If it could be proved no god exists

[ecco]

Biochemistry found objection by those in the church who saw it as an attempt
to downgrade life from something spiritual in nature to something mere physical.

Genesis speaks of life emerging on land, and then gives examples of land life.
Same for the sea.

Birds are dinosaurs, which come from reptiles, which come from amphibians
which come from lobe fins which which come from fish which come from the
sea. So yes, God commanded the seas to bring forth life and out of it came
birds - eventually.

If I were your 5th grade teacher I would write on your report card:

PruePhillips demonstrates a good sense of imagination.​

 

[ecco]

@ecco


I find it strange that people should be so emotional in showing their disbelief in God.
If these disbelieving people could really prove that God does not exist then they shouldn't
be emotional but lay down their assertions with confidence without showing a hint of any feeling
whatsoever

I've done that many times, so why address that comment to me?

See post #337.

 

[Trailblazer]

It cannot be proven because the word "god" is too ambiguous.

The reason God cannot be proven the way atheists require is because God cannot be tracked down with a GPS tracker and *proven* to exist the way atheists want. It's funny actually, because proof is not what *makes* God exist. Logically speaking, God either exists or not and we are either willing to look at the proof God provides or we will never know that God exists.

However, let's consider the OT god.

If what is written about him accurately describes him and his actions, then we can produce overwhelming evidence that he is nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

You are correct, in a way it was. But that does not mean jack about the one true God, it only means men can write stories about God and many people believe them. Imo, the Bible needs to be put on the shelf where it belongs, since the dispensations of all the past Messengers of God have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

As just one example, it is written (in his sacred scripture) that he caused the entire world to be flooded within the past 6000 years. There is overwhelming evidence that the entire world was not flooded within the past 6000 years. Therefore it is certain that a god, as described in the OT did not / does not exist.

Your reasoning is sound if you insist the stories are true stories. It is such a shame that people are still reading the Bible and wondering about it. Thank God I do not have to concern myself with the Bible stories because Baha'u'llah wrote...

“Mention hath been made in certain books of a deluge which caused all that existed on earth, historical records as well as other things, to be destroyed. Moreover, many cataclysms have occurred which have effaced the traces of many events. Furthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Jük it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed.

Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 174-175

 

[ecco]

But people who do not know God, are alone
helpless and angry

You don't know many atheists, do you?

Doomed to suffer on Judgement Day when all people are to be judged
now that is pathetic

What is pathetic is people pretending they know how other people feel.
What is pathetic is adults believing in fairy tales.

 

[ecco]

It cannot be proven because the word "god" is too ambiguous.

The reason God cannot be proven the way atheists require is because God cannot be tracked down with a GPS tracker and *proven* to exist the way atheists want.

Stop making up strawmen!

What was my requirement other than asking for a definition of the entity to be evaluated?

If you, or anyone, wants to see if something does or does not exist, then you need to describe it in detail.

Is Atlas the same as Shango? Are either the same as Buddha?

 

[ecco]

Your reasoning is sound if you insist the stories are true stories. It is such a shame that people are still reading the Bible and wondering about it.

The discussion was about disproving god. It is not about whether you or I consider the bible to be factual.

The only thing I insist on is a definition of the god you expect me to address. I choose the OT god as an example. If you have a different god in mind, then it is your burden to define him before asking me to "disprove" him. If you cannot, then your comment about disproving gods is meaningless drivel.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the atheists are pretending to know more about God than they actually know or understand.

I do not see the atheists on this forum pretending to know about God but there is an atheist on my forum who thinks he knows what god would and should do if god existed... It is really funny because it is so ridiculous that anyone would think they could know what God would do or dictate what God should do. This is of course all based upon his belief that if God exists God is omnipotent so God can do anything, which in this atheist's mind means God should do whatever I want him to do. I have told him that any omnipotent God that took orders from humans would no longer be an omnipotent God, but he just does not get it.

After five years posting to him almost daily I am close to insane, and I think I might be insane to keep posting to him, but in my mind if there is any chance that an atheist might become a believer it is worth my time.

But it is not that I am trying to convince him of anything at all, I just talk and he talks back. Why a confirmed atheist would spend all his time talking about god is beyond my comprehension, only God knows.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, that's not piling on claims at all....

It's actually even worse, as you're just holding up an entire religion.

