God is disproven by science? Really?

[Sgt. Pepper]

I appreciate your forthright reply.

I hope you’ll keep in mind, though, the reason I gave for why there are so many sects of Christendom, far more than any other religious group.

So please ‘don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.’

If I may ask you a question: have you ever studied any ancestor-worshiping religions?

Take care, my cousin.

No, I haven't ever studied or considered any ancestor worshiping religions. I don't know about any ancestors from my biological family, and there are no ancestors in my adopted family that I consider deserving of my respect, let alone worship. That being said, I've been considering visiting the small rural town where I lived in a foster home before being adopted at the age of four and a half, but I'm hesitant because of the psychic impressions I can receive when I'm in a specific location or from the land whenever I travel, especially if it is somewhere new. The small rural town is located within the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. It has always been difficult for me to be in Oklahoma, especially to walk on the land, such as on a trek along the Trail of Tears. When my family and I visited the Cherokee Heritage Center in Tahlequah, I was completely overwhelmed with emotions and had to leave. It took me a while to shake that off and regain my composure. It was certainly a shock to my mind. I have to be aware of my surroundings wherever I go and be on my guard.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To observers we can't tell what the baby is from the bathwater. It's all a murky mess.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To observers we can't tell what the baby is from the bathwater. It's all a murky mess.

From a certain perspective, yes, I agree. (I mean, over 33,000?! [that’s the figure I found] Grief!)

But we don’t need to look at what people think determines true Christians; rather, what Jesus said that would ID His followers: “By this, all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:35

You see, Jesus cut through all the dogma rigamarole, by saying, ‘observe how My followers act.’

(If you think Jesus specifically said something different would ID his followers… please, present it.)

You say: “they all show love.” Do they? Up to a point, maybe. With their charities & so forth. But when a war or conflict arises, their love for their brothers on the opposing side, goes out the window.

True love, genuine love has no barriers… it transcends all barriers… man made, cultural, or racial. Of course, love for God, as Jesus said, is first. (Matthew 22:37-39.)
And want does God want us to do? “Love one another”! John 13:34

There’s no getting around it; only ignore it.

Do you know Jesus himself recognized there would false Christians? He actually prophesied it, at Matthew 7:21-23. And he would tell them, “get away from me”!

An interesting point about this is: Jesus said these ones would be telling him, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?”
But obviously, neither Jesus nor God his Father was supporting them. So where were these professed Christians getting this power?

Early on, especially after the death of the Apostles, Christianity was hijacked. Now, there’s over 33,000 sects! (But like I wrote, Jesus told us what to look for.)

(I should put this post in the “demons” thread, and expound further on it.)

Take care.

 

[We Never Know]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent. But if you knew the definition and explanation of intelligence, or its variants, or synonyms, you will never claim such illogical claim. Thus, intelligence protects the existence of God from those non-intelligent persons.

I hope that before those who claim that God does not exist, let them define "intelligence" first in the usage of God = Intelligent Creator or Intelligent Designer.

Wouldn't science first have to study something to disprove it?
Last time I checked science has no stance on a god.

 

[F1fan]

From a certain perspective, yes, I agree. (I mean, over 33,000?! [that’s the figure I found] Grief!)

But we don’t need to look at what people think determines true Christians; rather, what Jesus said that would ID His followers: “By this, all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:35

You see, Jesus cut through all the dogma rigamarole, by saying, ‘observe how My followers act.’

(If you think Jesus specifically said something different would ID his followers… please, present it.)

You say: “they all show love.” Do they? Up to a point, maybe. With their charities & so forth. But when a war or conflict arises, their love for their brothers on the opposing side, goes out the window.

True love, genuine love has no barriers… it transcends all barriers… man made, cultural, or racial. Of course, love for God, as Jesus said, is first. (Matthew 22:37-39.)
And want does God want us to do? “Love one another”! John 13:34

There’s no getting around it; only ignore it.

Do you know Jesus himself recognized there would false Christians? He actually prophesied it, at Matthew 7:21-23. And he would tell them, “get away from me”!

An interesting point about this is: Jesus said these ones would be telling him, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?”
But obviously, neither Jesus nor God his Father was supporting them. So where were these professed Christians getting this power?

Early on, especially after the death of the Apostles, Christianity was hijacked. Now, there’s over 33,000 sects! (But like I wrote, Jesus told us what to look for.)

(I should put this post in the “demons” thread, and expound further on it.)

Take care.

