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

[logician]

One must formulate a coherent definition of said god that is to be disproven, i.e what traits and state of existence does this supposed god possess that is to be disproven? Asking someone to disprove "god" is much too general a request.

 

[Jean-Pierre Chatelaine]

When I was a child I believed many things. That there was a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, a Tooth Fairy, that monsters hid under my bed, that I had an invisible friend, that if I prayed really hard god would bring my mother back to life and that my dad wouldn't beat the **** out of me when he came home drunk tonight ...

We are taught to believe in god when we are young and we cling to this foolish belief until we come to the realization that man and not god wrote a work of fiction called the bible.

 

[AK4]

I have to agree.
You have been jumping around like a Mexican Jumping Bean in a hot skillet for the last several pages.

So are you going to start staying on topic or are you not yet through with your off topicness, preaching and presenting of red herrings?


Yes.
Thank you.

Sorry but i always have been on topic yet your rebuttals have rarely been that. Evidence is here

You must have forgotten that I am not in your choir.
Long irrelevant rants about what you think the Bible says do not help your argument any.

Maybe you need to reread post 1707 slowly and you will see how i stayed on topic like always

 

[AK4]

One must formulate a coherent definition of said god that is to be disproven, i.e what traits and state of existence does this supposed god possess that is to be disproven? Asking someone to disprove "god" is much too general a request.

Heres a couple to add what ive said before

trait--- Immortality
state---creative state

Lets start there.

 

[AK4]

We are taught to believe in god when we are young and we cling to this foolish belief until we come to the realization that man and not god wrote a work of fiction called the bible.

But as children we couldnt disprove santa clause and the rest until we got older. As children we couldnt disprove myths. When we get older and "wiser" we test myths to see if they are true. When it comes to the scripture God, the only stuff that has been disproven is some bad bible translations and some man made doctrines. God has not been disproven though.

 

[McBell]

God has not been disproven though.

Neither have unicorns, the loch ness monster, big foot, fairies, and a host other things.
Does that mean that all of them have to exist as well?

 

[McBell]

Maybe you need to reread post 1707 slowly and you will see how i stayed on topic like always

No, post #1707 is you setting up a strawman and preaching.

 

[logician]

Heres a couple to add what ive said before

trait--- Immortality
state---creative state

Lets start there.

Almost by definition this god does not CURRENTLY exist, as there is no creation going on now that cannot be explained scientifically.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Neither have unicorns, the loch ness monster, big foot, fairies, and a host other things.
Does that mean that all of them have to exist as well?

Hey, get in line.
I am still waiting for the proof that Leprechauns do not exist.:areyoucra

 

[McBell]

Hey, get in line.
I am still waiting for the proof that Leprechauns do not exist.:areyoucra

Funny how he just goes round and round and round in big circles.
Sometimes it is like riding a merry-go-round.

I am hoping that sooner or later he will break his circular bindings and go down a road he has not got so well rehearsed.

 

[AK4]

Almost by definition this god does not CURRENTLY exist, as there is no creation going on now that cannot be explained scientifically.

No i dont think science can explain consciousness yet.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No i dont think science can explain consciousness yet.

I swear...you sound just like Mickiel......

Can you explain "consciousness".....Are humans the only ones with it? Do animals have it?

 

[AK4]

I figure I will put it in bigger font because apparently some around hear either cant read or are just plain blind. If neither of these two then I guess no comprehension is what it is.

No, post #1707 is you setting up a strawman and preaching.

Funny how he just goes round and round and round in big circles.

Sometimes it is like riding a merry-go-round.

I am hoping that sooner or later he will break his circular bindings and go down a road he has not got so well rehearsed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Hey, get in line.
I am still waiting for the proof that Leprechauns do not exist.:areyoucra

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Because you claim that something cannot come from nothing.

From the human standpoint God came from us because, as the argument will go "if we didnt exist to think up the concept of a God, then God doesnt exist", so from that stand point God came from something...us.

From the scriptures standpoint, by the time God introduces Himself to us, God is everything, everything we could possibly think up and then some. From that standpoint it shows no beginning, almost as if He came from nothing. But this is where a higher understanding of God helps. God is everything. Everything is God. Picture a circle and everything is on that circle, point on that circle where it begins. …… Therefore there isnt a starting point or something that can define where God came from. In otherwords, there is an infinite amount of places where God could "come from something" and an infinite amount of places where He couldnt have "come from". But from nothing is not an option.

