proof of god's inexistence?

[tomasortega]

JOHN 14
12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father
14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.


so question is what happened? no miracles? why dont christians ask god in jesus' name for a miracle to show to the whole world that their belief in their god is true???
what about all those innocent children in africa dying of hunger?? literally starving to death? do they not have enough faith when asking god for help? what about innocent children suffering and dying of cancer in hospitals all over the world? do their parents/churches/friends/families not have enough faith?

on a side note. what happened to god interacting with humanity on a personal level? not too long ago god personally and physically lead the israelites. he supposedly parted the sea, sent plagues on pharaoh among other things. where is he now? and what are the chances he decided to show himself in the dark ages? in a time where no recordings of sound pictures or video was available? and all people had was word of mouth and the written word?? where is he now?

is this proof of god's inexistence? personally, i think so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

is this proof of god's inexistence? personally, i think so.

"Either the Bible is literally true or God does not exist." Pathetic ...

 

[tomasortega]

"Either the Bible is literally true or God does not exist." Pathetic ...

im sorry, but i do not understand how jesus' promises of being able to perform miracles such as his, and even greater ones is not to be taken literally.... the whole parting of the sea thing i agree could be symbolic , but it was only a sidenote.

 

[Shahzad]

im sorry, but i do not understand how jesus' promises of being able to perform miracles such as his, and even greater ones is not to be taken literally.... the whole parting of the sea thing i agree could be symbolic , but it was only a sidenote.

The existence of a supreme being has nothing to do with whether a few passages in the Bible are literally true or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

im sorry, but i do not understand ...

Nor do you try, being far too busy with juvenile polemic. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of logic Jesus could be a total fabrication and that would not constitiute "proof of god's inexistence," and it's more than a little interesting that you find that fact difficult to understand.

 

[tomasortega]

Nor do you try, being far too busy with juvenile polemic. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of logic Jesus could be a total fabrication and that would not constitiute "proof of god's inexistence," and it's more than a little interesting that you find that fact difficult to understand.

so you use the possible inexistence of jesus, who according to christianity is the same as,or part of god, to show that the inexistence of god does not depend on jesus/god's existence. :clap boy you must feel mighty righteous right about now

 

[rojse]

so you use the possible inexistence of jesus, who according to christianity is the same as,or part of god, to show that the inexistence of god does not depend on jesus/god's existence. :clap boy you must feel mighty righteous right about now

Logically, whether the bible is true or not, or whether the figures in it exist or not, does not have any effect on whether God exists or not.

EDIT: Look at it this way. Whether the Bible is true or not is one proposition (and true in what sense, exactly?). Whether God exists or not is another entirely. The entire premise of an argument can be wrong yet the conclusion can be correct. Keppler's three laws of celestial motion were originally wrong in their proofs, for example, yet their conclusions are correct.

 

[tomasortega]

The existence of a supreme being has nothing to do with whether a few passages in the Bible are literally true or not.

it does if you believe that the bible is the word of god. if the bible is in fact not the word of god, then yes, god could still exist, but not under the definition of the bible, since obviously he doesnt care to acknowledge it or stand by the promises made in/under his name. and that would mean that christianity is a fraud, and that god, does not personally interact with us. his creation. in which case there is no point in believing in a supreme being at all, because wether he does or doesnt exist, doesnt affect you in any way.

 

[tomasortega]

Logically, whether the bible is true or not, or whether the figures in it exist or not, does not have any effect on whether God exists or not.

EDIT: Look at it this way. Whether the Bible is true or not is one proposition (and true in what sense, exactly?). Whether God exists or not is another entirely. The entire premise of an argument can be wrong yet the conclusion can be correct. Keppler's three laws of celestial motion were originally wrong in their proofs, for example, yet their conclusions are correct.

i believe i have already addressed this point of argument.in my above post

again, personally i dont care wether an impersonal or deistic god exists. because it wont affect me in any way. what i care about is wether a personal god, such as the god of the bible exists.

 

[rojse]

The thing wrong with theological proofs is that they are theological proofs - they make presumptions about the nature and characteristics of God that are unsubstantiated. This goes for proofs that support or disprove God's existence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so you use the possible inexistence of jesus, who according to christianity is the same as,or part of god, to show that the inexistence of god does not depend on jesus/god's existence.

This is incoherent. You're doing yourself no favors here ...

 

[tomasortega]

theological proofs - they make presumptions about the nature and characteristics of God that are unsubstantiated. .

but is it unsubstained? what if god defined himself and his nature and characteristics in the bible through inspiring the authors of the bible? thats certainly what most christians claim. that the bible is god's word, or inspired by god.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

but is it unsubstained?

Did I mention incoherent?

 

[rojse]

but is it unsubstained? what if god defined himself and his nature and characteristics in the bible through inspiring the authors of the bible? thats certainly what most christians claim. that the bible is god's word, or inspired by god.

The Christians could be completely wrong about the Bible and still be correct about the existence of God.

 

[Shahzad]

it does if you believe that the bible is the word of god. if the bible is in fact not the word of god, then yes, god could still exist, but not under the definition of the bible, since obviously he doesnt care to acknowledge it or stand by the promises made in/under his name. and that would mean that christianity is a fraud, and that god, does not personally interact with us. his creation. in which case there is no point in believing in a supreme being at all, because wether he does or doesnt exist, doesnt affect you in any way.

An error in the Bible is proof of an error in the Bible, that and nothing more. Most Christians don't interpret the Bible literally, so it could only be an error if interpreted literally. Besides, Biblical errancy tells us nothing about the existence of a supreme being or about the nature of such a being.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

thank you o great judge of coherency.

No need. The observation was obvious. The existence of God in no way depends on the accuracy or quality of the New Testament. Your trumpeted 'proof' is suite simply thoughtless drivel.

 

[tomasortega]

The Christians could be completely wrong about the Bible and still be correct about the existence of God.

so youre saying that the christians could be completely wrong about the bible, which contains the definition of a personal god, but still be correct about the existence of god??? once again, thats fine with me. if god is not a personal god as described in the bible, then it doesnt affect me.

 

[rojse]

so youre saying that the christians could be completely wrong about the bible, which contains the definition of a personal god, but still be correct about the existence of god??? once again, thats fine with me. if god is not a personal god as described in the bible, then it doesnt affect me.

Jay is arguing this far more articulately than I can. But the factuality, or lack of it for the Bible does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God, as much as you would like it to.

 

[tomasortega]

An error in the Bible is proof of an error in the Bible, that and nothing more. Most Christians don't interpret the Bible literally, so it could only be an error if interpreted literally. Besides, Biblical errancy tells us nothing about the existence of a supreme being or about the nature of such a being.

if a book presents a god under a certain definition making certain promises, and those promises never come through, then that is proof of the inexistence of a god as defined by that book. now a god can still exist. sure. but not under those certain definitions. because he or she doesnt care to honor the promises made within that book. the only way the god of the bible can still exist despite not upholding his own word, is by being a liar. or dishonest. and if we have a dishonest god who doesnt care to keep his word, then we might as well all quit while were ahead, because heaven and hell, if they exist is totally up to god, and not our decisions. but again, chances of that happening are slim.

so again, the way i see it. the bible promises not being fulfilled is either proof that a personal god does not exist or that no god exists at all, either way, im fine with.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please be careful to avoid off-topic personal comments.

Thanks