So you have it all figured out but hundreds of millions of Christians don't. If God wanted the truth to be understood don't you think God would have made a clearer message?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wouldn't science first have to study something to disprove it?
Last time I checked science has no stance on a god.

He has not checked in since mid-July of last year. You may be waiting a while for a response.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you have it all figured out but hundreds of millions of Christians don't. If God wanted the truth to be understood don't you think God would have made a clearer message?

They know it. (Well, Christendom’s leaders know it.) They just put stipulations on it. And during conflicts, they follow commands of men to join in the killing instead of Jesus’ command to love. Christians are even commanded to ‘love their enemy’ (Matthew 5:44), a very unpopular stance in times of warfare!

Showing such love to others, ie., where one will not raise up arms against & kill other brothers or enemies, would make them generally hated by the world. At least, by those worldly leaders promoting a war machine. At John 15:19, Jesus says
New Living Translation
“The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you.”

IMO…

JW’s would rather not ‘belong’ to the world, so at times we’ve experienced and endured a lot of hatred! Hitler and his Nazi’s tried to exterminate us, but we’re still here. Stalin - and now, Putin - persecute us, but we’re growing everyday.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He has not checked in since mid-July of last year. You may be waiting a while for a response.

Something weird / funny going on also.
When you click his name on here, it says that the profile doesn't exist / isn't available
His youtube channel is also deleted, it seems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something weird / funny going on also.
When you click his name on here, it says that the profile doesn't exist / isn't available
His youtube channel is also deleted, it seems.

Maybe he finally realized how badly he lost all of his debates . . . Oh my!!! There is a God!!

 

[Zwing]

Hi there! I am Zwing, the atheist.

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent.

Certainly not me. I hold that god(s) cannot be proven non-existent. But then, the burden of proof is not upon those who question the reality of gods, it is upon the theist. You see, the entity making the original claim here is the theist. For untold millennia, Homo sapiens observed the power and vagary inherent in nature with a combined sense of awe and fear. Then one day, some individual personified some aspect of nature, and in the true anthropomorphizing spirit, called it a god and gave it a name. Eventually, the concept of the god divorced from any aspect of nature was developed, the so-called “Omni-God” who created all there is, and this,I believe, is the God of whom you speak. The original proposition, then, is that “there is a god which exists and created everything that is, and which is worthy of the praise and worship of mankind”. This is the claim of the theist, and since that claim is the original proposition, the burden of proof supporting that claim falls upon the theist. It appears, to myself, to be a burden which has never been met. It is incumbent upon nobody to prove that “god does not exist”, rather it is incumbent upon the theist to prove adequately that it does. What might adequate proof look like? Well, I think it was the British mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russel who said, effectively, that (I paraphrase) "supernatural claims should only be accepted based upon the offering of supernatural proofs". So, there ya have it, and based upon the foregoing, what the findings of science may or may not seem to indicate about the existence of gods is beside the point, entirely.

 

[GardenLady]

Put stipulations on it? Stipulations like only one "memorial meal" a year and don't take from the plate because it's only for the 144,000? Stipulations like don't celebrate Jesus' birth or resurrection, don't celebrate people's birthdays, don't vote?

 

[Zwing]

Put stipulations on it?

Why would stipulations be warranted? People may believe and observe as they wish, and psychological needs differ.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hi there! I am Zwing, the atheist.

Certainly not me. I hold that god(s) cannot be proven non-existent. But then, the burden of proof is not upon those who question the reality of gods, it is upon the theist. ...

Well, I am glad I am of the hook as a deist.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would stipulations be warranted? People may believe and observe as they wish, and psychological needs differ.

That's interesting because Moses, for instance, was persecuted when he took a stand for his Israelite brothers. He went into hiding for many years, and then he saw a burning bush which stopped him. Eventually he realized who was setting that bush ablaze miraculously. What I am saying is that psychological needs differ, God knows that and He knows who He is dealing with and knows how to reach a person. Consider also Pharaoh who had tremendous testimony set before him, yet he did not give in when the Israelites wanted to go. Thus the Almighty God knows our mindset and allows us freedom of thought and choice.

 

[Zwing]

That's interesting because Moses, for instance, was persecuted when he took a stand for his Israelite brothers. He went into hiding for many years, and then he saw a burning bush which stopped him. Eventually he realized who was setting that bush ablaze miraculously. What I am saying is that psychological needs differ, God knows that and He knows who He is dealing with and knows how to reach a person. Consider also Pharaoh who had tremendous testimony set before him, yet he did not give in when the Israelites wanted to go. Thus the Almighty God knows our mindset and allows us freedom of thought and choice.

