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

[AK4]

The point I’m making, which appears to be overlooked is that science itself is a feature of the universe, and there is nothing to say any of the above hypotheses are true or that they apply beyond or outside the universe. In order to prove that the universe was caused to exist it must first be proved that cause is necessary and that the principle exists in all possible worlds. Apart from cause not being logically necessary, there is rather startling realisation that we don’t even know what causation is! All we do know is that there appears to be a constant conjunction between two events; but we don’t actually see the cause, or how one thing must relate to the other, and a case has been made that an effect may even precede a delayed cause. Yet even if causality were fully understood, and known to be true in the same way that a square cannot have fewer than four equal sides, it still wouldn’t follow that everything existent must have a cause for its existence.

The part i underlined----That doesnt work with a true God concept. In A true God concept it is not necessary for that God to bring forth a universe. On the contrary He did it only because He wanted to and from the standpoint of the scriptures, this was out of love. And as it says in the scriptures He does it all for His pleasure.

 

[cottage]

Okay, sorry for the delay but i needed a concrete answer that went beyond the bible to back me up on the personal God thing. It hit me yesterday and the answer to God being personal is that we have no freewill. Thats it. If we had freewill then yup you can say God is not personal, but since we dont have it that makes someone/thing in control of us/all things. If you can prove we have freewill then you have proven God is not personal.

Aquinas maintains that our every action is willed and sustained by God, which means of course that we do not have free will. But if we don’t have free will then the entire Bible becomes meaningless. It is pointless to speak of obeying God’s commandments if the matter is not within our scope, and it is pointless to speak of following in Jesus’ footsteps if our behaviour is already foreknown and foreordained. And the free will defence automatically collapses if we can’t choose good over evil because the matter has already been decided for us! God cannot have a relationship with his creation if it doesn’t have free will.
In fact our will is neither completely determined nor entirely free. We are physical beings who must exist within the laws of the universe, but we do have free will with the exception of that one constraint.

 

[cottage]

The part i underlined----That doesnt work with a true God concept. In A true God concept it is not necessary for that God to bring forth a universe. On the contrary He did it only because He wanted to and from the standpoint of the scriptures, this was out of love. And as it says in the scriptures He does it all for His pleasure.

Self-evidently it cannot be said that an omnipotent God was obliged bring the universe into existence, but if it is claimed that he did then that is saying he caused it. And that brings us back to the conundrum once more, since it means we have a necessary God who is dependent upon a non-necessary feature of the universe which he has to use to bring the universe into existence! The second point is that it makes no sense to say God created the universe out love. For how could non-existent things possibly benefit from God’s love? And if he is all-sufficient and omnipotent, doesn’t that mean he already have every possible pleasure?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay do I really need to post all the stuff on the big bang? The big bang is like common knowledge in science and everyone should know about it, so that’s why I don’t post anything on that, unless there is something “new” or something I really want to stress my point.

I think you'll have to post some sort of explanation of how you think the Big Bang is relevant to this discussion, because it seems to me that you're assuming things about it that aren't actually supported by any sort of science.

Again common knowledge of cause and effect.

But what's the frame of reference for your "common knowledge"? Speculating about what happened before the universe based only on observations in the universe is a lot like making assumptions about what happens in the ocean based on observations made on land.

In all my time on land, I've never, ever seen a shark eat a fish. Does this mean I can conclude that sharks never eat fish anywhere, including in the ocean?

Now there is the misconception in quantum mechanics that some are saying there can be an effect without a cause, but they admittedly say that QM doesn’t fully explain things and that there is something going on that we just can explain yet, hence comes in the Super Relativity theory that tries to fill in the gaps. The Theory of Super Relativity - The Complete Unified Field Theory

The complete unified field theory is speculation. It's certainly interesting and something that warrants future study, but at this point it's certainly not fact, and it's not support for your argument.

