Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science is not THE proof, it’s a proof. Just as the scriptures are a proof but to a lot of people its not THE proof. Me on the other hand say they must go hand in hand. Along with many other proofs

Nope. If you actually demonstrated that there was real scientific support for your claim, then that'd be one thing, but just saying "science proves...!" is not A proof, THE proof or any other kind of proof.

So I believe you are saying the weakest link is the if something cannot come from nothing then that same “rule” has to be applied to God, right?

No, I'm not. I'd be hard-pressed to find a valid point in your whole argument. Your whole chain is weak links.

Here is my chain—“all is out of God”, something cannot come from nothing, an ultimate starting point cannot have something start that starting point. So show me the weak link and please explain why

You're phrasing this as a tautology: as a self-referring statement. If an "ultimate starting point" is defined as a "starting point" that doesn't have a starting point itself, then yes, an ultimate starting point would not have another starting point. However, just saying this doesn't do anything to demonstrate that an "ultimate starting point" actually exists.

Why not? Scientifically this is sound. Scripturally this is sound. Philosophical this is sound. If there is another let me know. In which is it not sound? And prove it. Here I will prove my three points
Scientifically---if the atom was the very first thing ever and everything came from it, couldn’t you say this by definition is [like] a god? Yes

No. There's more to the definition of a god than "the first thing ever". For instance, just off the top of my head, I would say that sentience, intelligence and great power are necessary properties of a god. A single atom has none of these things.

Scripturally---without putting tons of scripture this one is all encompassing “ALL is out of God”. If God was this atom doesn’t that match up scientifically? Yes

No. First off, there's no scripture that says "God is an atom". Second, scriptural support would only get you as far as "this is consistent with what my religion believes". It doesn't get you to "this is correct".

Philosophical---logically speaking if something has come into being, there has to be something before it that brought it into being, BUT there demands that something had to be the beginning of all things and could not possibly have something or even “at least two things” collide to create it or bring it to being and then making it source of all things. If was the case then that “new source” is not the source of all things.

Now you're just trying to repeat the same First Cause argument that I've repeatedly told you is invalid and why.

In a sense God is reproducing or making more of Him, yet each one of these “hims” will be distinct and different in their own way. And they will always have to give credit and glory to the one who made them, why? “Because the giver is greater than the receiver” or because the thing that made the next thing is always greater than the thing it made [proof: look at the elemental table as one].

Also that’s why even Jesus says He has a God.

I don't see how this answers my question at all.

Because He made them or brought them into being. In a sense a parent is a god to their child, a scientist is a god to its robot it built, The Father is a God to Jesus, Jesus [with the Father working through Him] is a God to everything He created and the Father through Jesus created all things, so in spirit they are the one God. But you don’t want to go there right?

Wait - but you said God is everything. So the robot built itself? This makes no sense.

The terms “eternal, everlasting, eternity for ever and ever” are not scriptural words. They do not belong in the bible because of what they mean. Their proper meanings from the greek and Hebrew basically means age, ages and age-lasting. Yes people will live for ever or in the sense of the word have everlasting life, but when stated as such, along with eternal, it signifies no change or a constant suspended state because once you do ANYTHING, whatever you was doing before that is now not eternal or everlasting or forever in that same state. With age and age-lasting/during you can have change and says you, for however long it took, no matter what it was, that thing you was doing only lasted for that age or was age-lasting. The scriptures say we are given immortality and eonion/aeonian life and that we keep growing and going and growing and growing. In otherwords not in an eternal, everlasting state of basically suspended animation but in a age after age after age after age of growing and growing.

I give up. I don't see how any of this supports the idea of "time before time".

Not sure I follow you or maybe you misread me---the universe is created and everything else in it is created is what I am saying. There is nothing in the universe that wasn’t created.

I get that this is what you claim. What I don't see is where you show us why this is necessarily a correct assumption.

So an eternal universe has to be your defense or your argument. You say you are not defending this but that is exactly what you are saying here.

No, it doesn't. I make no claims about what will happen to the universe in the future. It could disappear into nothingness tomorrow, but this wouldn't make the First Cause Argument valid.

Again, I have. I cannot prove that He was not created, I will grant you that, but thats where science and philosophy mesh in with “religion” [I hated to use that word, how about my and others likeminded beliefs]. You have to have an ultimate starting point, an uncaused cause. There is nothing in our visible universe we have observed that can demonstrate the opposite and nothing we can possibly philosophically think of to counter this. Therefore, as it stands, it must be true.

