can you proove there isn't a deity?

[Sonofason]

Is this to say it is your claim that those who dismiss the Bible and it's stories only do so from lack of investigation?

And where does that leave those who reject the Bible and it's stories BECAUSE of said investigation?

Are you suggesting that a detailed investigation will necessarily turn up facts? If you begin an investigation and wind up with what you began the investigation with, specifically, a lack of evidence, why would you then form an opinion? If you are no further than where you began, why not continue to reserve judgment?

 

[McBell]

Are you suggesting that a detailed investigation will necessarily turn up facts?

Yes.
Even if the only fact is that there is no evidence.

If you begin an investigation and wind up with what you began the investigation with, specifically, a lack of evidence, why would you then form an opinion?

the opinion formed is there is not enough evidence to support the claim.
Therefore the claim can be dismissed.

Unlike yourself, i do not assume the claim to be the default until proven false.

If you are no further than where you began, why not continue to reserve judgment?

But I would not be no further than I was to begin with.

Unlike yourself, i am not looking to ratify my beliefs, i am looking for evidence that the claim has merit.
If there is no evidence, the claim does not have merit regardless of how passionate the claimer is about said claim.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes.
Even if the only fact is that there is no evidence.

The question was, as posted by Sonofason:

Are you suggesting that a detailed investigation will necessarily turn up facts?

Mestemia continues:

the opinion formed is there is not enough evidence to support the claim.
Therefore the claim can be dismissed.

It may very well be that the claim itself can be dismissed, but dismissing a claim is not synonymous with believing that the claim is false. If it is a fact that no evidence is found to support a claim, such a lack of evidence is not evidence that the claim is false. A lack of evidence to support a claim is nothing more than a lack of evidence. If you should find evidence that refutes the claim, then you can say you have cause to believe that the claim is false. But that sort of evidence you do not have, at least, that sort of evidence you have not shown.

Mestemia continues:

Unlike yourself, i do not assume the claim to be the default until proven false.

In my opinion, a claim is evidence. It is weak evidence I admit. But it is evidence nonetheless. Since I have no evidence that these claims are false, the only evidence I have is the weak evidence that the claim is true, and so under the weight of evidence that I have, I must conclude that it is at least possible that the claim is true. I don't necessarily believe it is true, unless the evidences convince me that it is true.

Mestemia continues:

But I would not be no further than I was to begin with.

Indeed.

Mestemia continues:

Unlike yourself, i am not looking to ratify my beliefs, i am looking for evidence that the claim has merit.

I am not necessarily looking to ratify my beliefs. I have been convinced of many of my beliefs independent of the sort of claims we are discussing, and so to me these claims have merit, not because they ratify my beliefs, but because they do not shatter my beliefs. If there is no evidence to nullify a claim, then the claim might be true. If the claim is not disqualified, and therefore does not injure my belief, my belief remains intact. As well, the claims remain intact.

Mestemia continues:

If there is no evidence, the claim does not have merit regardless of how passionate the claimer is about said claim.

I disagree. If there is no evidence, the claim stands alone, by itself. It neither has merit, nor the lack of merit. If the claim is true, it has merit. If it is false, it has no merit.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia continues:


It may very well be that the claim itself can be dismissed, but dismissing a claim is not synonymous with believing that the claim is false. If it is a fact that no evidence is found to support a claim, such a lack of evidence is not evidence that the claim is false. A lack of evidence to support a claim is nothing more than a lack of evidence. If you should find evidence that refutes the claim, then you can say you have cause to believe that the claim is false. But that sort of evidence you do not have, at least, that sort of evidence you have not shown.

Mestemia continues:


In my opinion, a claim is evidence. It is weak evidence I admit. But it is evidence nonetheless. Since I have no evidence that these claims are false, the only evidence I have is the weak evidence that the claim is true, and so under the weight of evidence that I have, I must conclude that it is at least possible that the claim is true. I don't necessarily believe it is true, unless the evidences convince me that it is true.

Mestemia continues:


Indeed.

Mestemia continues:


I am not necessarily looking to ratify my beliefs. I have been convinced of many of my beliefs independent of the sort of claims we are discussing, and so to me these claims have merit, not because they ratify my beliefs, but because they do not shatter my beliefs. If there is no evidence to nullify a claim, then the claim might be true. If the claim is not disqualified, and therefore does not injure my belief, my belief remains intact. As well, the claims remain intact.

Mestemia continues:


I disagree. If there is no evidence, the claim stands alone, by itself. It neither has merit, nor the lack of merit. If the claim is true, it has merit. If it is false, it has no merit.

So it seems we have two distinctive standards for what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

So it seems we have two distinctive standards for what is and what is not evidence.