On the contrary, its not just because I believe blindly these things nor is it valid to say I cant understand why people don’t see what I see. I DO understand and see their position, I also came from their same line of thinking and probably could argue their position better than themselves, but until I started questioning everything and broke out of that flock, I was just part of the sheeple.

I don't think you understand my position, but I suppose it was unfair of me to generalize.

Again I don’t just accept something blindly or on face value. For I know this world is one big lie.

"This world" is the only basis you have for logical, rational argument. If it's a lie, then this implies that nothing can be demonstrated as true... including your argument.

No, but you guys are accepting something that has no evidence of ever being. LOL isn’t it ironic. You guys get on believers for doing this with God, yet yall are doing this on an eternal universe. Talk about blind faith.

At this point, all I'm doing is pointing out that we don't have to take your word for it that your thing without evidence is the only one that can be validly believed.

Is it not special pleading to say the universe is eternal?

No, that would just be a claim. But I never said this.

So in your own words again “

you're still engaging in special pleading, because there's also absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the universe” is eternal or self-existing.

I said you were engaging in special pleading because you claimed that one option had no evidence supporting it and therefore could be excluded, but at the same time, your preferred option also has no evidence supporting it. You're applying a double standard.

See this is my point. When I show something to substantiate my argument and because your opinion does not agree with what I present, you take that as I haven’t validly and conclusively answered the objection.

No, I say that you haven't validly and conclusively answered the objection because your argument is full of bad logic and unsupported statements.

See that is the misconception of what people think God is. The bible basically tells us that we “mimic” some of Gods qualities. God is love. We love. Is it the same level? No. But we are told to be like Him so your rebuttal here does not stand.

So you think there's a very good reason that the quality you mentioned is posessed by things other than God - fine; I don't want to sidetrack things with an argument into whether this is valid. However, the fact remains that it is posessed by things other than God.

Now... you said that our characteristics aren't "the same level" as God's. What does this mean, exactly? You called God the "placer"; is he better at placing things than we are? Would you be able to give us quantitative or qualitative criteria that would let us differentiate divine "placer" ability from that of a run-of-the-mill, mortal "placer"?

And I'll ask again: is there any set of characteristics that are posessed by God, but only God?

 

[AK4]

Aquinas maintains that our every action is willed and sustained by God, which means of course that we do not have free will. But if we don’t have free will then the entire Bible becomes meaningless.

Not true. The actually does teach strongly against freewill. The thing is people think they know what freewill is and thats why statements like yours above come out.

It is pointless to speak of obeying God’s commandments if the matter is not within our scope, and it is pointless to speak of following in Jesus’ footsteps if our behaviour is already foreknown and foreordained.

I never said it wasnt in our scope. We do still make choices, but doesnt mean that all of our choices arent influenced hence that is what freewill speaks of

And the free will defence automatically collapses if we can’t choose good over evil because the matter has already been decided for us!

Exactly, the matter has been decided for us and we cant choose good over evil unless something influences us to choose good. Your words here just proved my point about freewill, it collapses.

God cannot have a relationship with his creation if it doesn’t have free will.

Says who? The bible shows we dont have freewill yet God is still having a relationship with His creation.

In fact our will is neither completely determined nor entirely free.

They call this doctrine limited freewill. This is an oxymoron. The words limited and free are completely in contrast to each other as good and evil is. Freewill is an illusion and this illusion makes [which that in itself makes your will not free] you think you have a will that is limited or free.

We are physical beings who must exist within the laws of the universe, but we do have free will with the exception of that one constraint.

see to believe in any freewill, one has to accept a contradiction as fact. Look at your statement.

"must exist within the laws of the universe"---we are inside of laws that influence everything we do you admit here yet i dont think you really admit to the everything in that sentence.

"but we do have free will"---now you say we are free to break any law in the universe at our whims or whenever we will it. Is that not a contradiction to the first part of your sentence where you say "We are physical beings who must exist within the laws of the universe"? Basically you are saying we are free to live outside of the laws of the universe with our freewill if we will this.

