If it could be proved no god exists

[ecco]

In a nutshell, our drug addled and adulterous world judges Christianity by those who
breached its principles.

Riiight! The old argument that bad Christians aren't really True Christians.

I'll bet that you believe Jesus is God.
I'll bet that you absolve Jesus of all the evil that God did, like The Great Flood.

I don't use drugs and I have never committed adultery. I judge Christianity by what people who refer to themselves as Christians do and believe.

The Christians who owned, beat and hanged slaves were following the same scripture as you profess you do.

 

[PruePhillip]

Riiight! The old argument that bad Christians aren't really True Christians.

I'll bet that you believe Jesus is God.
I'll bet that you absolve Jesus of all the evil that God did, like The Great Flood.

I don't use drugs and I have never committed adultery. I judge Christianity by what people who refer to themselves as Christians do and believe.

The Christians who owned, beat and hanged slaves were following the same scripture as you profess you do.

What Christians in the bible beat and hanged slaves?
Christianity was a prime driver in the end of slavery in the Roman empire.

Don't get into arguments about the Trinity - doesn't make sense to me.
I don't judge Christianity because some person calls themselves a Christian.

Forget the flood (which most don't believe) Just look at what God did the Jews
for 2,000 years - and it's historical. I don't say "I don't like this phenomena,
therefor it doesn't exist." That's a logic fallacy.

 

[ecco]

What Christians in the bible beat and hanged slaves?

Why ask me? I didn't say: "Christians in the bible beat and hanged slaves".

 

[ecco]

Don't get into arguments about the Trinity - doesn't make sense to me.

The Christian Bible is very clear about that. How can it not make sense to a Christian? Don't you accept your own scripture?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why ask me? I didn't say: "Christians in the bible beat and hanged slaves".

"Christian" Germany went to war with France and England.
Does this condemn Christianity as a violent religion?

You dodged my question.

 

[ecco]

Forget the flood (which most don't believe)

What most? I'm not in a conversation with "most". If you don't believe in the flood, then you are one of those who picks and chooses what to believe and what to discard. It's very hard to have a discussion with someone like that.

Just look at what God did the Jews
for 2,000 years - and it's historical. I don't say "I don't like this phenomena,
therefor it doesn't exist." That's a logic fallacy.

I really don't know what you are trying to say.

But you really ducked defending your allegation...

So there's no distinction between Christians? You are off to a bad start in any deep
discussion of anything if you deny distinctions.
Let's put it like this - you can be
1 - of the Christian culture
2 - being like Jesus.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Christian Bible is very clear about that. How can it not make sense to a Christian? Don't you accept your own scripture?

There's about nine trinities in the bible.
But there is no such thing as a "doctrine of the Trinity."

God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 1

Father, Son and Holy Ghost = Trinity 2

Spirit, Water, and the Blood = Trinity 3

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost = Trinity 4

The spirit and soul and body = Trinity 5

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob = Trinity 6

God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son. Nazarene & Muslim = Trinity 7

God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 8

God, the Son and the Disciples = Trinity 9

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think I haven't explained myself well.

I'm not saying that man can't create a "moral system". And in their eyes it would be moral. But who determined if it is actually moral? Or who hold the plumb-line of what is moral?

Example (if Wikipedia is correct):

So, as of September 2019, in the 37 states that have set a marriage age by statute, the lower minimum marriage age when all exceptions are taken into account, are:[9]

• 2 states have a minimum age of 14: Alaska and North Carolina.
• 4 states have a minimum age of 15.
• 20 states have a minimum age of 16.
• 9 states have a minimum age of 17.
• 2 states have a minimum age of 18.

So which one is morally correct? The two states of minimum of 18 might say 14 is morally wrong.

My point is that, yes man can create their morality, Hitler created his and no one was going to argue (very long) that he was wrong. But, IMV, only God has the ultimate "morality" standard.

The moral system would be determined to be moral based on how the designers of the system want to define "moral." I think a good moral system would be one that is designed with the purpose of increasing the net benefits to society without sacrificing individual rights, and I think a society of people with the good of human beings in mind could agree on such a system whether they were theists or atheists. As to which of your examples is "morally correct", I would say that you might be misunderstanding my view. I don't think any of them are morally correct because I don't think moral "correctness" exists in any objective sense. I think all of them are subjective attempts to create laws to protect the rights of children. Presumably the people who designed these laws had the good of individuals and society in mind when they made them, but just differed in their opinions of the details. Obviously Hitler didn't have the good of society and individuals in mind.

 

[Kenny]

"a world without God"? Don't you really mean a world without Gods? Are you so isolated that you never heard of Allah? Or Shiva? Or hundreds of other Gods worshipped. Aren't you aware that even within A GOD there are hundreds and thousands of different groups and sects all with their own way of worshipping - many often killing each other for Their Version Of God?

Strictly a Christian perspective.

You can post your perspective here at RF

 

[Kenny]

I don't think any of them are morally correct because I don't think moral "correctness" exists in any objective sense.

Agreed. That is what I am saying.

 

[PruePhillip]

What most? I'm not in a conversation with "most". If you don't believe in the flood, then you are one of those who picks and chooses what to believe and what to discard. It's very hard to have a discussion with someone like that.
I really don't know what you are trying to say.
But you really ducked defending your allegation...

I mean that some people don't believe the flood story.
Some that believe in God but not the flood will say that
God wouldn't do such a thing - but in the history of the
Jews, driven out of their homeland and persecuted
we see the same story, in a sense. And something
which cannot be denied.

