can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

It would go against the secular moral code of those that you killed at the very least. You can have secular morality. There is nothing inherent about morality that is inherently non-secular.

 

[1robin]

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.

I would have thought you would know the reason why this is or may be. Miracles deal with the suspension natural. Nature is halted and a divine action occurs instead. There for science might just be the worst possible field for evaluating the supernatural there is because it only concerns how the natural operates not the exceptions.

The first place to evaluate or prove whether the Bible is reliable or not is a critical study of the NT textual tradition. It has been found by histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) to exceed by extreme margins in every category any other book in ancient history using modern law and the historical method.

 

[1robin]

It would go against the secular moral code of those that you killed at the very least. You can have secular morality. There is nothing inherent about morality that is inherently non-secular.

The question was not if anyones code was violated. I asked for evidence it was actually wrong. You basically said that moral wrongs are defined as any act done against any persons preference. Does that sound the least bit helpful or true?

You can have secular ethics, but there is no such thing as secular moral truths.

This was known all the way back in Roman times. They had two types of laws. Mallum en se', and Mallum prohibitum. One was concerned with acts against social ethics or morays. The other was acts against objective moral truths. We are discussing the latter not the former.

 

[McBell]

*inflates rubber raft*
Lordy lordy lordy
the bull **** is getting deeeeep!

*climbs up into rubber raft*

 

[outhouse]

The first place to evaluate or prove whether the Bible is reliable or not is a critical study of the NT textual tradition. .

True

It has been found by histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence (Greenleaf and Lyndhurst)

this is pathetic.


Greenleaf has been dead for over 150 years! and was not a historian or biblical scholar.

He Is no longer a expert :slap: and every method he used was faulty and not to any real modern standard in law. Law has evolved.

to exceed by extreme margins in every category any other book in ancient history using modern law and the historical method

Not true.

Not in any sense.




This is one of the most pathetic attempts to prove truth from a literal interpretation.


Stop this nonsense before you go on ignore.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The question was not if anyones code was violated. I asked for evidence it was actually wrong. You basically said that moral wrongs are defined as any act done against any persons preference. Does that sound the least bit helpful or true?

You can have secular ethics, but there is no such thing as secular moral truths.

This was known all the way back in Roman times. They had two types of laws. Mallum en se', and Mallum prohibitum. One was concerned with acts against social ethics or morays. The other was acts against objective moral truths. We are discussing the latter not the former.

I did explain this once before in a different thread. Here is a snipit of that thread.

Because the equation is as such. X happens to Y but only if Y is a sentient being. One cannot even have the discussion without a Y. One cannot even have the discussion without a sentient being as without a sentient being there is no context for the ought or ought not. However we are in every sense of the word "the universe". We are made from elements forged in the center of a star that exploded some trillion years ago and they from atoms created at the inseption of the universe itself.

What you are discussing is similar to another example of something physical.
"In our universe if there was no light would there still be an exact speed of light?"

And we can say with as much certainty as a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it, unequivocally yes. The same goes for ought and ought not. One cannot discuss the speed of light without light and one cannot discuss ought/ought not without sentient beings that gives it a definite existence.

 

[Thief]

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?

It would be that portion that makes you distinctive from a rock....or a pile of dust.

oh sorry....'you' already 'think' you are.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It would be that portion that makes you distinctive from a rock....or a pile of dust.

oh sorry....'you' already 'think' you are.

Then you are referring to sentience. Which is different than "spirit" I am assuming. Or are you simply using "spirit" as an alternative for "conciousness"? Either way it still isn't in any way evidence of a spiritual or metaphysical reality, being or state. We understand what makes us different than a rock. We understand (more or less) why we are sentient. Its not some ghost/soul/spirt thing created by the mouthy breath of a metaphysical being.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I see you are still defending slavery by employing euphemism to describe it. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

That certainly sounds like chattel slavery to me. How about you? You will probably go on to tell me that the Israelite slaves were to go free after a certain number of years or something (unless of course they were tricked into becoming slaves for life), but that doesn’t change the above passage about non-Israelites, which is obviously a description of the slave trade. Do you need me to go on about how they were to treat these slaves?

This is one of the reasons I have a problem with religion: It leads people to defend the indefensible and imagine things are moral when they actually are not. I suspect if you did not feel you had to defend your god and your Bible you would actually agree with me that what is described is in every sense of the word, slavery.

 

[ladybug77]

I see you are still defending slavery by employing euphemism to describe it. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

That certainly sounds like chattel slavery to me. How about you? You will probably go on to tell me that the Israelite slaves were to go free after a certain number of years or something (unless of course they were tricked into becoming slaves for life), but that doesn’t change the above passage about non-Israelites, which is obviously a description of the slave trade. Do you need me to go on about how they were to treat these slaves?