Like saying that "christianity is evidence of god".

No, that is not what I meant. The religion is not the evidence.

Baha’u’llah explained what the evidence is and how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

 

[Trailblazer]

“It does not MATTER what he is ruled. He is still guilty. He is a guilty man who got away with murder.”

It kind of matters a lot. Because over here in the real world, we don't have the answers before actually asking and investigating the questions.

We can't know who is guilty or not in advance.

That was not my point. My point is that even if we cannot prove a man committed a murder, if he committed the murder, he committed the murder. Proof does not change the fact that he committed the murder.

“ That is a red herring.”

No, it's not. What you said works just as well for all those entities I summed up.
It's a useless tautology. "if x exists then it exists, no matter if we can prove it or not". Well yeah... if x then x. Sure. If god then god. If leprechauns then leprechauns. If spiderman then spiderman.
Sounds pretty useless as a statement.

It works on any entity. If leprechauns exist then leprechauns exist. I am not implying anything about belief. I am not saying you should believe that leprechauns exist absent evidence.

“but He is not invisible because He manifests Himself in every age in the form of a Messenger who is both divine and human.”

That is just what you believe.
I can also say that leprechauns manifest themselves every time a rainbow appears, which is what they use to pinpoint where they hid their pots of gold.

The big difference here is that there is no evidence for leprechauns but there IS evidence for Messengers of God that manifest themselves in every age.

It's all just empty claims and beliefs.

No, Baha’u’llah had evidence to back up His claims and as such I have evidence that backs up my beliefs.

“We CAN prove that God exists to ourselves but we CANNOT prove it to anyone else.”

Then you can't prove it.

Yes, I can prove it to myself, and that is all that matters. Why would it matter if I can prove it to others? Why would that be my responsibility?

Case in point: if we accept such claims, then we have to conclude that multiple individuals are "proving" gods to themselves while these gods are mutually exclusive. Most of these people must necessarily be incorrect, as they can't all be correct (they can all be wrong, though....). So how do we tell if you are one of them?

Yes, they could all be wrong, but it is also possible that one of them might be right, logically speaking.
Your logic is sound, so what is the solution?

IF you care to know if God exists, the logical solution is to do the research that is necessary to determine which religion is actually true. That won’t mean the other religions are all false, because they share some common beliefs, but there is only one religion that has the latest truth from God. That is my belief but if you want to be illogical you can investigate an older religion like Christianity that is no longer pertinent to the new age we live in. Your choice.

“You could prove it to yourself right now IF you looked at the evidence and believed it was proof.”

LOL, talk about self-deception.
You could also prove leprechauns to yourself right now IF you looked at the rainbow and believed it was proof of leprechauns.

If that is all you did was look at a rainbow and then you believed in leprechauns then you would be committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions. Words in posts can be misleading and misconstrued. I am not suggesting you just look at something and believe in it. One should do a thorough investigation of any religion before they believe it. If after their thorough investigation they cannot believe based upon reason and rationality, then they should discard it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because all atheists are nihilists?
Because all atheists are philosophical materialists?
Because all atheists lack imagination?

Give me a break.

I did not see where he used the word all.

All atheists are different, just as all believers are different.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you read and understand the article?

Yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Stop making up strawmen!

When I said: "The reason God cannot be proven the way atheists require is because God cannot be tracked down with a GPS tracker and *proven* to exist the way atheists want" I was not referring to you, I was refer to atheists in general, ones I have posted to for years and years. No, it was not a direct response you your concern about an ill-defined god so I will answer that below.

What was my requirement other than asking for a definition of the entity to be evaluated?

If you, or anyone, wants to see if something does or does not exist, then you need to describe it in detail.

Here is a description of the God *I believe in.*

God in the Bahá'í Faith

Bahá'í view of God is essentially monotheistic. God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence.[1] He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty".[2][3] Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation. The purpose of creation is for the created to have the capacity to know and love its creator.[4] God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]

While the Bahá'í writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2]Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[17][18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God in the Baha'i Faith

 

[Trailblazer]

The discussion was about disproving god. It is not about whether you or I consider the bible to be factual.

The only thing I insist on is a definition of the god you expect me to address. I choose the OT god as an example. If you have a different god in mind, then it is your burden to define him before asking me to "disprove" him. If you cannot, then your comment about disproving gods is meaningless drivel.