The universe itself isn't "in" our visible universe. We have no information whatsoever about non-godly things that are beyond our visible universe. The only basis I can see for your conclusion that this "first cause", if it exists, must be God is that you really, really want it to be God.

So my view is an assumption? Wouldn’t that make yours one too?

Quite possibly. And if I try to feed you assumptions while calling them an argument, feel free to reject them.

And as for evidence, scientifically, philosophically, and definitely scripturally your assumption is lacking more evidence than mine.

That's a matter of opinion, but regardless, it's not a contest: if you can't demonstrate that the First Cause Argument is valid and correct (and if you don't come up with some other valid and correct argument) then you don't "close the door" on the possibility that God may not be necessary.

So to truly answer your question and to expose yours and those who think like you view, mankind will always have “I don’t know” lurking ever further out of their reach as “their god” and this will go on as long as mankind survives. Because as we [mankind] keeps finding out more, the more realize they don’t know. Is that not a true statement?

The bit about us never knowing everything is. The bit about people holding up "I don't know" as their god is not.

Now to bury this you cant make the assumption, as you tell me, that one day they will know everything there is know because that’s is an assumption and not based on anything at all. Those who believe in God can because its called faith in that what is considered to be words from Him says so.

Sure - you can believe what you want. I don't think this belief is correct, but you're free to believe it.

Oh you can believe that man will know everything there is to know, but that’s called having faith in mankind, not God and I know you what the scriptures say of this.

In this debate, it's also called a strawman.

 

[Humanistheart]

Really? Hmmmm.

Christian
noun
7.a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8.a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.


Yeah they do but in a skewed way. They deny the divinity of Christ, also they actually degrade and blaspheme Him if you compare the quaran jesus to the NT Jesus [well not just the NT but the whole bible]. But then again you would have to know who Jesus Christ was/is to understand what i am saying.

You mean to say I'd have to believe what you believe in relation to jesus to give a responce you'd agree with. You do understand jesus fullfilled no messianic prophicy and has no claim to the title christ/messiah don't you? Oh, but you'd have to understand scripture for that.

7A, muslims fit that definition of christianity. 8A is purely a matter of opinion. The bible dipicts jesus doing a myriad of things, some good some bad. It's purely a matter of opinion and personal taste what being 'christlike' would mean.

 

[McBell]

'arnebeth - Hebrew Lexicon

Thank you.

 

[McBell]

scientists recon the chances that dna WASNT created by a super intelligence is something like a zillion zillion zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion zillion + to one.
So I beleive that this superintelligence Is God so no I cannot proov or say that God doesnt exist because of the odds.

So you freely admit that you know nothing about how "the ods" work?


Here is a little hint:

The odds of something happening AFTER it has happened is ALWAYS 1:1.
This is regardless of however unlikely you think something would happen before it did.
​

 

[David69]

What scientists?

there were no names given in the documentry but if I see it again I'll let you know what the program was called.. I was pretty shocked to hear that suposedly coming from scientists... maybe dna just happened out of nothing eh?

 

[McBell]

there were no names given in the documentry but if I see it again I'll let you know what the program was called.. I was pretty shocked to hear that suposedly coming from scientists... maybe dna just happened out of nothing eh?

No names given?
Would that not be a clue as to the validity of the document?

 

[David69]

No names given?
Would that not be a clue as to the validity of the document?

It was a scientific program about evolution I think! It says that life started off in the bowls of the earth. but they said something like dna is that complex that it must have been created my a super intelligence and not a scientist could deny that or whatever.

 

[McBell]

It was a scientific program about evolution I think! It says that life started off in the bowls of the earth. but they said something like dna is that complex that it must have been created my a super intelligence and not a scientist could deny that or whatever.

huh?

I do not understand what you are talking about.
Are you saying that the show said that DNA is so complex it had to be created by some super intelligence?


Do you take every thing you see in a "documentary" as fact?

 

[freethinker44]

It was a scientific program about evolution I think! It says that life started off in the bowls of the earth. but they said something like dna is that complex that it must have been created my a super intelligence and not a scientist could deny that or whatever.

DNA to create the most basic life isn't complex at all. It is actually incredibly simple. Any REAL biologist would know that. I suggest checking the sources of your video.

 

[godnotgod]

No actually by asking this question I have simply shown that the Believer and non believer have the same footing. I always see people saying prove God, I say disprove Him.

The believer and non-believer do have the same footing, as you say, but only at the point where both have taken the first step toward a position of contention. However, where your logic fails is in demanding proof that God does not exist on the basis that both are on the same footing. They are not, because it is the believer who first advanced the idea for the existence of God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the person who advanced the idea in the first place to demonstrate its validity. Because such demonstration is impossible via of logic and reason, the best approach such a person can take is to remain silent, and to simply continue whatever task he was involved in beforehand. Humility will teach such a man that the divine essence dwells in all men, believers and unbelievers alike.