"with the exception of that one constraint"---see constraint and free, two totally opposite things, a contradiction. Now is it a constrained will or free will and if it is constrained, who constrains it? The laws of the universe? Where did the laws come from? Did they just make them up themselves? i had more but i will stop for now.

 

[AK4]

Self-evidently it cannot be said that an omnipotent God was obliged bring the universe into existence, but if it is claimed that he did then that is saying he caused it. And that brings us back to the conundrum once more, since it means we have a necessary God who is dependent upon a non-necessary feature of the universe which he has to use to bring the universe into existence!

He is not dependent upon a non-necessry feature of the universe because the universe comes out of Him. Its like saying He took a piece of His dna and made everything else from that piece.

The second point is that it makes no sense to say God created the universe out love. For how could non-existent things possibly benefit from God’s love?

They benefit when they come into existence. No different than a man and a woman who prepare and plan for having kids. They make sure they are financially secure and all the other stuff before having kids and then once the kid is brought into existence, it benefits from what the parents did. And the parents did this out of love for their future children. This is the same for God and the non-existent things.

And if he is all-sufficient and omnipotent, doesn’t that mean he already have every possible pleasure?

Possibly, yet maybe sharing everything He has is just another form of pleasure He can get. And the reason this fits with creation is because before there was a creation how could He have this kind of pleasure.

 

[AK4]

I think you'll have to post some sort of explanation of how you think the Big Bang is relevant to this discussion, because it seems to me that you're assuming things about it that aren't actually supported by any sort of science.

Its relevant because it shows the universe having a beginning and not being eternal. The background noise is one thing evidence of science that support it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4655517
Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But what's the frame of reference for your "common knowledge"? Speculating about what happened before the universe based only on observations in the universe is a lot like making assumptions about what happens in the ocean based on observations made on land.

In all my time on land, I've never, ever seen a shark eat a fish. Does this mean I can conclude that sharks never eat fish anywhere, including in the ocean?

Maybe I am assuming you guys know more than what you may really know. I don’t know. Okay frame of reference---maybe we both have different frame of reference since you think it starts with the universe and I think it starts from God. From your perspective the universe didn’t need a cause to come into being, this is your frame of reference. this is the point that i am arguing that at this frame of reference it demands that something was before it.

The complete unified field theory is speculation. It's certainly interesting and something that warrants future study, but at this point it's certainly not fact, and it's not support for your argument.

Neither is QM if you want to use those standards. The fact is that from what we know so far these are facts.

"This world" is the only basis you have for logical, rational argument. If it's a lie, then this implies that nothing can be demonstrated as true... including your argument.

Let me change that. Almost all the things taught in this world or that is believed by the world contain half truths or no truth at all. Remember I didn’t say everything.

At this point, all I'm doing is pointing out that we don't have to take your word for it that your thing without evidence is the only one that can be validly believed.

I can accept that, but according to the scriptures everything you see and experience IS the evidence and to further it God brought forth His Son to show evidence of what He plans to do with the human race.

I said you were engaging in special pleading because you claimed that one option had no evidence supporting it and therefore could be excluded, but at the same time, your preferred option also has no evidence supporting it. You're applying a double standard.

But im not. My option says the evidence is like what I said above and to further it we have things like science to help it. I don’t say its either science or religion, no I say they both must mesh together. Science to me is another revelation of God—and its physical, tangible evidence of His existence.

So you think there's a very good reason that the quality you mentioned is posessed by things other than God - fine; I don't want to sidetrack things with an argument into whether this is valid. However, the fact remains that it is posessed by things other than God.

Now... you said that our characteristics aren't "the same level" as God's. What does this mean, exactly? You called God the "placer"; is he better at placing things than we are? Would you be able to give us quantitative or qualitative criteria that would let us differentiate divine "placer" ability from that of a run-of-the-mill, mortal "placer"?

