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

[Autodidact]

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.

Yeah, you're right. I have trouble believing that someone would have someone raped, tortured and killed out of love. I completely fail to believe that.

 

[cottage]

"If a god is dependent upon the material world’s features and desires, then there is room for another, one who is not. "

Hes not dependent upon the worlds features, He gives us examples of stuff that we do know or can relate to. Like I said He said He is like a rock. All Humans should get a pretty good idea what He is trying to convey here. But then you have this one “God is spirit”. Very few really get a grasp at what He means here. Even most of Christendom cant grasp it.

God cannot be God if he is not the Creator, and in order to be the external, non-physical Creator he is absolutely dependent upon causation, which is a non-necessary phenomenon of the physical world. This graphically demonstrates the problem of inferring a world beyond experience, while claiming to use the same tools. And if the same tools are necessary then it is proved God cannot work (ie be the Creator) without them! So here is the conundrum: If God exists, then the physical world is contingent upon his necessary existence, which means the world and everything within it can be conceived to be non-existent. Every physical law of the material world can thus be non-existent, including causality. Hence it cannot be argued that God is the cause of anything by inferring cause and effect from the physical world.

So the problem for the concept of a personal, external God is cause. But the concept of Supreme Being isn’t owned by religions, and if all existence, reality itself, is the Supreme Being, then no external cause is necessary, since what already exists doesn’t require to be created. The bare bones concept, unadorned with any supposed personal qualities, is a pretty powerful argument. An Absolutely Necessary Being, as existence or reality itself, is logically possible right up to the point where it becomes weakened by those who want the concept to conform to particular belief systems. Relationships with the deity and notions of love are just add-ons that can be dismissed without contradiction; in other words they are not attributes that are logically necessary to the concept. This means the ‘God’ of the religions will always be the lesser entity compared with the dogma-free concept of an Absolutely Necessary Being.

 

[McBell]

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.



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].
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.

I see you are back to preaching the Bible.
Like I said, round and round and round you go.

So, yes, it is easy to see that you are backed up against the fence and do not have a good rebuttal.
I mean, why else would you go right back to the same old same old?

You can say this and you can say that, but you have not given anything other than you opinions as evidence to support any of it.
So in a nutshell, you have most directly gone in circles and have not presented anything that actually helps support your opinion.

PLease feel free to present to me even more of your Bible, Since it seems that is all you got.

 

[AK4]

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 can explain my God and i have. Most here just cant comprehend plain english because their minds are so stubborn or biased already. Its like some here might believe the color red is purple and no matter what i tell em that the color is not purple but red, them in their stubborness and biasedness refuse to see what i am saying. Ive explained God dozens of times in this thread alone, in plain english. Proving God to atheists is as pointless as proving we have no freewill to a christian. No matter what you show em they wont see the truth.

I have a way to explain consciousness but to try to explain it to those who dont believe in God is pointless.

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?

Thats funny because i recently saw a couple of shows that was talking about plants reacting to our emotions. Mythbusters gave this myth a try, cant fully remember what there conclusion was.

My position---insects----I know there is a verse in the bible that mentions something of this but its not hitting me right now. I could use "all is out of God" and "all things consist (move and breathe) because of Him" [paraphrased]. I lean toward yes for insects, although of course its not on the same level as humans.....well some humans.

 

[AK4]

Yeah, you're right. I have trouble believing that someone would have someone raped, tortured and killed out of love. I completely fail to believe that.

Exactly stated as someone who knows nothing of God and how He works. Here, let me confuse you a little more, think on this---We have no freewill but one can give in to their lusts or pride to rape, torture and kill.

 

[AK4]

I see you are back to preaching the Bible.
Like I said, round and round and round you go.

So, yes, it is easy to see that you are backed up against the fence and do not have a good rebuttal.
I mean, why else would you go right back to the same old same old?

You can say this and you can say that, but you have not given anything other than you opinions as evidence to support any of it.
So in a nutshell, you have most directly gone in circles and have not presented anything that actually helps support your opinion.

PLease feel free to present to me even more of your Bible, Since it seems that is all you got.