I just posted my definition.
I do not know how you think anyone can prove or disprove such a God exists, but good luck.

 

[FearGod]

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?

There will be then good demand for beef in India.

 

[PruePhillip]

In any case, "The Heavens" did not create anything in the sense you are trying to argue.

So if the "heavens" did not create the world we live in, what or who did?

 

[PruePhillip]

If I were your 5th grade teacher I would write on your report card:

PruePhillips demonstrates a good sense of imagination.​

Certainly helps. When Wegener proposed a theory of continental
drift he had to have the imagination to conceive it was possible.
He didn't know how - but it was possible.
And anyone who believed in this theory was driven out of
academies, lost tenure or had their careers destroyed. People
just didn't have the imagination to believe how fantastic the
natural world really is.

Want to talk about astronomical objects which orbit INSIDE the
earth's core? Want to discuss research on Pre-death experiences?
(that latter one came up as a spelling error BTW)

 

[MJFlores]

Wow... so I take it that you don't even know that the origin of "Thor" from the Marvel comics is from the ENTIRELY REAL Germanic beliefs in Thor as a god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength, and the protection of mankind?

Okay... considering who I must obviously be dealing with here (i.e. someone who doesn't do a lick of actual investigation into anything they are willing to just discuss willy-nilly) I'll reframe my request to you:

Please prove to me that Zeus does not exist. If you can do that, then I promise I will do my very best to try and prove that your god does not exist (please remember that this was NEVER what I was trying to do in the first place). Again... just prove to me that Zeus does not exist. Easy, right? And if you can't do that, then you understand exactly why I can't do that, and wouldn't try. But you also must then understand (or at the very least - contemplate) the fact that you do not believe in Zeus because of the lack of evidence for Zeus. I am merely expressing the exact same lack of evidence for YOUR God.

After all, Zeus has texts written for his sake, and he had a boat-load of believers during the time that he was most popularly believed, and he was attributed with a great many doings and activities on Earth. So, he has just about the same caliber of evidence as you have for your God to support him. So... why is it that you don't believe in Zeus? With the same types of evidence, you simply dismiss Zeus outright? WHY is that? Do you even have an answer that will satisfy yourself?

To think in this age there are no on-line encyclopedia?

• Ancient Egyptian deities
• Mesopotamian deities
• Ancient Greek deities
• Ancient Roman deities
• Norse deities
• Hindu deities
  • Hindu gods
  • Devi
• Japanese deities

And to think I do not know my own country's ancient fables of gods and goddesses?

• 1.1 Ancient Tagalog deities
• 1.1.1 Other Tagalog deities
• 1.2 Ancient Bikolano deities
• 1.3 Ancient Visayan Deities
• 1.3.1 Other Visayan deities
• 1.4 Tboli deities
• 1.5 Ilokano deities
• 1.6 Kapampangan deities
• 1.7 Sambal deities
• 1.8 B'laan deities
• 1.9 Batak deities
• 1.10 Palawan Deities
• 1.11 Higaonon Deities
• 1.12 Isneg Deities
• 1.13 Tiruray Deities
• 1.14 Mangyan Deities
• 1.15 Tinguian Deities
• 1.16 Talaandig Deities
• 1.17 Gaddang Deities
• 1.18 Ifugao Deities
• 1.19 Ilongot Deities
• 1.20 Agta Deities
• 1.21 Other Igorot Deities
• 1.22 Kalinga Deities
• 1.23 Tagbanwa Deities
• 2 List of famous diwatas

 

[Trailblazer]

So if the "heavens" did not create the world we live in, what or who did?

God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not quite. If a jew reads John 3:36, and they don't want to believe in Jesus in a traditional Christian manner, then they could read it, as, believe what Jesus said, as a Rabbi. Or use whatever discretion in that context, makes sense. If I were 'evangelizing' to a Jew, which I don't, however if I were, I would tell them things related to Biblical belief, as a whole.

Usually arguments on the forums aren't of that nature, ie usually, they are 'textually literalism' context. Which isn't how I approach things anyways.

John 3:16 requires believing that Jesus is God's "only begotten son." Jews are never going to accept that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that is not what I meant. The religion is not the evidence.

Baha’u’llah explained what the evidence is and how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

You say it is not what you meant and then in the very next breath you started preaching a religion.