 

[dfnj]

The evidence is already on the table to show that the only place gods exist is as concepts, things imagined, in individual brains.

I am pretty confident you would ignore any evidence that would not be in alignment with your own existing prejudice.

Here's what I would consider as evidence for the existence of God. What is the IT that decides something is being observed in double slit type experiments in quantum mechanics. The evidence seems to support the idea reality does not exist at all. The evidence seems to suggest we exist or reality is part of some kind of higher mind. I would go further and say the way reality operates as a dance between observer and what is being observed causing changes in what is physically realized then God is actively participating in the way everything is ordered yet unimaginably creative at the same time.

I'm not the smartest person in the World but I find the way nature behaves at the smallest scale of measurement to be quite shocking.

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge

“A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself.” Niels Bohr

“The meaning of life consists in the fact that it makes no sense to say that life has no meaning.” Niels Bohr

You speak so confidently in the way you understand the Universe perfectly accurate and complete. Either you are ignoring the evidence presented to us by experiments in quantum mechanics. Or you do not understand what the implications are by the evidence. Or you have an absolute dogma that with live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism. I am not confident or convinced the Universe is machine like at all. As far as I can tell everything seems rather strangely spiritual.

But the big one for me is the total absence of a definition of God appropriate to a real god, one with objective existence, such that we could determine whether any real being or thing or phenomenon were God or not.

I like how you start the sentence out "for me" and then interpolate for all people by using "we".

Every definition of God I have ever read claims God is infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. Every single thought you have presupposes God has finite boundaries, must be a "thing", and as a thing it can be experienced as a thing. Everything in your way of thinking exists "out there".

Yet, every religious text I've read use words to represent ideas having no boundaries. Like God, spirit, Tao, Nirvana, Oneness, on and on. Every major work on religion talks about religion as being a path to some higher experience. Each of us has a personal journey to a specific type of subjective experience of the World. Most people who study religion call this experience as being in the presence of God.

I get it, spirituality is NOT your cup of tea. Some people like to open their eggs from the top. Some people like to open their eggs from the bottom. Oy vey.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I

I wonder what would be the reaction of theists if evidence was discovered which proved beyond any shadow of doubt that no god has ever existed, and all faiths are created by humans?

I doubt it would make much difference. If you believe something on faith, actual evidence doesn't matter and can often just get in the way. If the mountains of evidence for evolution contradicts what you've been taught in church, then ignore the evidence and pretend that the theory is nothing more than a vast conspiracy backed by Satan. If you'd rather not be bothered with the notion of man made climate change, just pretend it doesn't exist and that somehow the climate scientists seeking research grants SOMEHOW managed to outspend the oil industry and bought off all of the legitimate scientists to lie about it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then we will be wondering who started something out of nothing.

And in our wonder these things of awe shouldn't exist at all.
But they do exist, so we become fools instead.

Why would you foolishly believe that there was ever a time when there was nothing?

 

[MJFlores]

Why would you foolishly believe that there was ever a time when there was nothing?

Now we have something because before that, we have nothing.

It always starts with zero. First it was nothing then we have something.
Nothing can't make something. It takes someone to make something out of nothing.

 

[ecco]

The Christian Bible is very clear about that. How can it not make sense to a Christian? Don't you accept your own scripture?

Don't get into arguments about the Trinity - doesn't make sense to me.

There's about nine trinities in the bible.
But there is no such thing as a "doctrine of the Trinity."

God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 1

Father, Son and Holy Ghost = Trinity 2

Spirit, Water, and the Blood = Trinity 3

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost = Trinity 4

The spirit and soul and body = Trinity 5

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob = Trinity 6

God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son. Nazarene & Muslim = Trinity 7

God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 8

God, the Son and the Disciples = Trinity 9

So, you can't make sense of your own scripture, yet you are a believer. That "doesn't make sense to me".

How can you believe stuff that makes no sense to you? Isn't it time to question all the nonsense you have been taught?

 

[ecco]

Strictly a Christian perspective.

Considering that there re over 1000 Christian sects, there is no such thing as "a Christian perspective". What you mean is your Christian perspective.

A Christian perspective that, like other Christian perspectives, comes from the idea that one's Christian perspective is the only correct Christian perspective.
A Christian perspective that, like other Christian perspectives, often leads to the death of people with other perspectives.

 

[PruePhillip]

So, you can't make sense of your own scripture, yet you are a believer. That "doesn't make sense to me".

How can you believe stuff that makes no sense to you? Isn't it time to question all the nonsense you have been taught?

What nonsense? I never learned all that Catholic stuff about purgatory, trinity, indulgences,
Papal infallibility, pray the rosary, Mary queen of heaven.
It's not that I don't believe it - I can't make sense of it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why would you foolishly believe that there was ever a time when there was nothing?

There's a big question attached to that, "Why something instead of nothing."
We can't comprehend Nothing.

Some think nothing is empty space - but space is not empty, and even
"empty" is something, in a sense.
Empty as in no laws of physics, no time, no space, no distance between
two objects, no numbers, N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

And the atheist will tell you this Nothing created everything, as if it had a
mind.

 

[ecco]

What nonsense? I never learned all that Catholic stuff about purgatory, trinity, indulgences,
Papal infallibility, pray the rosary, Mary queen of heaven.
It's not that I don't believe it - I can't make sense of it.

Funny. I hear more Protestants than Catholics say: "Jesus is God"; "Jesus is Lord".

Isn't that something that you too believe?



ETA: It seems that you do a lot of picking and choosing.