LOL. It absolutely amazes me. All you atheists, in every thread, use the same defense when backed against the fence. You guys cry and cry and cry for something, the person delivers what you ask for, you fall deeper in the hole and then you cry the usual "those links or people are "reputable"" as if you guys people/links are more credible. LOL. Its hilarious and its like that in every thread you guys are in when and you get cornered.

I was going through the thread 'has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible' and it got to the Joshuas sun stood still discussion and the typical happened from nonbelievers----

1. wheres your proof
2. you make no sense
3. wheres your sources

and now that one has backed his claim with credible sources and you guys are backed against the wall...

4. those sources arent credible [and these can be either biblical or science or any other source or maybe all]
5. wheres your sources again
6. oh thats plagarism and copying and pasting [which actually makes no sense since they just asked for sources]
7. you make no sense
8. you avoiding the question
9. i dont believe in the bible so that is not a credible source about God [this is the most idiotic defense ive ever heard]
10. you never answered the question

This is yall game plan. Oh dont forget the insults in between and in each and every step.

LOL. No worries. :beach:

Edit---this is not at all of you out there but the ones it applies to, you know who you are.

 

[tumbleweed41]

LOL. It absolutely amazes me. All you atheists, in every thread, use the same defense when backed against the fence. You guys cry and cry and cry for something, the person delivers what you ask for, you fall deeper in the hole and then you cry the usual "those links or people are "reputable"" as if you guys people/links are more credible. LOL. Its hilarious and its like that in every thread you guys are in when and you get cornered.

I was going through the thread 'has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible' and it got to the Joshuas sun stood still discussion and the typical happened from nonbelievers----

1. wheres your proof
2. you make no sense
3. wheres your sources

and now that one has backed his claim with credible sources and you guys are backed against the wall...

4. those sources arent credible [and these can be either biblical or science or any other source or maybe all]
5. wheres your sources again
6. oh thats plagarism and copying and pasting [which actually makes no sense since they just asked for sources]
7. you make no sense
8. you avoiding the question
9. i dont believe in the bible so that is not a credible source about God [this is the most idiotic defense ive ever heard]
10. you never answered the question

This is yall game plan. Oh dont forget the insults in between and in each and every step.

LOL. No worries. :beach:

Edit---this is not at all of you out there but the ones it applies to, you know who you are.

Seems to me the one who's back is against the wall is the one who presents unverifiable reveled revelations as evidence.

BTW, have you seen that Leprechaun anywhere?

 

[cottage]

LOL. It absolutely amazes me. All you atheists, in every thread, use the same defense when backed against the fence. You guys cry and cry and cry for something, the person delivers what you ask for, you fall deeper in the hole and then you cry the usual "those links or people are "reputable"" as if you guys people/links are more credible. LOL. Its hilarious and its like that in every thread you guys are in when and you get cornered.

I was going through the thread 'has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible' and it got to the Joshuas sun stood still discussion and the typical happened from nonbelievers----

1. wheres your proof
2. you make no sense
3. wheres your sources

and now that one has backed his claim with credible sources and you guys are backed against the wall...

4. those sources arent credible [and these can be either biblical or science or any other source or maybe all]
5. wheres your sources again
6. oh thats plagarism and copying and pasting [which actually makes no sense since they just asked for sources]
7. you make no sense
8. you avoiding the question
9. i dont believe in the bible so that is not a credible source about God [this is the most idiotic defense ive ever heard]
10. you never answered the question

This is yall game plan. Oh dont forget the insults in between and in each and every step.

LOL. No worries. :beach:

Edit---this is not at all of you out there but the ones it applies to, you know who you are.

First of all, I really don’t believe there is a class of people such as ‘All you atheists’. At base an atheist (a-theist) is someone who doesn’t see the need for gods or who sees no reason to believe there are any gods. I don’t believe in, or believe that there are, any aliens; but if someone proves me wrong then I’m bound to accept it. Until and unless that happens my views are a-alienistic in the same way that they’re a-theistic when it comes to a supposed deity. Gods, ghosts or aliens, prove them to me and the matter is settled.