The believer who wants to make a point of the existence of God should do some serious thinking as to his motivations for such a desire. If he is truly honest with himself, he will find that there is no real reason for pursuing such a path.

"Think neither God, nor not-God"
The Buddha

 

[cottage]

Circular? "All is out of God" Something cannot come from nothing. God being the ultimate starting point cannot have something that brought Him into existence. Same premise this whole time.

Special pleading? So a statement of scientific and scriptural fact that everything created must have an ultimate starting point and that ultimate cannot have a starting point is special pleading for a God? How about if i said it was for the smallest thing in an atom---the superimposeatomnumber 50. There This an argument for that [of course i made that up]

False statements? Show me and show me the proof

It is making a special plea to say everything, with the exception of God, must have a starting point. If you want to adhere to the principle that nothing can exist without a starting point then you cannot plead for exceptions. The only option open to you is to demonstrate the truth of what you claim, and that is to prove the existence of what you call the 'ultimate', and from which it must follow that everything else has its beginning from that source. Otherwise it's nothing more than speculation.

 

[David69]

huh?

I do not understand what you are talking about.
Are you saying that the show said that DNA is so complex it had to be created by some super intelligence?


Do you take every thing you see in a "documentary" as fact?

where did I say I beleived it? And I am actually a big sceptic. and take most I read or see on tv with a pinch of salt.

freethinker44:

DNA to create the most basic life isn't complex at all. It is actually incredibly simple. Any REAL biologist would know that. I suggest checking the sources of your video.

if its incredibly simple you creat a human and program it (without cloning) Maybe you dont beleive that we inherit knowledge through dna. just eye and hair colour and defects etc. Anyway guys I was just telling yous what I... never mind.
so what made this incredibly simple life form?

 

[AK4]

Right, because finding a special type of hare that chews cudd is a translation issue.

Wow let me quote what this article says

That is not an impossible solution. Bats, for example, are listed along with birds in Leviticus 11, not because both are mammals, but simply because both fly. The Scriptures do not necessarily follow the arbitrary classification systems of man. When Christ said that the mustard seed is “less than all seeds,” (Matthew 13:33), He was speaking from the vantage point of the Palestinian citizen—not that of a modern botanist. We today employ phenomenal jargon when we speak of the Sun “rising and setting.” Technically, it is not correct to refer to a woman’s amniotic fluid as “water,” and yet doctors employ this language frequently. Why do we not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as we ourselves employ? The bias of agnosticism is utterly incredible.

 

[McBell]

Wow let me quote what this article says

So your argument rests on an ad hominem perpetrated by your quoted source?
I mean, why else would emphasize the ad hominem part?

 

[AK4]

Nope. If you actually demonstrated that there was real scientific support for your claim, then that'd be one thing, but just saying "science proves...!" is not A proof, THE proof or any other kind of proof.

I have, but you completely ignore it or try to demean a scripture that matches up with science. Its not my fault you disdain a scripture that follows with science. Ive showed you guys scriptures that support the BB, that its not a young earth etc etc yet because you guys don’t want to be honest and don’t wanna look like you lost an argument, yall just demean a profound scripture that matches with science.

You're phrasing this as a tautology: as a self-referring statement. If an "ultimate starting point" is defined as a "starting point" that doesn't have a starting point itself, then yes, an ultimate starting point would not have another starting point. However, just saying this doesn't do anything to demonstrate that an "ultimate starting point" actually exists.

Wow, so do we exist? If that “ultimate starting point” doesn’t exist then everything else that came from that “ultimate starting point” wouldn’t exist. This is not that hard. Your own words are being used against you to show how you just not being honest with yourself.

No. There's more to the definition of a god than "the first thing ever". For instance, just off the top of my head, I would say that sentience, intelligence and great power are necessary properties of a god. A single atom has none of these things.

It doesn’t? Are you sure about that? In Genesis 1 God said [read it carefully now] “Let the EARTH bring forth”. The earth brought forth those things, yes God was behind it but the earth did it. And its also been said by scientist that its like some atoms or whatevers have an intelligence of their own. Try reading this The Consciousness of the Atom: Lecture II. The Evolution of Substance

No. First off, there's no scripture that says "God is an atom". Second, scriptural support would only get you as far as "this is consistent with what my religion believes". It doesn't get you to "this is correct".