Let me list two for you first that makes God above man. He created or “placed” within us:

Consciousness---science has yet to learn/explain how chemicals in our brains bring us consciousness. If im not mistaken, all they can measure are the effects from being conscious not the cause

The universe itself---although we are not on the same page here, but for God to make a universe is definitely a difference

Learning/Emotions—although this may fall under consciousness if you like but no man made robot can do this without preprogramming

And I'll ask again: is there any set of characteristics that are posessed by God, but only God?

Give Immortality. Give life after death. There are more but its more on the personal level so you wouldn’t believe me.

Edit: maybe this should be enough here so i shouldnt have to post stuff about the BB again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its relevant because it shows the universe having a beginning and not being eternal.

No, it shows that the universe we observe now expanded from a singularity. It doesn't necessarily imply that the universe

Maybe I am assuming you guys know more than what you may really know. I don’t know. Okay frame of reference---maybe we both have different frame of reference since you think it starts with the universe and I think it starts from God.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Even if you believe in God, you're not God. Your frame of reference is that of a mortal human being, just like mine.

From your perspective the universe didn’t need a cause to come into being, this is your frame of reference. this is the point that i am arguing that at this frame of reference it demands that something was before it.

That's not a frame of reference, that's a claim.

My point is that any event you're capable of observing occurs within this universe. It therefore may not be a proper basis for judgements about what goes on beyond this universe... just as observations made on land may not be representative of what goes on in the ocean.

Neither is QM if you want to use those standards.

Sure. The universe we see now allows for quantum theory - nothing we now know contradicts it. Maybe the universe doesn't require quantum theory to be true - we don't posess all knowledge. That leaves us in the position that maybe it's true and maybe it's not. It seems well-supported, but we don't have 100% certainty.

Same for your Unified Field Theory: it may be true, but it also may not be. But if you want to use it in your argument to exclude some other possibility, then it has to be rock-solidly certain. Otherwise, there's still room for other people with conflicting ideas to say that they might be right.

Let me change that. Almost all the things taught in this world or that is believed by the world contain half truths or no truth at all. Remember I didn’t say everything.

No, but everything you've ever been taught has been "taught in this world". Everything you believe is "believed by the world". Unless you're an alien, of course. You're not an alien, are you?

I can accept that, but according to the scriptures everything you see and experience IS the evidence and to further it God brought forth His Son to show evidence of what He plans to do with the human race.

In that case, I see two possibilities:

- it will be very easy for you to convince any atheist that God exists, or
- these scriptures (or your interpretation of them) are incorrect.

But im not. My option says the evidence is like what I said above and to further it we have things like science to help it. I don’t say its either science or religion, no I say they both must mesh together. Science to me is another revelation of God—and its physical, tangible evidence of His existence.

No, it's not. That's your interpretation. You have presented no conclusive evidence for God. I am not aware of any outside evidence for God. Unless you present some sort of evidence for God, then you are applying a double standard.

And it's not like you could conclusively exclude the possibility you don't like anyhow. Any conclusion you make based on absence of evidence is automatically tentative and contingent on no new evidence coming forward.

Let me list two for you first that makes God above man. He created or “placed” within us:

Consciousness---science has yet to learn/explain how chemicals in our brains bring us consciousness. If im not mistaken, all they can measure are the effects from being conscious not the cause

The universe itself---although we are not on the same page here, but for God to make a universe is definitely a difference

Learning/Emotions—although this may fall under consciousness if you like but no man made robot can do this without preprogramming

I think there's a disconnect here. Maybe if I re-phrase, you'll get what I intended:

You said that God is "the placer". I pointed out that lots of things are "placers", including me. Say we examine some sort of "placer" and look at how he/she/it "places" whatever it is it places. What sort of "placing" would be evidence that the placer is necessarily God?