Faith is a very different matter. I’ve expressed the view elsewhere that religious faith isn’t just a static or unchanging set of beliefs. And consequently believers may have to work quite hard to maintain their faith in the face of their own more rational judgements. But it is always faith before reason, never the other way around. One has the faith and then looks about for reasons to justify and support it. Theists can never admit to being wrong about the subject of their beliefs, while atheists, arguing from the empirical world can be wrong in almost everything.

And I think point 9 holds, for it is a legitimate objection. Written words can never be a full and final proof for a supernatural being. The Bible is about faith, not evidence.

 

[McBell]

LOL. It absolutely amazes me. All you atheists, in every thread, use the same defense when backed against the fence. You guys cry and cry and cry for something, the person delivers what you ask for, you fall deeper in the hole and then you cry the usual "those links or people are "reputable"" as if you guys people/links are more credible. LOL. Its hilarious and its like that in every thread you guys are in when and you get cornered.

I was going through the thread 'has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible' and it got to the Joshuas sun stood still discussion and the typical happened from nonbelievers----

1. wheres your proof
2. you make no sense
3. wheres your sources

and now that one has backed his claim with credible sources and you guys are backed against the wall...

4. those sources arent credible [and these can be either biblical or science or any other source or maybe all]
5. wheres your sources again
6. oh thats plagarism and copying and pasting [which actually makes no sense since they just asked for sources]
7. you make no sense
8. you avoiding the question
9. i dont believe in the bible so that is not a credible source about God [this is the most idiotic defense ive ever heard]
10. you never answered the question

This is yall game plan. Oh dont forget the insults in between and in each and every step.

LOL. No worries. :beach:

Edit---this is not at all of you out there but the ones it applies to, you know who you are.

Your beliefs are not evidence of anything other than your beliefs.

It is not my fault that you cannot/will not understand this fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems to me the one who's back is against the wall is the one who presents unverifiable reveled revelations as evidence.

BTW, have you seen that Leprechaun anywhere?

He's riding the eternal gopher.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

9. i dont believe in the bible so that is not a credible source about God [this is the most idiotic defense ive ever heard]

Why do you think this is idiotic? I think it's a completely reasonable response if you're trying to convince someone else of something.

 

[AxisMundi]

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.

As I stated earlier, deity cannot be disproved.

However, when each and every myth contained in the only sources for said Deity can be easily disproved, from the Creation myth to Adam to Eve to the WWF, any and all authority as some creator Deity is completely removed.

Not to mention a complete and utter lack of said Deity from the archival and archaeological library of humanity before the rise of Judaism.

No authority as a demiurge, no "one and only" Deity, no "salvation" necessary, and the Abrahamics become what they are, just more religions and another Deity one doesn't have to follow. Not to mention completely dismantling any and all reasons for the theodemocratic movement in the US.

 

[AK4]

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.

I respectfully cannot totally agree on “science cannot go beyond experience”. We can follow principles or even just mathematics and “experience” the possibilities of things. Paleontologists do this with dinosaurs speculating what they look like and their behavior. They didn’t experience these things back then though.

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

Agreed. Let me try again, you said ““it cannot be argued that God is known by his creative power because that implies causality exists outside experience”. But the thing is God is not outside looking in. We are in Him and He is in us.



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.

Only it does make perfect sense when you know the plan He is carrying out. If youd like me to explain it let me know, but warning, it may be lengthy but I will try to make it short.

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.

The reason it would be personal is the same way we are made out of things from suns and suns are made of things inside the universe. These elements are working in and through you and it all started and came from “that cosmic egg”. We have involuntary muscles or organs that seem to function on their own, yet their just made up of elements and stuff that all came from that first “egg”. To believe that it or God is not personal is to believe in freewill and that everything actually works within itself and is not influenced by anything else. We both know that is not possible and illogical right?


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

Yes causality exists for those things that are created. It also sorta applies to the thing that created everything only because or from the perspective of the things created. In otherwords from the created things perspective we “created” the creator because if we didn’t exist, in essence “it” cant exist. Another way to state it is we caused this being/thing to exist only because we exist---this is the thinking of a lot of people. This has a little truth to it but ultimately is false.

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.