There’s a lot to respond to there, but I think I’ll desist for the present, as I am engaged elsewhere with religious concepts that are new to me. You have written a good post; it would be even better for me if I were a theist, or believed Moses to be an historical figure. At one time in my life, I would have given you a heartfelt for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

There’s a lot to respond to there, but I think I’ll desist for the present, as I am engaged elsewhere with religious concepts that are new to me. You have written a good post; it would be even better for me if I were a theist, or believed Moses to be an historical figure. At one time in my life, I would have given you a heartfelt for that.

I have read things like that, thinking about what some call "higher critics." While I realize the history in the Bible can be short or complicated, depending on situation (such as the list of kings, enemies, and offspring of certain ones), at this point in my life I have no reason to doubt that Moses existed, that there were miracles following him and others. I won't go any further than that now but thanks for your post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I am saying is that psychological needs differ, God knows that and He knows who He is dealing with and knows how to reach a person.

So if he didn't reach me (giving me zero reason to believe), it can only mean that that is the case because this god is unwilling to do so?

Consider also Pharaoh who had tremendous testimony set before him, yet he did not give in when the Israelites wanted to go. Thus the Almighty God knows our mindset and allows us freedom of thought and choice.

Actually, in that story, God explicitly overrides Pharaoh's free will by "heardening his heart" and thus manipulating him into not "giving in", as you say.
So that's all on god also. It's all just a big show.

 

[Zwing]

Consider also Pharaoh who had tremendous testimony set before him, yet he did not give in when the Israelites wanted to go.

The problem with citing the Exodus/Conquest narrative is with its nature. It is a purposeful myth, created in order that the Hebrews/Israelites, who had come to have a particular religious identity, might historically differentiate and distinguish themselves from the rest of the כְּנַעֲנִיים , the k’na’aniim (the “Canaanites”). Before these efforts, Israelites were simply part and parcel of the Canaanite (meaning “lowland Northwest Semitic”, especially as juxtaposed to Aramean “highland Northwest Semitic”) population. The single particular narrative of Yeẓi'at Miẓrayim - Sefer Yehoshua (Exodus-Joshua) constitutes the “founding myth” of the Israelites (all twelve lineages) as a distinct people or nation. It allowed the Israelite leadership to differentiate their people from the rest of Canaan, allowing the “Children of Israel” to indicate the “Canaanites” as being “others”, obscuring the historical truth of a relationship of inclusion, and to secure the land as a “divine mandate”. It should be noted that this founding myth was developed and included in the Hebrew Scriptures long after the above-noted differentiation and usurpation occurred. The legend was not contemporaneous with the events that it purports to describe. In this, it amounts to a type of re-writing of actual history. In any case, the biblical Exodus-conquest narrative is not an historical account; it is rather a fabulous account posing as history in service to a people’s efforts to dissociate itself from a greater population of which hitherto it had always been a part. Rather ingenious, IMO.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem with citing the Exodus/Conquest narrative is with its nature. It is a purposeful myth, created in order that the Hebrews/Israelites, who had come to have a particular religious identity, might historically differentiate and distinguish themselves from the rest of the כְּנַעֲנִיים , the k’na’aniim (the “Canaanites”). Before these efforts, Israelites were simply part and parcel of the Canaanite (meaning “lowland Northwest Semitic”, especially as juxtaposed to Aramean “highland Northwest Semitic”) population. The single particular narrative of Yeẓi'at Miẓrayim - Sefer Yehoshua (Exodus-Joshua) constitutes the “founding myth” of the Israelites (all twelve lineages) as a distinct people or nation. It allowed the Israelite leadership to differentiate their people from the rest of Canaan, allowing the “Children of Israel” to indicate the “Canaanites” as being “others”, obscuring the historical truth of a relationship of inclusion, and to secure the land as a “divine mandate”. It should be noted that this founding myth was developed and included in the Hebrew Scriptures long after the above-noted differentiation and usurpation occurred. The legend was not contemporaneous with the events that it purports to describe. In this, it amounts to a type of re-writing of actual history. In any case, the biblical Exodus-conquest narrative is not an historical account; it is rather a fabulous account posing as history in service to a people’s efforts to dissociate itself from a greater population of which hitherto it had always been a part. Rather ingenious, IMO.

Since I don't believe it's a purposeful myth, obviously we can't discuss it as if it's true. On that note, have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Zwing - Just to make sure my words were not misunderstood, I'll rephrase -- I do not believe the account in the Bible about Moses is a myth. I believe it's true. Hope that helps to clarify. Thanks.