Give Immortality. Give life after death. There are more but its more on the personal level so you wouldn’t believe me.

Okay... we're getting somewhere. So you say God gives "immortality" and "life after death". Would you agree that if I could demonstrate that either immortality or life after death didn't exist, that this would disprove God?

Edit: maybe this should be enough here so i shouldnt have to post stuff about the BB again
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See... this is an example of what I meant when I talked about rhetorical hand-waving. Nobody's disputing that the Big Bang happened. What I am disputing, though, are the inferences you've made about the Big Bang.

 

[Humanistheart]

I say the same for you. You say you posted it about 80 posts ago. I admit when you jumped in this thread with that nonsense I did ignore it because I saw you make the same claim in other threads so I wasn’t going to reread your nonsense again.

LOL. This is amusing. Like I said, from jump, I wouldn’t have stated the parable thing [again from jump] if I couldn’t support it with scripture. I guess I will stop “stalling” and give you more clues. One is mentioned in the psalms and the other is in Matthew. Come to think about it, this one fulfilled prophecy isn’t that secretive.

For the others following this thread you'll notice that once again AK avoids giving any evidence that the passages he alludes to exists, and once again he refuses to list a single prophicy that jesus can be said to have fullfilled. Instead of backing up his claims he rellies on little insults such as calling my arguments nonsence, when he cannot offer one single counterargument. Somehow, he feels it's my job to prove his point for him.

 

[AK4]

[/font

No, it shows that the universe we observe now expanded from a singularity. It doesn't necessarily imply that the universe

I assume your sentence was going to end with “had a beginning”. With that, it stands to reason that that singularity cannot stay in the state is was at the very before it “banged”. If it is impossible for this singularity to stay in that state then by default it had to have not always existed nor would it explain the very beginning of something that expands and contracts and expands and contracts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Even if you believe in God, you're not God. Your frame of reference is that of a mortal human being, just like mine.

Okay even from the mortal frame of reference, you see only the physical evidence to evidence of itself, I see the physical evidence for being evidence of something more.

That's not a frame of reference, that's a claim.

My point is that any event you're capable of observing occurs within this universe. It therefore may not be a proper basis for judgements about what goes on beyond this universe... just as observations made on land may not be representative of what goes on in the ocean.
Claim, frame of reference—same difference. Really think about what you said here “It therefore may not be a proper basis for judgements about what goes on beyond this universe”. This the same as saying one cannot make judgments on something until it is observed. Do you really believe this?
Sure. The universe we see now allows for quantum theory - nothing we now know contradicts it. Maybe the universe doesn't require quantum theory to be true - we don't posess all knowledge. That leaves us in the position that maybe it's true and maybe it's not. It seems well-supported, but we don't have 100% certainty.

Honestly do we have anything of 100% certainty? Not that I know of. But do we accept them as true? Some of them.


Same for your Unified Field Theory: it may be true, but it also may not be. But if you want to use it in your argument to exclude some other possibility, then it has to be rock-solidly certain. Otherwise, there's still room for other people with conflicting ideas to say that they might be right.

There will always be this, no matter what. Just because someone can say something contrary or have doubt that doesn’t make them right.
No, but everything you've ever been taught has been "taught in this world". Everything you believe is "believed by the world". Unless you're an alien, of course. You're not an alien, are you?

Maybe. “Everything you believe is "believed by the world"---I doubt that. Compared to the many there are few of us who believe the way I do. I can almost garauntee you no orthodox Christian believes what I believe yet I did used to believe as they believed.
In that case, I see two possibilities:

- it will be very easy for you to convince any atheist that God exists, or


Nope because that’s not what the scriptures teach for this age. This is not only for atheists either, this also goes all the way to Christians believe it or not.
- these scriptures (or your interpretation of them) are incorrect.

I doubt that also. If it [“my” interpretations] contradict in any precept or principle of the scriptures then they are incorrect.
No, it's not. That's your interpretation. You have presented no conclusive evidence for God. I am not aware of any outside evidence for God. Unless you present some sort of evidence for God, then you are applying a double standard.

