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

[cottage]

I see your point. And your argument then is how can a God or USP be personal, am i right? So then besides using the scriptures i would have to prove that God/USP is personal with His creation to where this creation should worship Him. So i need something scientific or philosophy wise---no i will stick with scientific to show this because you wont accept the scriptures. I have to go right now so i will answer tomorrow [i do but dont need time to come up with an answer]

Okay, no pressure. This is all just a bit of fun.

You can’t use science or scripture to prove God. God, eternity and necessary existence are all metaphysical concepts; and scripture, a written account, can never be a full and final proof for a Supreme Being. Self-evidently God cannot be dependent upon his creation for his existence, and therefore it is specious to argue from a supposed creation to a supposed creator, since that is fallaciously assuming the former in order to imply the latter. And so the challenge is to demonstrate how there cannot fail to be a personal, worshipful deity, who is the cause and sustainer of all existence. And having successfully done so it follows that something like the biblical God is the cause of all causes, and the universe must therefore be an effect.

 

[Humanistheart]

Why should I? .

Why should you support your claim with a source? Are you really asking this?

Apparently, you, an atheist, know the scriptures and their meanings better than someone who is a believer and know the scriptures and their meanings. And since somehow you know better than I, then if I state something that the bible says you should know exactly what and where it is I am saying. If this is too much for you, then study first then come back when you know what you are talking about and what the person you are debating with is talking about..

To all who are following this thread, notice that AK4 continues to avoid citing the sopposed source for his claims regaurding parables and maintains that somehow it's my job to prove him correct. I've tried explaning the nature of debate to him to no avail, perhaps someone else can try?

Again, you know not what you speak of. All throughout Duet. They make sacrifices for sin, and it doesn’t say offering after sin..

Who said anything about offerings?

The bible. I told you, since you know the scriptures so well I shouldn’t even have to cite the verse to back up what I am saying. What is so hard for you to look up these claims yourself?.

Your making the claim, it's your job to prove your assertions are based in truth. Why do you think your opposition should do all your work for you?

Actually its in all the gospels. Can you find it expert?.

Once again, it is not my job to cite your alledged sources for you.

You're just dancing around the issue, your god's been debunked and none can counter this.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Back at cha cause that universe is evidence for God also.

No the universe is ONLY evidence for the universe.

To say the universe is evidence for god is applying your own intepretations to the universe.

God and god alone is evidence for god. You can assume all you like, you can use all the ridiculous "logical" arguments as evidence of god. However this goes no further to proving god than just saying "i believe god exists, therefore he exists".

-Q

 

[AK4]

Wait a minute: in this very post, you just finished explaining that your words came across differently from how you intended,

No i said "for the sake of the argument" i said all books lead to God and i only did this because yall kept discredit the bible or said it by itself is not enough evidence for God.

and you're no less a polytheist than I am a proponent of special creation.

Polytheistic? Nope not me

It's hypocritical of you to shrug off what you say "just for the sake of argument" but try to hold me to what I say on the same basis.

Oh so you didnt mean this "Just as an uncaused thing in a universe where everything is, by definition, caused is a contradiction." but this has been your position throughout this thread?

This tangent also does nothing to support your argument... of course, if you have no logical basis for your argument, then I suppose distraction from that fact might be the wisest course of action. If so, carry on. Otherwise, make your points... if you have any.

Its just hilarious that once i got yall up against the wall you guys tried to say my arguments dont make sense because you guys couldnt return with something to dispute what i was saying. Then you guys basically said i couldnt use the bible for anything, then special pleading came along and then more stuff. Everyone of yall claims i disputed yet somehow when yall cant answer my words become cloudy.

Good grief

 

[AK4]

Okay, no pressure. This is all just a bit of fun.

You can’t use science or scripture to prove God. God, eternity and necessary existence are all metaphysical concepts; and scripture, a written account, can never be a full and final proof for a Supreme Being. Self-evidently God cannot be dependent upon his creation for his existence, and therefore it is specious to argue from a supposed creation to a supposed creator, since that is fallaciously assuming the former in order to imply the latter. And so the challenge is to demonstrate how there cannot fail to be a personal, worshipful deity, who is the cause and sustainer of all existence. And having successfully done so it follows that something like the biblical God is the cause of all causes, and the universe must therefore be an effect.

I have some answers but i dont think theyre concrete enough for you. Im looking for a good example where i dont have use scripture. I will answer this when something hits me.

 

[AK4]

Why should you support your claim with a source? Are you really asking this?

You know this goes both ways. Your claims of Him not being the Messiah, you havent backed it up with anything

To all who are following this thread, notice that AK4 continues to avoid citing the sopposed source for his claims regaurding parables and maintains that somehow it's my job to prove him correct. I've tried explaning the nature of debate to him to no avail, perhaps someone else can try?

*sigh* How hard is it for you to look this up? Geez do you think i would make such a claim and cant back it up with scripture? Maybe im just showing how pathetic it is for an atheist to tell a believer what a scripture means. Maybe im showing how much you dont know scripture because you cant even find in the OT where God said I will open my mouth in parables. Or maybe i just seen you defeated on this subject so many times that i am still in awe that you fight this same fight over and over.

Who said anything about offerings?

Was that the only thing i said in that section? Try reading it again and see what i was getting at

Your making the claim, it's your job to prove your assertions are based in truth.

Yup, except you dont take the scriptures as true so that would be a mute argument on your behalf.

Why do you think your opposition should do all your work for you?