But our thoughts and actions are determined. Hence no freewill. You decide or choose to do something based on circumstances whether known or unknown, hereditary or not etc etc. These circumstances, if one keeps going back and back will lead you to the beginning of it all and the beginning of it all is the one who brought all the circumstances that eventually led you to choose what you chose or do what you do. So you can take the verse in that says

“For it is God who works in you both to will and to do”.

Change it to “For it is the things in the universe that works in you both to will and to do”

Either way once the ball started rolling the circumstances will cause you to will and to do. i.e. choose. And really there is only one choice one can make. It may feel like you are willing and doing all on your own but that is just an illusion like depth perception.



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.

You cant have a limited and free something. That is an oxymoron. Limited means with restriction. Free means without restriction. You can have something that is with restriction and at the same time without restriction. To say limited freewill is like saying we have a “without restriction, restricted will”. A complete oxymoron.


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.’

To say God is not good or evil is to say there is just a force or what many like to call “an energy” out there. This could only be valid only if this God never communicated with His creation. And in case of the scriptures, this communication made Him more than just a force out there but a personal “force”. You right, God didn’t owe anything to anybody or anything before He created but at some point, IMO, God had to make a choice to be good or evil. This is how I look at it. Death is probably the ultimate evil. So if God had chose to be evil that would equal death which as a consequence would somehow include Him, So if evil/death reigned supreme in God or to make it clearer, if God equaled death then not even Him could exist but since God equals good/life the opposite is true.

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

It doesn’t directly say there was a “big bang” and it doesn’t say exactly how old the universe is but the “days” of creation are really “times” or “periods” of creation. Here are some verses that support the big bang, expanding universe theory. These are all great scientific statements really and found in the bible thousands of years ago.

Psa 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at Thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of Thy nostrils.

Then we have this statement in Isaiah 42.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.


Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, says the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth,

Isa 40:22 “…Who is (present tense - now is) stretching out as a thin gauze the heavens…” (CLV)

Psa 104:2 Covering himself with light as a garment, Stretching out the heavens as a curtain, (YLT)

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, (KJV)

Heb 4:3 …although the works were finished from the foundation of the world

 

[AK4]

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.

Depends. First im not debatting about a non-existent thing but what you said is correct though. Second, there are many things called "god" but even as Paul stated "there are many gods but for us there is One". And its very easy to prove the one God. Hence that is where i kept saying the ultimate starting point. The ultimate starting point is the One God, anything after that can be called a god but they still arent the one true God, just as Jesus stated. There cant be no more than one true God just the same as there cant be more than one ultimate starting point. This is really not hard to understand but the only possible way to refute this is to say the universe always existed or is eternal with no beginning.

Now the existence of lesser "gods" "can" exist ONLY because we can label anything as a god. Satan is called a god. Idols are called gods. Nature is called a god. WE are called gods. So in short there are other "gods" but there will always be only one true God.

 

[AK4]

God cannot be God if he is not the Creator, and in order to be the external,

This is the thing, Hes not external. Only in the sense of creation is He external. We are in Him and He is in us. A good analogy is picture God pregnant and the universe is the baby growing inside of Him and He is having billions upon billions of babys growing inside of Him. Just as the baby is in Him, He is in the baby also.


non-physical Creator he is absolutely dependent upon causation, which is a non-necessary phenomenon of the physical world. This graphically demonstrates the problem of inferring a world beyond experience, while claiming to use the same tools. And if the same tools are necessary then it is proved God cannot work (ie be the Creator) without them!


So here is the conundrum: If God exists, then the physical world is contingent upon his necessary existence, which means the world and everything within it can be conceived to be non-existent.

I really dont get this reasoning. I dont understand how it then would be conceived to be non-existent. Unless you are saying its like God is having a dream and this all is just a dream for Him?

Every physical law of the material world can thus be non-existent, including causality. Hence it cannot be argued that God is the cause of anything by inferring cause and effect from the physical world.