Again this goes back to the universe being self existent or eternal. There is no proof of it being these so therefore there is something else beyond this universe. If there is evidence that something IN this universe can come into being without prior things to make it come into being then you are right I have no evidence. But we don’t have that.


And it's not like you could conclusively exclude the possibility you don't like anyhow. Any conclusion you make based on absence of evidence is automatically tentative and contingent on no new evidence coming forward.

Why aren’t you applying this to your own argument?
I think there's a disconnect here. Maybe if I re-phrase, you'll get what I intended:

You said that God is "the placer". I pointed out that lots of things are "placers", including me. Say we examine some sort of "placer" and look at how he/she/it "places" whatever it is it places. What sort of "placing" would be evidence that the placer is necessarily God?

Then this just goes into a “labeling” contest. If I used just consciousness and said it was God who placed consciousness in His creation, how would you refute this as something man can do and not depended on an outside being? [you cant say the universe gives consciousness]
Okay... we're getting somewhere. So you say God gives "immortality" and "life after death". Would you agree that if I could demonstrate that either immortality or life after death didn't exist, that this would disprove God?
I see your point here because this is something we cant prove or disprove. But according to the scriptures there were eyewitnesses to One being resurrected from the dead. Not just the apostles either but like 500 different people. Now when it comes to that, for us who didn’t live during that time, I admit this takes pure faith in what the scriptures say. But then again I can see parables of this in everyday where “raising of the dead” is very plausible. Oh to add to that statement about the world is a lie, let me better clarify it, its more like a parable [b.k.a. a near story]
See... this is an example of what I meant when I talked about rhetorical hand-waving. Nobody's disputing that the Big Bang happened. What I am disputing, though, are the inferences you've made about the Big Bang.

That it had a beginning? And a link like this to support what I say is rhetorical hand-waving? I know you are not disputing the BB happening, but what you do basically dispute is that it didn’t have a beginning or that it is eternal/self existing which in itself is a contradiction if you really break it down.

 

[AK4]

For the others following this thread you'll notice that once again AK avoids giving any evidence that the passages he alludes to exists, and once again he refuses to list a single prophicy that jesus can be said to have fullfilled. Instead of backing up his claims he rellies on little insults such as calling my arguments nonsence, when he cannot offer one single counterargument. Somehow, he feels it's my job to prove his point for him.

Right. And notice how i "avoided" giving any evidence in saying try looking in Psalms and Matthew. And hey why jump to others right now when you cant even find the one about opening His mouth in parables. If i add more you will really be lost.

Also lets analyse something. In a thread that is about/for atheists or whoever who dont believe in a God to prove that He doesnt exist you try to throw in another subject about proving who Jesus was/is. So, YOU, coming in, off subject, bare the burden of proof since you started the argument. So prove that Jesus didnt fulfill the prophecy that states that the Lord our God will open His mouth in parables. If you cant find it then it is your fault for opening the discussion about Jesus fulfilling prophecy. Dont be lazy, open your bible, do a word search, find where this is said, study then come back and make your case.

Ill be waiting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I assume your sentence was going to end with “had a beginning”.

Whoops - I meant to come back to that and I forgot.

I meant to say that you can't be sure that the universe started then. So the Big Bang happened - great. What happened before that? You can't answer that. The Big Bang is irrelevant to your argument.

Claim, frame of reference—same difference. Really think about what you said here “It therefore may not be a proper basis for judgements about what goes on beyond this universe”. This the same as saying one cannot make judgments on something until it is observed. Do you really believe this?

No, it's like saying that any assumptions you make about things totally unlike anything you've ever observed are subject to great uncertainty.

There will always be this, no matter what. Just because someone can say something contrary or have doubt that doesn’t make them right.

