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

[AK4]

Okay... then love is not all-encompassing.

Glass half empty, glass half full.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Glass half empty, glass half full.

So? No matter which way you look at it, the glass isn't "fully full".

 

[AxisMundi]

I get what your saying, but what would be satisfactory to show that the scriptures can be self-supporting?

Genesis? Only if you go by the nonsense that those young earthers teach. Unless you had something else in mind.

There were people who copied the originals no doubt and some editing was done by Ezra no doubt, but that doesn't mean the original person who got the revelation from God didn't pen it or that he didn't dictate it to someone. You cannot say for a fact that they never penned anything

Have you not read some of the jewish writings in Midrash and mishnrah-- i think thats what there called and there a third one i cant remember the name.

Some say a forgery some say the other. Its all on the person who wants to believe which way or the other. The same could be said with almost everything written in history

1. Loaded question. I of course would nevier accept the bible as self-supporting evidence, because one cannot correct the disproved myths, self-contradictions, and historical inaccuracies with it remaining the bible.

2. YECer nonsense? The bible is there for everyone to read. If it is not taken literally, then all authority for Jehovah evaporates as does any "universal truth" claimed by the religion.

3. The point is that those stories loose validity when the people who supposedly were there didn't write anything. Camp fire stories and second hand accounts are hardly ever accurate nor truthful.

4. The midrash aren't secular.

5. Almost anything else written in history isn't the basis for a world spanning religion, nor is almost anything else in history being constantly forced on everyone through laws or is the basis for the vast majority of persecution and oppression of a US minority.

 

[AK4]

Quote:

I said there is apparently a necessary God who is dependent upon a non-necessary feature of the universe (causation). You replied that God caused everything, just like DNA. I explained that while God isn’t logically obliged to create DNA he is logically defined by causation.

This is like saying if we didn’t exist there is no way that He could exist because in order for Him to exist, He needs something to acknowledge that He exists. Sounds logical but is it really true? No. Why? Think about all the stuff that we didn’t think existed but after we discovered it we knew it had already existed, sometimes millions of years the things existed i.e. the things at the bottom of the ocean.

There is no contradiction in conceiving God to have created humans without DNA, since an omnipotent God could achieve the same result in a different way.

Yes, the bible even states He could have raised up rocks but no He made us. Theoretically yes God could have done it another way, but being perfect this way could have only been the correct, perfect way to achieve His desired goal. So no, it couldn’t have gotten the same results in a different way. Maybe to understand that this way is the only perfect way takes a higher understanding of what it means to be perfect and omnipotent.

But we if we speak of the universe and mankind being brought into existence by God uncaused we have then uttered a contradiction.

Are you saying that I think we were brought into existence without a cause? We are brought in by a cause, He on the other hand wasn’t.

God is absolutely dependent upon cause and effect, which happens to be a feature of the physical world.

No He is not. The whole God concept demands that there is nothing to cause its being.

But there is no logical necessity in cause and effect, as Hume explains: ‘Let anyone define a cause, without comprehending, as part of the definition, a necessary connection with its effect; and let him show distinctly the origin of the idea, expressed by the definition; and I shall readily give up the whole controversy.’ So God, a necessary being, depends absolutely upon a non-necessary feature of the universe for his existence, which is an absurdity.

As to Humes statement, I just explained that above. What he says is partly true but not fully because whats true is that a cause does have a connection with its effect---that’s a no brainer. To show distinctly the origin of the idea [of a God], expressed by the definition---by a true definition of a God concept, a God cannot have a cause before it and can already exist before bringing anything else into existence.

Like I said, his statement is partly true because a God being the first cause of everything is connected to things He creates [they are the effects] and the things He creates do “help” His existence by them acknowledging Him

Think about His statement, If the effects or things created didn’t acknowledge a God then Humes statement falls short. They would have no [acknowledged] connection to that cause [God] and therefore there would be no origin of the idea.
Let me break down his statement again. This is what he says ‘Let anyone define a cause, and let him show distinctly the origin of the idea,’. Okay, God—an uncaused being or entity who existed prior to anything else that has/is existing. Origin of the idea---It came into His mind to created things that would acknowledge Him as the beginning of all things, the first cause, the USP. He existed before they were created, them being the effects of the origin of the idea makes them and Him connected.

My thoughts may have been a little unfocused here because of interruptions but you should get the jist of what im saying. If not let me know I will try better next time.

A burning desire or hope to have children is simply presupposing an actual existence, when nothing exists but the desire. The desire is a biological and/or psychological need that is focussed entirely on the self, since the object of the desire has no existence.