Theres only one truth. Everything must be consistent with the truth, not my religion or anyone elses. So if it matches the truth then “this is correct”

Now you're just trying to repeat the same First Cause argument that I've repeatedly told you is invalid and why.

There is no hole in that philosophy. Why cant you admit that? I don’t care if you call it a god or something with a scientific name. Theres no hole in that philosophy. The only possible hole is to say that everything is eternal and ive already proven and shown this is impossible.

I don't see how this answers my question at all.

You don’t see how paying homage to the one who gave you all that he has as answering your question.

Wait - but you said God is everything. So the robot built itself? This makes no sense.

Huh? How did you twist that up?

I give up. I don't see how any of this supports the idea of "time before time".

Picture a time line
X----------------------------------------------------------------à
Whats before the X. Two answers---nothing or more time. If you answer nothing then that means X is the beginning of all things. If you say more time then you have show this
X1----------------X2------------------à
Hence a time before the previous last known time. In other words time before time.

I get that this is what you claim. What I don't see is where you show us why this is necessarily a correct assumption.

Science proves it. And no one still cannot say that anything can come from nothing. Until that is answered it is a rock solid correct assumption.

The universe itself isn't "in" our visible universe. We have no information whatsoever about non-godly things that are beyond our visible universe. The only basis I can see for your conclusion that this "first cause", if it exists, must be God is that you really, really want it to be God.

We have no scientific proof, but we do have info on the spiritual realm [although Christianity Judaism screwed up what the bible teaches and now 99% of you guys are confused with what the scriptures has to say about it]. And no, its not that I really, really want it to be God, its just logically speaking a first cause has to be by default our God.

That's a matter of opinion, but regardless, it's not a contest: if you can't demonstrate that the First Cause Argument is valid and correct (and if you don't come up with some other valid and correct argument) then you don't "close the door" on the possibility that God may not be necessary.

Actually I have pretty closed the door. You guys only defense “well what brought about that first cause” and “well that’s special pleading” ive defended and shown and debunked those “counter-attacks”. You guys have done nothing to disprove my rebuttals. You guys don’t prove them wrong, you just deny them or say special pleading or your talking in circles. Well yeah I am running circles around you guys.

The bit about us never knowing everything is. The bit about people holding up "I don't know" as their god is not.

Exactly it’s a religion the same way those hold to the global warming, politics and etc etc etc. God calls them “idols of the heart”. The “I don’t know” is a religion. It’s a belief, a system.

In this debate, it's also called a strawman.

No, its called belief in a God compared to belief in man and the unknown.

 

[AK4]

You mean to say I'd have to believe what you believe in relation to jesus to give a responce you'd agree with. You do understand jesus fullfilled no messianic prophicy and has no claim to the title christ/messiah don't you? Oh, but you'd have to understand scripture for that.

You almost sound like ben masada here. Time and time again people have proven you wrong your false claim

7A, muslims fit that definition of christianity. 8A is purely a matter of opinion. The bible dipicts jesus doing a myriad of things, some good some bad. It's purely a matter of opinion and personal taste what being 'christlike' would mean.

7A---truthfully even so called christians dont fit that definition---Jesus says only those who do what i say are His disciples---do most christian love their enemies? What does Jesus say "they say they are jews but are not". Muslims do take Him as their Lord so no they dont fit it either. Try again

8A---no its not a matter of opinion. You either do what He says or not. If you dont then youre not truly His disciple.

Oh BTW, understanding scripture....obviously if you claim He didnt fill the prophecies you dont understand scripture. Its funny how an atheist can tell someone they dont understand scripture.

 

[tumbleweed41]

'arnebeth - Hebrew Lexicon

That's funny, because your "Search Gods Word" website actually added to the translation from Strongs.

Strongs(767) ar-neh'-beth
Word Origin-from an unused word
Definition-a hare
NASB Word Usage-rabbit (2).
Of uncertain derivation; the hare -- hare.
The definition on the site you used does not appear in Strongs.

Leviticus 11:3
And the hare(ha·'ar·ne·vet) because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof he is unclean unto you
Deuteronomy 14:7
Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof as the camel and the hare(ha·'ar·ne·ve) and the coney(ha·sha·fan) for they chew the cud but divide not the hoof therefore they are unclean unto you



BTW
ha·sha·fan (shaphan)-coney; a species of rock-rabbit From saphan; a species of rock-rabbit (from its hiding), i.e. Probably the hyrax -- coney.





The Hyrax, or 'rock badger' is not a 'cud chewer'.
(But it moves it's mouth side to side when agitated, perhaps the writer of Deuteronomy was mistaken.)