I agree. But as long as you can't answer that doubt, you can't say that they're wrong.

Maybe. “Everything you believe is "believed by the world"---I doubt that. Compared to the many there are few of us who believe the way I do. I can almost garauntee you no orthodox Christian believes what I believe yet I did used to believe as they believed.

You are part of the world. If you believe something, then by definition it is "believed by the world".

Again this goes back to the universe being self existent or eternal.

False dichotomy. There's also the possibility that the universe was neither self-existent or eternal, but was created by something other than a god.

There is no proof of it being these so therefore there is something else beyond this universe. If there is evidence that something IN this universe can come into being without prior things to make it come into being then you are right I have no evidence. But we don’t have that.

Argument from ignorance. "I don't see how something could have happened, therefore it didn't happen."

Why aren’t you applying this to your own argument?

I am.

Then this just goes into a “labeling” contest. If I used just consciousness and said it was God who placed consciousness in His creation, how would you refute this as something man can do and not depended on an outside being? [you cant say the universe gives consciousness]

Why not?

Anyhow, you're presenting a false dichotomy. You haven't eliminated the possibility that it was some non-god thing that was responsible for conciousness. Maybe it was pixies.

I see your point here because this is something we cant prove or disprove.

With absolute certainty, probably not. With reasonable certainty... maybe. For instance, if we could demonstrate that at least some of the core of what makes a person a person is rooted in the physical, then we could conclude that when the physical dies, whatever remains could not be "the person" (not the whole person, anyhow) that lived before.

But according to the scriptures there were eyewitnesses to One being resurrected from the dead. Not just the apostles either but like 500 different people.

So? Maybe it was a lie. You're talking about an era before embalming or modern medicine; maybe the person was actually alive but misdiagnosed as dead.

That it had a beginning?

No, that the Big Bang necessarily marks the beginning of the universe.

And a link like this to support what I say is rhetorical hand-waving?

Yes, because it has nothing to do with your argument. It's like trying to make a report look more impressive by adding extra irrelevant titles into the reference list.

I know you are not disputing the BB happening, but what you do basically dispute is that it didn’t have a beginning or that it is eternal/self existing which in itself is a contradiction if you really break it down.

The bit I've bolded is not what I've said. I've tried to correct you several times now. If you continue to misrepresent what I'm saying, then I'll have to assume it's deliberate.

 

[AxisMundi]

Right. And notice how i "avoided" giving any evidence in saying try looking in Psalms and Matthew. And hey why jump to others right now when you cant even find the one about opening His mouth in parables. If i add more you will really be lost.

Also lets analyse something. In a thread that is about/for atheists or whoever who dont believe in a God to prove that He doesnt exist you try to throw in another subject about proving who Jesus was/is. So, YOU, coming in, off subject, bare the burden of proof since you started the argument. So prove that Jesus didnt fulfill the prophecy that states that the Lord our God will open His mouth in parables. If you cant find it then it is your fault for opening the discussion about Jesus fulfilling prophecy. Dont be lazy, open your bible, do a word search, find where this is said, study then come back and make your case.

Ill be waiting.

Quite easy to do.

Jesus is a parable and not a real person.

Prove Jesus exists, and/or prove your bible infallable and accurate.

Considering the lack of any self-supporting evidence inherent within scriptures, and the lack of direct non-biblical evidence, the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

 

[Humanistheart]

Right. And notice how i "avoided" giving any evidence in saying try looking in Psalms and Matthew. And hey why jump to others right now when you cant even find the one about opening His mouth in parables. If i add more you will really be lost.

Right, some vague reference indicating I should read the whole of Pslams or Mathew, in your mind, counts and citing you source. You've been told repeatedly. It's your claim, it's your job to support it. Your opposition is in no way obligated to do your job for you.

Also lets analyse something. In a thread that is about/for atheists or whoever who dont believe in a God to prove that He doesnt exist you try to throw in another subject about proving who Jesus was/is. So, YOU, coming in, off subject,

Disproving jesus as god disproves the christian god. This is entirely within the context of the thread.