Yes indeed, evidence can be weak, it can be strong, it can be convincing, it can be unconvincing, it can be substantial, it can be unsubstantial, it can be absent, it can be present, it can be personal, it can be verifiable, it can be unverifiable, it can be modified a number of ways.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, The Bible contains stories that may or may not be documentation of an existence of dragons, unicorns, talking donkeys, etc. I am not suggesting that anyone should necessarily believe in the God of any Bible, nor the stories they contain, just as I would not suggest that anyone should necessarily believe in the mythological stories of the Greeks, or any other mythological story. But I would also not suggest to anyone that they should reject any of these stories, simply because they have not themselves experienced a God or one of these mythological creatures. When one has no direct evidence of a thing, especially in the light of possible documentation and claims that the thing existed, I personally think it best to approach the matter with an open mind and reserve judgment until one has sufficient information, understanding and of course evidence, if there be any, to make an informed, reasonable decision with regard to it's possible existence.

I know now what I perceive dragons to be. But that in no way suggests that I perfectly understand the meaning and intent of the ancient word that was translated into the English word dragon. When someone speaks of dragons, I envision my own perception of what I perceive a dragon to be. Is it the same? I just don't know. I lack information. I lack understanding. And I lack evidence.

"Where did they get such an idea? Did it stem from a universal human imagination? An inherited need or instinct? An inherited subconscious memory of dinosaurs? All these suggestions have been made, and taken seriously by groups of people. I believe dragons are the reflection, sometimes embellished through retelling but mostly historical, of actual physical encounters of human beings with dinosaurs."
For more visit Dragon History

So then, when we reject the word dragon, are we then rejecting dinosaurs?
Do you believe that dinosaurs didn't exist?

It seems that the word dragon has it's root in the word serpent. Some like to make fun of the passages of the Bible that speak of a talking serpent. They liken serpents to a snake, and then poke fun of scripture because it suggests "to them" that the Bible speaks of talking snakes. But I have a dictionary that defines serpent as "a treacherous person". Are there not treacherous people in the world? Can they not talk?

Dismissing the Bible and it's stories because one fails to investigate the claims is in my opinion very sad. Why indeed would someone desire to allow ignorance to be a motive for belief?

The Greeks have stories about giants being in the land. The Bible has a stories of giants in the land. Why dismiss such claims out of ignorance, and a lack of understanding?

LOL! I assure you I have investigated.


I also noted that you left out the talking donkey. How about talking Serpents? And how about birds that feed and take care of a prophet? Or sorcerers, and all that magic, and magic wand making? Necromancy? Or Giant fish that swallow people - but don't digest them - instead spitting them back up days later, alive? Myth and Fable.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

This is of course your opinion. It could be that human beings experience God, but lack a comprehensive understanding of God. It could be that they have attributed such things as thunder and other natural events to this God out of fear. It could actually be that God is responsible for thunder. If it is possible that God created the physical laws of the universe, and the matter it governs, then it would not be far fetched for one to say, God did it.

You make a false presumption when you say that I don't believe in the Greek pantheon. I most certainly do believe in it. Do I believe there might have been embellishments? Do I believe the stories are accurate and precise? I must say, I lack information, I lack understanding, and I lack the evidence to make such a determination. But I certainly believe it is quite possible that those stories are at least based in fact.

I am not suggesting you should believe the stories. I am suggesting you should not disbelieve the stories until you are better informed.

The way you beat around the bush (as noted by others) is quite funny.

You know exactly what I mean. You have made it plain that you are a One-God believer, and the Greek pantheon - is a group of Gods. You do not believe Zeus, Hera, and all the other gods - were actual Gods living together.

To claim you lack information - is false. You know perfectly well that you don't believe in them as Gods. In the same manor, there is no reason to believe in the Christian pantheon.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

You must know, if you've read your Bible, that nothing was created of God without His Son. They were together before the beginning of creation. So why should God be used in the singular just because they are one God?

Yes, perhaps you should have another look at Genesis, Chapter 6. Perhaps you will wonder if these giants that were referred to might have had qualities that might have caused feeble men to perceive them as gods. Such creatures, in my opinion, seem to resemble the stories of Greek mythology.

Try again - it says the Elohiym created humans in their image male and female.


And the Messiah as son/God is not in Tanakh. It was added later by Christians.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Then you should actually read it again, as it tells us they originally worshiped other Gods and Goddesses.

Throughout Kings they are constantly being killed for setting the old Gods back up in the Temple.

A god can be many things, and they can be worshiped by anyone. It says very little about the one true God.

That is quite funny actually. They worshiped many Gods, one of whom was named YHVH of the Elohiym. They are all the same, myth.



*

 

[Sonofason]

LOL! I assure you I have investigated.


I also noted that you left out the talking donkey. How about talking Serpents? And how about birds that feed and take care of a prophet? Or sorcerers, and all that magic, and magic wand making? Necromancy? Or Giant fish that swallow people - but don't digest them - instead spitting them back up days later, alive? Myth and Fable.