 

[AK4]

It is making a special plea to say everything, with the exception of God, must have a starting point. If you want to adhere to the principle that nothing can exist without a starting point then you cannot plead for exceptions. The only option open to you is to demonstrate the truth of what you claim, and that is to prove the existence of what you call the 'ultimate', and from which it must follow that everything else has its beginning from that source. Otherwise it's nothing more than speculation.

Again, unless you can come up with a logical, myabe scientific or even philosophical way to tell me how an ultimate starting point can have something before it "my truth" stands. The ball has been yalls court for how many pages now in this thread to try to prove this? In actuality you guys special plea argument is a special plea argument until you show a way that an ultimate starting point can have something before it. In the words of Alanis Morisette

"Isnt it ironic"

 

[AK4]

So your argument rests on an ad hominem perpetrated by your quoted source?
I mean, why else would emphasize the ad hominem part?

I had already countered with a argument before. Sometimes showing someone how bias they sound could open their eyes to what they are saying or doing. Honestly, It was not an attack though.

Besides, Jesus as my Teacher, did the same thing with pharisees and scribes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have, but you completely ignore it or try to demean a scripture that matches up with science. Its not my fault you disdain a scripture that follows with science. Ive showed you guys scriptures that support the BB, that its not a young earth etc etc yet because you guys don’t want to be honest and don’t wanna look like you lost an argument, yall just demean a profound scripture that matches with science.

You may want to re-read what you've been writing. I don't think your scripture quotes support your argument the way you apparently think they do.

Wow, so do we exist? If that “ultimate starting point” doesn’t exist then everything else that came from that “ultimate starting point” wouldn’t exist. This is not that hard. Your own words are being used against you to show how you just not being honest with yourself.

Or... and consider this as a real possibility: the universe works differently from the way you think it does.

It doesn’t? Are you sure about that? In Genesis 1 God said [read it carefully now] “Let the EARTH bring forth”.

So what? The fallacy you're engaging in now is appeal to authority. Like the other fallacies you've employed so far, it's not a valid argument.

Theres only one truth. Everything must be consistent with the truth, not my religion or anyone elses. So if it matches the truth then “this is correct”

And when you actually demonstrate that your religion is synonymous with "the truth", then we can revisit the matter. Until then, what your religion says is not valid support for an argument.

There is no hole in that philosophy. Why cant you admit that? I don’t care if you call it a god or something with a scientific name. Theres no hole in that philosophy. The only possible hole is to say that everything is eternal and ive already proven and shown this is impossible.

It contradicts itself. I'd call that a pretty big hole.

You don’t see how paying homage to the one who gave you all that he has as answering your question.

No, I don't.

Huh? How did you twist that up?

As I took your analogy:

- God is the robot.
- the universe is what the robot built.
- (from before) God is everything
- therefore, the universe is part of God.
- therefore, when the robot builds his creation, he's building part (or maybe all) of himself.

Picture a time line
X----------------------------------------------------------------à
Whats before the X. Two answers---nothing or more time. If you answer nothing then that means X is the beginning of all things. If you say more time then you have show this
X1----------------X2------------------à
Hence a time before the previous last known time. In other words time before time.

No. If X2 is our reference point, then between X1 and X2 is an earlier time, not "time before time".

Science proves it. And no one still cannot say that anything can come from nothing.

No, science doesn't prove it. Science does not say anything conclusive about what happened before the big bang. To argue otherwise is at best mistaken and at worst dishonest.

Until that is answered it is a rock solid correct assumption.

No. What you're doing now is engaging in argument from ignorance, which is another logical fallacy.

Until a statement is either demonstrated to be definitely true or definitely false, the truth of the statement is undefined.

We have no scientific proof, but we do have info on the spiritual realm [although Christianity Judaism screwed up what the bible teaches and now 99% of you guys are confused with what the scriptures has to say about it]. And no, its not that I really, really want it to be God, its just logically speaking a first cause has to be by default our God.

Heh... you haven't even established that there was a "First Cause" at all, and you want to name it already?

Actually I have pretty closed the door. You guys only defense “well what brought about that first cause” and “well that’s special pleading” ive defended and shown and debunked those “counter-attacks”. You guys have done nothing to disprove my rebuttals.

Rhetorical hand-waving isn't really a rebuttal, and the fact that it's impossible to disprove incoherent statements doesn't imply that they're true.

You guys don’t prove them wrong, you just deny them or say special pleading or your talking in circles. Well yeah I am running circles around you guys.

You're half right: you are running in circles.