And actually if you want to get more scripturally specific the scriptures say wisdom is the principal thing. So from wisdom you can say God came from[and before you try to go there, all the things that entails wisdom was already in Him, not an outside source].

Quote:
So by your own logic, god had to come from something.

All I want to know is what that something is.

If ya wanna label it something, the scriptures say Wisdom and all that entails wisdom was already in Him, not from something else.

So I say again….

You know, its easy to recognise when one is against the fence and dont have a good rebuttal.

If you cant comprehend this direct addressing, then what can i say.

Edit: For some reason it didnt let me keep the font but whats in red, you may need to read slowly then.

 

[AK4]

I swear...you sound just like Mickiel......

Can you explain "consciousness".....Are humans the only ones with it? Do animals have it?

Yup animals have it also. The bible pretty much says we arent much different than beasts, actually we are called wild beasts several times.

No i cant explain it. No one really can. No one knows how chemicals and vibrations produce thought, emotions and the like. If science has figured this out, i missed it.

So i sound like mickiel because there is yet to be an a genuine scientific explanation on consciousness???? Crazy

I mean, is not consciousness a created thing also?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you took my sarcasm about the gopher serious. I wasnt.

Ah - so you mean that eternal things can't be destroyed or "turned into energy"?

Neither have unicorns, the loch ness monster, big foot, fairies, and a host other things.
Does that mean that all of them have to exist as well?

Also Tree Lobsters. We can't forget Tree Lobsters.

You can't prove they don't exist.



Really, I just wanted to plug a web comic that I find really funny.

 

[AK4]

Ah - so you mean that eternal things can't be destroyed or "turned into energy"?
.

Well if something is eternal then it cant be destroyed. Being turned into energy and still being eternal? I dont know. My first thought is no though

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well if something is eternal then it cant be destroyed. Being turned into energy and still being eternal? I dont know. My first thought is no though

Okay. So it's established: the eternal gopher can't be turned into energy. Thanks!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No i cant explain it. No one really can. No one knows how chemicals and vibrations produce thought, emotions and the like.

If you can't explain (your) god and you can't explain consciousness then how is it you attribute consciousness to be created by "God" which you can't explain and no empirical evidence exist? Isn't this strictly (your) belief?

I mean, is not consciousness a created thing also?

I posit it wasn't created. It sounds as though you're repeating the same old mantra that goes (because I can't understand it. It appears to complex so it must have been created). Is it safe to assume insects as well as plants have a consciousness?

 

[cottage]

I will go with you on your position where you said “since that is where the belief begins” meaning I will not count the spiritual realm.

You said “is that there is no contradiction implied in denying it altogether”. Then one has to ask to things happen for a reason or does it just happen. If things just happen then science is no longer useful. Can you agree on that? If science is used to figure out the reason why something does something or why something happens and its not a contradiction to deny it….well that whole concept is a contradiction in itself.

Science (empiricism) is not just useful it is absolutely crucial to our being able to bump along in a relatively safe and purposeful way in the world. But science begins from observation and leads to hypotheses and then to theories, which can never be more than truths in a highly probable or contingent sense. Newton’s law of motion ‘Every action has an equal and opposite reaction’ is as true as the last instance, but it is true only of experience. The contrary of every factual thing is possible, and ‘Every action has no reaction’ is just as possible as the former proposition, and implies no contradiction because science cannot go beyond experience. That last point sums it up in a nutshell.

“it cannot be argued that God is known by his creative power because that implies causality exists outside experience”. This is not an entirely true statement. One evidence for the contrary is that of heredity. Heredity as I understand it can cause a lot of things before we can experience them, maybe even before we are born.

But heredity does not exist outside experience! Heredity occurs in the world of experience, of which causality is also a part.

Depends on where you look at it from. God says He does not lie. So when God places a standard upon Himself then He MUST follow it. No changes. So if one truly believes His words “does not lie” then we can have confidence in saying He MUST fulfill what He said He will do.

I see no logical contradiction there. God can say and do, or not do, anything: there is nothing he must do, or not do – if he is indeed omnipotent!

As for a prized product, this is what we are called. You either believe it or not. Ironically those who believe it and are really chosen know they are His achievement yet we know we are just a worm. In otherwords, humble about our calling.

Okay, but it's not an argument.

Unless, on purpose, this God concealed the truth. And this is what the scriptures say He has done and we know for a fact that this is the case through not only the scriptures but in almost everything in the world. So if God concealed the truth and made it somewhat believable for both arguments to be believed [in essence, anything one holds to be true is a belief in that thing]…[I got interrupted and forgot where I was going with this].