So prove that Jesus didnt fulfill the prophecy that states that the Lord our God will open His mouth in parables

I'll be happy to as soon as you prove that that passage actually exists in the OT as you claim. Tell you what, I'll claim that the messiah was to be a funny clown with a big red nose according to the OT. Now it's your job to prove that that's in the OT. This is what your claiming to me, that's it's my job to find the passages you reffer to, so you must think it's okay for others to make claims and have their opposition cite it for them. So go ahead, look up the OT passage involving clowns.

 

[Walkntune]

Disproving jesus as god disproves the christian god. This is entirely within the context of the thread.

This is not a true statement as Christians believe in the God of the OT and some Christians(or at least claim to be) don't believe Jesus was God.

 

[AxisMundi]

Right, some vague reference indicating I should read the whole of Pslams or Mathew,....

Ya like that?

Sometimes I think they hope we'll catch a case of the God or something while we read their scriptures (again ).

 

[AK4]

Okay i will start from here because maybe i have mixed you up with others. So starting over what is it that you are trying to say that prove that God doesnt exist

 

[AK4]

Quite easy to do.

Jesus is a parable and not a real person.

Prove Jesus exists, and/or prove your bible infallable and accurate.

Considering the lack of any self-supporting evidence inherent within scriptures, and the lack of direct non-biblical evidence, the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

Actually i can prove this by the scriptures. And no the burden of proof is on you because you started the argument that Jesus is just a parable and not a real person. Bible translations are fallible and any one who thinks otherwise is a fool. So you will not hear me claim this. So prove that He didnt exist. Prove that any historical person ever recorded can have ever existed beyond what has been written down about him/her.

Now according to the scriptures you have over 66 books, 66 possible witnesses [i know there was more, Ezra comes to mind] not counting secular writings, that are witnesses to Jesus. [Note Jesus is the God of the OT so yes it counts too]

 

[AK4]

Right, some vague reference indicating I should read the whole of Pslams or Mathew, in your mind, counts and citing you source. You've been told repeatedly. It's your claim, it's your job to support it. Your opposition is in no way obligated to do your job for you.

See i care not if you read all of the whole bible to find it because i know that if it is not meant for you to see and understand a verse then its not meant to be [right now]. You came at me as an expert of the scriptures so gird up your loins and defend what you presented. I shut you down in another thread and it would be no problem here.

Disproving jesus as god disproves the christian god. This is entirely within the context of the thread.

Ha. Then you think i think as a regular [a babe in Christ] christian. In this thread it has mainly been about The Father. But you thinking that i think as a christian has you assuming something all wrong. so try again

I'll be happy to as soon as you prove that that passage actually exists in the OT as you claim. Tell you what, I'll claim that the messiah was to be a funny clown with a big red nose according to the OT. Now it's your job to prove that that's in the OT. This is what your claiming to me, that's it's my job to find the passages you reffer to, so you must think it's okay for others to make claims and have their opposition cite it for them. So go ahead, look up the OT passage involving clowns.

Do you really need to be bottle fed? Find it. Youre the expert of the scriptures who knows that Jesus didnt fulfill prophecy! Did God speak in parables? Did Jesus speak in parables? I tell you what, maybe one of your peers can find it for you since its so hard for you. Tell you another thing, this maybe easier for you, prove that Jesus didnt speak in parables. This will make me show you the scriptures i am referring to,

 

[AK4]

Ya like that?

Sometimes I think they hope we'll catch a case of the God or something while we read their scriptures (again ).

It dont matter if you read it a hundred times this doesnt garauntee you knowing what it means so if you read it or not it makes no difference to me. When God is ready for you to understand then you will understand.

Case in point---Jack Van Impe knows scripture and memorises over 20000 verses yet knows nothing of the Gospel