This is one of the reasons I have a problem with religion: It leads people to defend the indefensible and imagine things are moral when they actually are not. I suspect if you did not feel you had to defend your god and your Bible you would actually agree with me that what is described is in every sense of the word, slavery.

We do all realize that slavery still goes on today right?? Um....hello.

 

[Straw Dog]

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?

I'm not certain. I just don't find sufficient reason to care.

 

[1robin]

True

If true why did you start at the opposite end of the spectrum?

this is pathetic Greenleaf has been dead for over 150 years! and was not a historian or biblical scholar.

. Icons where arguments and evidence should be is trivial and silly. Newton has been dead quite a while and yet every college science student learns of all his laws and his mathematica principia is still the greatest scientific text ever written. We still use mathematics discovered 400 years ago. How old something is is irrelevant and arbitrary and is used as a get of of an inconvenient fact free card.

Greenleaf and Lyndhurst among many represent the greatest minds in evidence and testimony in history. They knew there business and claimed exactly the opposite of what you have.

He Is no longer a expert :slap: and every method he used was faulty and not to any real modern standard in law. Law has evolved.

The laws concerning evidence have changed very little since his time. I used to work in fed court rooms all over the US. I saw a text on evidence and testimony from Greenleaf in every court room I had time to examine their library. They literally wrote the book on it. However if the arbitrary time frame you invented from no where is your only contention and so will be held on to like grim death then I can supply more modern scholars that say the same things.

Not true.

Not in any sense.

I notice you never even attempt any evidence for you assertions. I happen to have spent much time comparing the major works of ancient history and have transcripts from great debates between DR White and Dr Ehrman plus others that prove exactly what I claim. When I get to my other computer I will provide the side by side comparisons to show the enormous disparity between the Bible and everything else for the time.

This is one of the most pathetic attempts to prove truth from a literal interpretation.


Stop this nonsense before you go on ignore.

I am finding it hard to think of a reason that I would not desire to be ignored by you. I do not care about your threats. I am responsible for providing truth as best as it can be determined. Once done who ignores it (as they ignored Christ) is not my concern. Do what you wish, I think I have your motives figured out anyway.
What I said above is a true as truth gets whether that fits your narrative or not. Pick a single claim and we will just see who is right or ignore me I do not care.

 

[1robin]

I did explain this once before in a different thread. Here is a snipit of that thread.

I read your excerpt. I found it agreeable and logical but I can't figure out its purpose. To what end was that snip it intended?

I think my claim left off with this.

Prove killing every human on earth by me is actually wrong without God.

 

[1robin]

I see you are still defending slavery by employing euphemism to describe it. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

That certainly sounds like chattel slavery to me. How about you? You will probably go on to tell me that the Israelite slaves were to go free after a certain number of years or something (unless of course they were tricked into becoming slaves for life), but that doesn’t change the above passage about non-Israelites, which is obviously a description of the slave trade. Do you need me to go on about how they were to treat these slaves?

This is one of the reasons I have a problem with religion: It leads people to defend the indefensible and imagine things are moral when they actually are not. I suspect if you did not feel you had to defend your god and your Bible you would actually agree with me that what is described is in every sense of the word, slavery.

You really misfired here. We were discussing Egyptian slavery not Hebrew slavery. I have no motive to soften Egyptian slavery. I kind of have the motivation to do the opposite. Yet I chose instead to interpret words accurately and with no slant.

 

[Straw Dog]

Why would a god base everything necessary for salvation on ambiguous historical conjecture?

 

[1robin]

Why would a god base everything necessary for salvation on ambiguous historical conjecture?

It is amazing how much can be said and taken from a question.

Why would a God not produce the most influential human being in history and his deeds in the most influential book in history, and if that was not enough he even put a moral conscience into us that can evaluate morality plus the rationality in our minds to detect the rationality in a universe that has no explanation of its existence, or rationality.

The better question is why would anyone look at all that and the 99.9% of things I did not mention and then yell foul?

 

[ladybug77]

Stop trying to prove and disprove God. You are wasting your energy and time bro.

 

[1robin]

Stop trying to prove and disprove God. You are wasting your energy and time bro.

That statement is a waste of your and what is infinitely worse, my time. This forum was created for the purposes of my claims. There is an easy answer for my statements being wasted on you and it is completely in your hands. My job is to present facts and truth as best as can be done. Like those that went away from Christ defeated what is done with the information is not my concern. Ignore away at your own peril. My statement was not even to you to begin with. Good Lord, how trivial.

 

[ladybug77]

Because you dont know the proof...because you havent ventured out to others religions...thats where it hides.

 

[Willamena]

Why would a God not produce the most influential human being in history and his deeds in the most influential book in history, and if that was not enough he even put a moral conscience into us that can evaluate morality plus the rationality in our minds to detect the rationality in a universe that has no explanation of its existence, or rationality.

Because when we are all gone, there is no more moral conscience, and the memory of Jesus is forgotten.