is no deity...the deity does not exist, nor did it ever exist.

After God was done making us in His Image, we began to make God in our own...therefore, the deity doesn't exist as being separate from us.

If you don't believe in a deity, it does not exist and if you do, it does. It's that simple.

are you saying that a deity exists if you sincerely have a feeling that it does? and that if you don't feel it, then that's your proof a deity exists?
I would prefer something more along the lines of seeing and believing.
thanks for the reply. :candle:

 

[1robin]

They basically see the "Israelites" as Canaanite Nomadic Pastoralists.


*

I do not have too much of a reason to suggest what you said was wrong. Israel against instructions did not kill off all the Canaanites and later intermarried with them and absorbed many aspects of their culture. I think I would find exactly what you claimed if the Bible was accurate.

 

[1robin]

Circular reasoning

Only god is said to have murdered every living thing on the planet, less a family and a few animals.

You certainly too the off ramp here didn't you. We were not discussing what God has done but what founds any moral absolutes.

I would be happy to explain the justification for those that God killed but right now we are discussing moralities source.

If I killed every human on earth and God did not exist then prove what I did was actually wrong. No more off ramps please, just answer the question.