No it just you. You, an atheist, try to tell believers what scriptures mean so i figure since you are so much more knowledgable of the scriptures than believers i shouldnt need to directly quote verses. Unless you are admitting now that you need help because you dont know what scriptures i am talkling about

Once again, it is not my job to cite your alledged sources for you.

Alledged huh? Yet this parable stuff is right there in your bible and you dont see it

You're just dancing around the issue, your god's been debunked and none can counter this

LOL. Speaking of parables, its like i am speaking one to you now because you cant find this simple thing in your bible. Heres one for you, its in one of the longest books of the bible and it also helps others know who was the one this verse is talking about "how beautiful are the feet of Him who bring good news"

 

[AK4]

No the universe is ONLY evidence for the universe.

See this is exactly what you all have been saying yet in order for this to be true then the universe HAS TO BE eternal, self-existing, the USP. But no one yet has show anything to suppport this. But on the contrary the universe demands that there was something else before it and the evidence from science proves this.

To say the universe is evidence for god is applying your own intepretations to the universe.

okay lets not say God, but it still is evidence that something is before it

God and god alone is evidence for god.

Yet if i was to say the bible and the bible alone is evidence for God that wouldnt stand would it?

 

[Walkntune]

No the universe is ONLY evidence for the universe.

So this would mean the universe came from itself?
I say it is evidence that it had a source it came from.Doesn't mean you have to claim the source as God but there is definitely a source.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh so you didnt mean this "Just as an uncaused thing in a universe where everything is, by definition, caused is a contradiction." but this has been your position throughout this thread?

I said "a universe", not "the universe". I was referring to the hypothetical universe you suggested in your argument. I was pointing out the fact that even if we take all your unsupported premises as necessarily true, the argument still fails because it's self-contradictory.

Its just hilarious that once i got yall up against the wall you guys tried to say my arguments dont make sense because you guys couldnt return with something to dispute what i was saying.

That's because they don't make sense. They don't follow normal rules of logic. You commit logical fallacies and put forward claims without support, expecting us to accept them as true on your say-so. None of this makes for a valid argument.

Then you guys basically said i couldnt use the bible for anything,

No, I said that you could use anything in the Bible that you want... provided you can demonstrate that it's true.

then special pleading came along and then more stuff.

If you don't want people pointing out your special pleading, then don't engage in special pleading.

Everyone of yall claims i disputed yet somehow when yall cant answer my words become cloudy.

For the umpteenth time, here's how it works:

- if you want us to accept your argument, you have to demonstrate that it's true.
- to do this, you have to demonstrate that its premises are correct and its reasoning is valid.
- if any link in this chain is in doubt, then your whole argument is in doubt.
- disputing an objection to your argument is not the same thing as actually supporting your argument.

Good grief

Indeed.

Now: to try and get off this sidetrack again and get back onto the OP's topic with a question for anyone: what is the definition of "God", and why is that definition correct?

 

[Smoke]

So this would mean the universe came from itself?
I say it is evidence that it had a source it came from.Doesn't mean you have to claim the source as God but there is definitely a source.

Then if there is a God, there must be a source God came from.

 

[Walkntune]

Then if there is a God, there must be a source God came from.

He is the only one we have knowledge of at this time who has claimed to be alpha and omega,
has always existed and even creator of time itself so I think a good place to start.I can already see where the sciences have started and some of the conclusions it has come too so it doesn't have the answers I need even though it has some fascinating discoveries.It only has answers to that which is wrought out of our minds but i am not one who likes to be limited.

 

[MSizer]

He is the only one we have knowledge of at this time who has claimed to be alpha and omega,...

Correction: I have also claimed to be the alpha and omega, and the phi as well. (I'm thiking of adding gamma and delta too, but I haven't decided yet).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correction: I have also claimed to be the alpha and omega, and the phi as well. (I'm thiking of adding gamma and delta too, but I haven't decided yet).

I'm an Omicron!

 

[sonofskeptish]

...I can already see where the sciences have started and some of the conclusions it has come too so it doesn't have the answers I need...

A need for a specific answer (which you imply in your comment above), is irrelevant to what the correct answer is.

 

[Walkntune]

(I'm thiking of adding gamma and delta too, but I haven't decided yet).

This indecisiveness might cause issues with any worshippers you have.Plus calling yourself an atheist which means you don't have any faith in yourself, why should others have faith in you?

 

[Walkntune]

A need for a specific answer (which you imply in your comment above), is irrelevant to what the correct answer is.

I disagree, otherwise we would not be searching or even debating on a forum????Science can only come to logical conclusions but unfortunately the truth of reality extends past our logic and minds.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Cant say i understand QP all the way but even that doesnt disprove the USP or God concept. It doesnt even take away the cause and effect law. Have you read up on Super Relativity. Einsteins law and QP are not complete laws as scientists have admitted. Super Relativity tries to bridge the gap but i dont know if so fully. Ive shown how these dont nullify the God/USP concept.

Did I ever claim to disprove god?
What I have shown is that god is not necessary. There are viable and scientific alternatives.

 

[averageJOE]

This indecisiveness might cause issues with any worshippers you have.Plus calling yourself an atheist which means you don't have any faith in yourself, why should others have faith in you?

Your "definition" of atheist makes you sound ignorant, not to mention gives other Christians a bad name.

 

[Walkntune]

Your "definition" of atheist makes you sound ignorant, not to mention gives other Christians a bad name.

This definition means faith in himself as a God! Sorry you were unable to grasp the idea and humor.

 

[MSizer]

... why should others have faith in you?

They shouldn't. Faith is irrational.