So God couldn’t have a desire before acting upon that desire? Does it not say in the scriptures that all this is for His pleasure [entirely focused on His self][that right there knocks out freewill]. You are proving my point here. I know the going dogma out there about God is that He doesn’t have wants and desires, but how can a world that doesn’t know God, KNOW God. Like it says only a few do know Him or part of what He wants known now, but later all will.

If God is omnipotent and all-sufficient then he doesn’t have needs, wants or desires because by definition he already has, and is, everything.

This is so untrue. Well the needs part true, but wants and desires, no. Many think that God, because He has the power to do things instantly, should do and always will do things instantly. Sounds like the young earthers and the six literal days of creation. No you see throughout the scriptures that He does things “slowly” or as a process. Read Proverbs 4:7 and then Proverbs 8. If God wanted perfect children in His image and they were to be like Jesus, then why didn’t He just make instantly a bunch of Jesuses? Well obviously this isn’t what happened and since we have this scripture “Let us be making man into Our image” [Check an interlinear and you will see that its “making” not “made” as the KJ and its sister bibles have it] we have [how big is the population now] 6-7 billion walking evidences of the fact that God definitely works things in a process.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is like saying if we didn’t exist there is no way that He could exist because in order for Him to exist, He needs something to acknowledge that He exists. Sounds logical but is it really true? No. Why? Think about all the stuff that we didn’t think existed but after we discovered it we knew it had already existed, sometimes millions of years the things existed i.e. the things at the bottom of the ocean.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the concept of god would not exist if we did not exist.

 

[AK4]

So? No matter which way you look at it, the glass isn't "fully full".

Lol. Thats pretty good. Nice spin on that. Except when it comes to what we were talking about you are failing to believe that when an evil is done, that its actually done out love for you/me. That God is doing the best thing for you for whatever it is He is trying to do for you. He can make some evil happen to me that was, in my mind, against me, but since He knows what He is trying to do with me, that evil was actually for me. And God says He does this out of love. No different than what a parent does with their children

So its all-encompassing.

 

[AK4]

1. Loaded question. I of course would nevier accept the bible as self-supporting evidence, because one cannot correct the disproved myths, self-contradictions, and historical inaccuracies with it remaining the bible.

Of course you wont accpet my answer, but to the trained eye [only God can open up the scriptures to someone] you can see through the so-called disproved myths and the what seems like contradictions stuff

2. YECer nonsense? The bible is there for everyone to read. If it is not taken literally, then all authority for Jehovah evaporates as does any "universal truth" claimed by the religion.

Thats the main problem with christianity and judaism. The bible is a spiritual book that they try to make literal not realising that if it was literal it still has a spiritual meaning behind it. Thats why they and most people are confused and believe in contradictions and have no idea what the bible means.

3. The point is that those stories loose validity when the people who supposedly were there didn't write anything. Camp fire stories and second hand accounts are hardly ever accurate nor truthful.

Please show conclusive proof that you/they know that the orignal writers didnt pen what the books attributted to them. Conclusive, not speculation.

4. The midrash aren't secular.

Is it scripture? Well then its secular and to double its potentcy, it was written by people who didnt believe He was who He said He was.

5. Almost anything else written in history isn't the basis for a world spanning religion, nor is almost anything else in history being constantly forced on everyone through laws or is the basis for the vast majority of persecution and oppression of a US minority.

Really? I guess politics, you know like for one socialism, isnt being shoved down our throats. How about global warming? Evolution. Shall i keep going?

 

[AK4]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the concept of god would not exist if we did not exist.

But as you can see in my analogy that doesnt work. Just because we dont know its there doesnt nullify that its actually there. Be honest you know im right here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol. Thats pretty good. Nice spin on that.

It's not spin. All-encompassing implies "all".

Except when it comes to what we were talking about you are failing to believe that when an evil is done, that its actually done out love for you/me. That God is doing the best thing for you for whatever it is He is trying to do for you. He can make some evil happen to me that was, in my mind, against me, but since He knows what He is trying to do with me, that evil was actually for me. And God says He does this out of love. No different than what a parent does with their children

So its all-encompassing.

Actually, I allowed for that possibility. I asked you if this was the case and you told me it wasn't. Remember?

No the evil is and will always be evil. The evil is not good.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But as you can see in my analogy that doesnt work. Just because we dont know its there doesnt nullify that its actually there. Be honest you know im right here.

Your analogy is all encompassing.
Anything that can be imagined can be inserted into your formula.