I’m sorry but I fail to see why an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, Almighty, personal God should want to conceal his existence from his imperfect, finite creation. It really defies credibility, and gives an impression of wanting to make fiction fit with the facts. I think this gets to the crux of the matter, for there has never been a compelling reason to believe that there is such a being, and excuses for this non-showing deity simply confirm the sceptics’ position. It is a convenient solution to the problem of God’s non-appearance, thought up by the Bible’s writers, for him to want to deceive his creation, even though it makes no sense.

Okay so at least we nailed down the personal God thing, whether if one contribute this to the universe/god or God we can agree its personal.

Ah! I misread the passage. Here is the part I agree with: “So we exist, this is reality. We cant be destroyed but only changed. This should also show that we cannot fail exist which would further the universe [and since we are saying the universe is eternal here and is god] to not fail to exist. So in this, the universe or god cannot fail to exist.” But I see no reason at all to insert a personal being into such a hypothesis.

Im sorry I must rephrase what I said in red because I was wrong. I was looking at it as all coming together then exploding. This is wrong if you apply it God. Its not everything gathers to Him and then “explodes”, its everything comes out from Him. Sorry I was looking at it [the universe] from something like the the big crunch theory or static state theory. You could apply what I said above to the universe [only if those theories are true] but not to God.

Causality is not just experience though. For instance someone all the way across the world could do something that effects something that in the end will effect me. The cause still happens no matter if it effects me or not, whether I experience it or not. Another example, the expression “feeling anothers pain”. One doesn’t have to directly experience someone else’s pain to cause that one to feel, act or whatever upon it or from it. The cause of that persons pain could change the first persons life dramatically or even subtlety,

I know what you’re saying here, but it is still begging the question: there are causes, therefore causality exists.

Nature is a product of the universe/god

So you admit to answering to the demands of the universe/god?

Yes, of course! I am not the universe, I am merely a part of the universe. If I may repeat my last sentence: We are prisoners of the universe, but that is not to say all of our thoughts and actions within it are complete determined. I may, for example, choose to eat and drink within a certain time scale, but I am not at liberty to reject all forms of sustenance – if I want to continue living.

Our thoughts are controlled by circumstances and from the very beginning the circumstances that are in front of you can never be anything different than what they are/were. You cant unring a bell the famous saying goes. The past cannot be changed.

And exactly the same applies to a God who cannot undo history or re-write what is past. He cannot make a thing both red and blue at the same time, a triangle will always have three sides, with or without his will, and he cannot be other than what he is.

The difference imo is I can say this is from an intelligent being and you attribute the universe/god. In your case, the universe made you be the way you are, including your thoughts. The only way out of this is if we truly had freewill. [And limited freewill is just one of the most ridiculous statements]. And we don’t have freewill.

Limited freewill is not an oxymoron because all will is limited: it means freedom within certain boundaries, such as God being bound by the laws logic and humans being bound by the laws of nature.

If we could ever applied a need to God, it could only be to love and to be good. That’s it. Because if you think about it, how could God love if its only Him? Also how could He be good to only Himself? The drive to be good and loving could have “forced” God to create.

And actually I take that back, those wouldn’t be a need then.

It makes no real sense to speak of God as being ‘good’. Why should he be good (or evil)? He didn’t owe anything to anybody or anything, especially a creation that was yet to exist! I believe ‘goodness’ is a completely arbitrary notion that gives comfort to believers, despite the factual evidence to the contrary. Even an unbeliever would acknowledge that God must logically be omnipotent, immutable, eternal and necessarily existent, and to deny such invites a contradiction. But no contradiction is implied when we say ‘and he is loving.’

You can through the scriptures if you believe them. There are scriptures that do talk about what was before the universe and earth even Jesus.

And do the scriptures speak of the Big Bang and the universe being 13.7 billion years’ old?

 

[cottage]

But as children we couldnt disprove santa clause and the rest until we got older. As children we couldnt disprove myths. When we get older and "wiser" we test myths to see if they are true. When it comes to the scripture God, the only stuff that has been disproven is some bad bible translations and some man made doctrines. God has not been disproven though.

To demand proof that something (anything) doesn't exist is nonsensical: where does one look for evidence of a thing’s non-existence? How are we to suppose that one might find evidence for the non-existence of thing when even the believers cannot prove its existence to themselves? And if the argument is insisted upon it can be turned back on the questioner: for if you believe your omnipotent God is the only god, then if must follow that there can be no other gods, and in that case it is incumbent upon you to prove the non-existence of all other gods, which is equally absurd.