*

I don't think you have.

 

[Sonofason]

That is quite funny actually. They worshiped many Gods, one of whom was named YHVH of the Elohiym. They are all the same, myth.



*

I don't think they are.

 

[Sonofason]

Try again - it says the Elohiym created humans in their image male and female.


And the Messiah as son/God is not in Tanakh. It was added later by Christians.


*

I don't think it was.

 

[Ingledsva]

Try again - it says the Elohiym created humans in their image male and female.


And the Messiah as son/God is not in Tanakh. It was added later by Christians.

I don't think it was.

You don't think what was? Son/God in Tanakh?

What about Tanakh telling us the Elohiym are male and female?



*

 

[Ingledsva]

That is quite funny actually. They worshiped many Gods, one of whom was named YHVH of the Elohiym. They are all the same, myth.

I don't think they are.

I don't think you get what I am saying.

YHVH is just the name of one god of the Hebrew, in a book naming a bunch of gods of the Hebrew, and mythical creatures, magic, etc.


Why would/should that one name out of the bunch of mythical beings, - be considered real?



*

 

[Sonofason]

I don't think you get what I am saying.

YHVH is just the name of one god of the Hebrew, in a book naming a bunch of gods of the Hebrew, and mythical creatures, magic, etc.


Why would/should that one name out of the bunch of mythical beings, - be considered real?



*

Name the book. Name the passage, chapter and verse if applicable.

 

[Sonofason]

You don't think what was? Son/God in Tanakh?

What about Tanakh telling us the Elohiym are male and female?



*

In the Tanakh, the Messiah was mentioned. His name was introduced by the Christians.

 

[Ingledsva]

In the Tanakh, the Messiah was mentioned. His name was introduced by the Christians.

A future Hebrew Messiah was and still is being awaited.


And he was not a God, he is to be a human!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't think you get what I am saying.

YHVH is just the name of one god of the Hebrew, in a book naming a bunch of gods of the Hebrew, and mythical creatures, magic, etc.


Why would/should that one name out of the bunch of mythical beings, - be considered real?

Name the book. Name the passage, chapter and verse if applicable.

Name the book for what exactly, so that I get you the right information.

*

Decided to just add info to cover it all.


Exo 3:15 And Elohiym said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, YHVH, the Elohe of your fathers, the Elohe of Abraham, the Elohe of Isaac, and the Elohe of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is how I should be remembered from generation to generation.

Ex 6:2 And Elohiym spoke to Moses and said to him, I am YHVH.

Isa 42:8 I am YHVH; that is My name; and I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to engraved images.

*

Some of the Gods the Hebrew worshiped – Someone else started this list (thank you) and I added to it.


Asherah/Anath & and her consort El/ Baal, 1 Kings 11:5, 15: 11 & 12, and elsewhere.

Ba’al-ze’bub/Baal, 11 Kings 1: 2-16, 17: 10-17

Ash’toreth, Solomon and his people worshiped her, 1 Kings 11:5, 11 Kings 23:13.

Ba’al-berith – El-berith, “God of the covenant.” Judg. 9:46, 8:33, 9:4.

Ba’al-peor/Chemosh, The Israelites worshiped him on the Plains of Moab. Num. 25: 1-9, Psa. 106: 28, Hos. 9:10.

Chemosh, Solomon set a temple to him in Jerusalem, along with that to Ash’toreth, 1 Kings 11:7.

Bull Worship/Apis, 1 Kings 12: 28-33, and of course the Golden Calf.

Gad, God of Fortune, Isaiah 65:11

Me’ni, God of Destiny, Isaiah 65: 11

Mal’cham/Moloch, 1 Kings 11: 5, 33 – 11 Kings 23:13

Mero’dach, Worshipped by Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 51: 44

Mo’lech, Solomon built him a temple at Tophet.

Nehush’tan, Serpent God, 11 Kings 18:4

Rephar, Israelites worshiped him in the desert, Acts 7: 43

Satyr/Pan, I put up a whole page on this awhile back. And a Temple of Pan has been uncovered in Israel.

“In northern Israel, the ancient city of Banyas has been excavated. It was the site of the Banyas spring, one of the sources of the river Jordan. A sanctuary complex to Pan has been found there:”

Tam’muz, Women cried for him at the Jerusalem Temple. Ezek. 8: 14, Jer. 22:18, Amos 8: 10, Zech. 12:10

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven,.- Jeremiah 7:18





*

 

[Sonofason]

Name the book for what exactly, so that I get you the right information.


*

You made a claim, I'd like to see where your claim is coming from. I'd like to verify what you have claimed for myself. And when I can't I will explain to you why you are mistaken with regard to your claim.

 

[Sonofason]

A future Hebrew Messiah was and still is being awaited.


And he was not a God, he is to be a human!



*

He's already come, and he was fully human. He will come again, to the shame of many.