 

[AK4]

Your analogy is all encompassing.
Anything that can be imagined can be inserted into your formula.

Thats true to a point because somethings are just purely imagination. [Ha and i know people can say this about God but a God concept can fit into this formula unlike something like leprechauns]

 

[AK4]

It's not spin. All-encompassing implies "all".


Actually, I allowed for that possibility. I asked you if this was the case and you told me it wasn't. Remember?

It mustve been the way you worded it or something. Like i said before death is an evil and all are to experience this because in Gods eyes this will teach us the value of life. Sin is evil, we experience sin constantly, this is to let us know what it is, its destructive power and so on and so forth so that we will know not to sin again or that with the knowledge of what sin is we wont commit it no more.

No different than when a burgular finally learns his lesson about stealing. If He truly learned his lesson he wont do it again.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thats true to a point because somethings are just purely imagination. [Ha and i know people can say this about God but a God concept can fit into this formula unlike something like leprechauns]

Really? Prove to me Leprechauns do not exist.
Oh, I am sure you can prove that many mythical aspects related to Leprechauns do not exist, just as there are mythical aspects to the Bible. But the challenge remains.
Prove that Leprechauns do not exist.

 

[AxisMundi]

Of course you wont accpet my answer, but to the trained eye [only God can open up the scriptures to someone] you can see through the so-called disproved myths and the what seems like contradictions stuff

Thats the main problem with christianity and judaism. The bible is a spiritual book that they try to make literal not realising that if it was literal it still has a spiritual meaning behind it. Thats why they and most people are confused and believe in contradictions and have no idea what the bible means.

Please show conclusive proof that you/they know that the orignal writers didnt pen what the books attributted to them. Conclusive, not speculation.

Is it scripture? Well then its secular and to double its potentcy, it was written by people who didnt believe He was who He said He was.

Really? I guess politics, you know like for one socialism, isnt being shoved down our throats. How about global warming? Evolution. Shall i keep going?

1. Sorry, but the appeal to ignorance fallacy doesn't work. Scriptures are there for everyone to read, no "divine guidance" is necessary at all to understand them. This is merely a failed attempt to claim some superior knowledge, where none exist, usually to cover up and/or explain some unique interpretation.

Biblical creation is disproved by science. Noah and the flood myth, disproved. Adam and Eve, disproved, et cetera ad nauseum.

2. See above. In addition my statement still stands. Remove the attempted all-encompassing authority in Jehovah, and by association Christ and all of the Abrahamic prophets, and all three fall apart.

3. Firstly, the gospels were originally written in Greek. The names of the four canonical gospels are known today didn't appear until the year 180, the earliest quotations in other sources don't occur until 150, and biblical scholars agree they weren't written until 65-80 CE.

4. They are scripturally based works done by biblical scholars. They are not secular in the least.

5. This isn't a political debate. If you which to be educated on what socialism truly is, start a thread and invite me over. Global warming hasn't been shoved down anyone's throats. And Evolution is science, people can ignore it all they wish.

 

[AK4]

Really? Prove to me Leprechauns do not exist.
Oh, I am sure you can prove that many mythical aspects related to Leprechauns do not exist, just as there are mythical aspects to the Bible. But the challenge remains.
Prove that Leprechauns do not exist.

Ahh little do most know and recognize the bible uses alot of the mythology of what the people considered then to be true to teach a spiritual lesson.

Its the same as the legends of greek mythology, it came out of the imagination of someone and it came from a book a person wrote. If you want to consider leprechauns existence, you then can consider all the other stuff written from the imaginations of authors of books. Think about what came out of the imaginations of the people who do the dungeon and dragons books and games, whew.

 

[McBell]

Ahh little do most know and recognize the bible uses alot of the mythology of what the people considered then to be true to teach a spiritual lesson.

Its the same as the legends of greek mythology, it came out of the imagination of someone and it came from a book a person wrote. If you want to consider leprechauns existence, you then can consider all the other stuff written from the imaginations of authors of books. Think about what came out of the imaginations of the people who do the dungeon and dragons books and games, whew.

Thus the reason that a complete lack of empirical evidence is a good reason to not believe in something.

 

[AK4]

1. Sorry, but the appeal to ignorance fallacy doesn't work. Scriptures are there for everyone to read, no "divine guidance" is necessary at all to understand them. This is merely a failed attempt to claim some superior knowledge, where none exist, usually to cover up and/or explain some unique interpretation.

Spoken like someone who truly dont know what the scriptures say. I can quote scriptures that proves only the few, not the many, will know what the scriptures mean. You have fallen hook line and sinker just like almost all christians and judaisers(?) from what the so-called experts tell you that anyone can easily without divine guidance can know what the scriptures mean.

Biblical creation is disproved by science. Noah and the flood myth, disproved. Adam and Eve, disproved, et cetera ad nauseum.

It depends on who you are getting your bible knowledge from. If its from young earthers, you are correct. If you are getting that flood account from those who beleive basically what the king james and its sister bibles say or what the again so called experts say about it being a global flood, you are correct again. BUT for those who have discovered the truth on what the scriptures really say, you are wrong.

2. See above. In addition my statement still stands. Remove the attempted all-encompassing authority in Jehovah, and by association Christ and all of the Abrahamic prophets, and all three fall apart.

Not sure what this comment was directed to. Dont know what youre talking about.

3. Firstly, the gospels were originally written in Greek. The names of the four canonical gospels are known today didn't appear until the year 180, the earliest quotations in other sources don't occur until 150, and biblical scholars agree they weren't written until 65-80 CE.

Now see if your claims stack to these

II. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EARLY EXISTENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

A. INTERNAL EVIDENCE...
1. THE ENDING OF THE BOOK OF ACTS
a. The book ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial
- Ac 28:30-31
b. A plausible explanation is that Luke wrote ACTS during this
time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero
c. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that ACTS and LUKE
(which came first - cf. Ac 1:1 with Lk 1:1-4) were
written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus
2. NO MENTION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM IN 70 A.D.
a. Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the
temple and city would be destroyed within that generation
- e.g., Mk 13:1-4,14,30; Lk 21:5-9,20-24,32
b. History records that in 70 A.D. Jerusalem with its temple
was destroyed, exactly as Jesus foretold!
c. Yet not a single book of the New Testament refers to this
event as having happened!
1) Such would be very unlikely if they had been written
after 70 A.D.
2) For that event helps to verify Jesus' claim to be the
Son of God, and it is hard to imagine that any writer
after 70 A.D. would not make mention to the fulfillment
of Jesus' prophecy!
d. This has prompted some scholars to conclude that ALL of the
books of the New Testament were written prior to 70 A.D.
- e.g., John A. T. Robinson, in his book REDATING THE
NEW TESTAMENT

III. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS EVIDENCE

A. THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS IN EXISTENCE AND WELL KNOWN BY THE END OF
THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.!
1. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish
Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati,
and renowned Jewish archaeologist: "In my opinion, every book
of the New Testament was written between the forties and
eighties of the First Century A.D."
2. "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any
solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after
80 A.D." - W. F. Albright, biblical archaeologist

Evidence For Early Existence Of The New Testament

4. They are scripturally based works done by biblical scholars. They are not secular in the least.

Actually they arent. The midrash is their "scholars" [scribes, pharisees, rabbis] attempt to fill in what they consider to be gaps in scripture. Hardly is it really scripturally based.

5. This isn't a political debate. If you which to be educated on what socialism truly is, start a thread and invite me over. Global warming hasn't been shoved down anyone's throats. And Evolution is science, people can ignore it all they wish.

My bad, climate change and Darwinism. :thud: And if you dont see these being shoved down peoples throats then you must be really sleeping or something.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thats true to a point because somethings are just purely imagination. [Ha and i know people can say this about God but a God concept can fit into this formula unlike something like leprechauns]

Really? Prove to me Leprechauns do not exist.
Oh, I am sure you can prove that many mythical aspects related to Leprechauns do not exist, just as there are mythical aspects to the Bible. But the challenge remains.
Prove that Leprechauns do not exist.

While you acknowledged the value of myth, you failed to respond to my challenge.
Is that an acknowledgment in itself of the validity of my claim?

 

[AK4]

Thus the reason that a complete lack of empirical evidence is a good reason to not believe in something.

Only thing is, you guys consider that bible doesnt count as evidence. 66 books by however many different authors somehow harmonizing into one complete book doesnt count.

If there were 66 books written of ceasar by however many different authors and somehow harmonizing that it all can come together to be one book, yall wouldnt discredit it and say it wasnt empirical evidence.

Talk about hypocrisy

 

[AK4]

While you acknowledged the value of myth, you failed to respond to my challenge.
Is that an acknowledgment in itself of the validity of my claim?

I was just getting to the heart of the matter. I figure this was all coming back on Gods existence.

But i did answer your challenge actually. If folklore can be considered possibly true then you got a whole new can of worms to consider more than just God.

*thinking to myself* gee i wonder whats coming next