So the problem for the concept of a personal, external God is cause. But the concept of Supreme Being isn’t owned by religions, and if all existence, reality itself, is the Supreme Being, then no external cause is necessary, since what already exists doesn’t require to be created. The bare bones concept, unadorned with any supposed personal qualities, is a pretty powerful argument. An Absolutely Necessary Being, as existence or reality itself, is logically possible right up to the point where it becomes weakened by those who want the concept to conform to particular belief systems. Relationships with the deity and notions of love are just add-ons that can be dismissed without contradiction; in other words they are not attributes that are logically necessary to the concept. This means the ‘God’ of the religions will always be the lesser entity compared with the dogma-free concept of an Absolutely Necessary Being.

I really dont get this reasoning. I dont understand how it then would be conceived to be non-existent. Unless you are saying its like God is having a dream and this all is just a dream for Him?

 

[AK4]

Seems to me the one who's back is against the wall is the one who presents unverifiable reveled revelations as evidence.

BTW, have you seen that Leprechaun anywhere?

Right yet none of yall have showed how this universe can be eternal to disprove the God concept. You guys are so pinned up against the wall with just that right there.

 

[AK4]

First of all, I really don’t believe there is a class of people such as ‘All you atheists’. At base an atheist (a-theist) is someone who doesn’t see the need for gods or who sees no reason to believe there are any gods. I don’t believe in, or believe that there are, any aliens; but if someone proves me wrong then I’m bound to accept it. Until and unless that happens my views are a-alienistic in the same way that they’re a-theistic when it comes to a supposed deity. Gods, ghosts or aliens, prove them to me and the matter is settled.

The proof is where there must be an ultimate starting point. To disprove this would disprove of a God. The proof that this God is personal is that we have no freewill and that though revelation He communicated to His creation and made a book speaking to them. These are concrete proofs. One can deny the communication or personal God thing but then they ignore the proof of prophecy being fulfilled. Its just being plain stubborn to the facts of these things athiests are doing.

Faith is a very different matter. I’ve expressed the view elsewhere that religious faith isn’t just a static or unchanging set of beliefs. And consequently believers may have to work quite hard to maintain their faith in the face of their own more rational judgements. But it is always faith before reason, never the other way around.

This is wrong too. Judaism puts reason before faith. Christianity puts faith before reason. They both are supposed to go hand to hand. Its easy to see where these two both fail. God doesnt want us to just blindly believe in Him, thus He proves it to those who reason AND believe that what He says is true.

One has the faith and then looks about for reasons to justify and support it.

And if you cant justify it without contradicting scripture then something about your faith or doctrine that you believe is wrong.

Theists can never admit to being wrong about the subject of their beliefs, while atheists, arguing from the empirical world can be wrong in almost everything.

And I think point 9 holds, for it is a legitimate objection. Written words can never be a full and final proof for a supernatural being. The Bible is about faith, not evidence

But its not just written words and the proof is in prophecy. Point 9 just shows atheists denying concrete evidence and that there has to be something more to these written words.

 

[AK4]

Why do you think this is idiotic? I think it's a completely reasonable response if you're trying to convince someone else of something.

Its about as idiotic as christians or any religion denying honest science and saying that one cant use it in trying to disprove God. If i said you cant use science to disprove God, how idiotic would that sound?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Seems to me the one who's back is against the wall is the one who presents unverifiable reveled revelations as evidence.

BTW, have you seen that Leprechaun anywhere?

Right yet none of yall have showed how this universe can be eternal to disprove the God concept. You guys are so pinned up against the wall with just that right there.

1. It has been shown repeatedly that the "eternal universe" concept is not necessary for there to be no God.
2. It has been shown repeatedly that proving a negative is irrational. Such as the equally irrational, "prove there are no leprechauns". A more rational statement would be. "Provide empirical evidence for leprechauns", which I can no more do than you can provide empirical evidence in support of your God concept.

 

[AK4]

As I stated earlier, deity cannot be disproved.

However, when each and every myth contained in the only sources for said Deity can be easily disproved, from the Creation myth to Adam to Eve to the WWF, any and all authority as some creator Deity is completely removed.

Man made doctrines from the bible have been disproven, not God.

Not to mention a complete and utter lack of said Deity from the archival and archaeological library of humanity before the rise of Judaism.

There are many cultures that had a one supreme God. Even if they did have more "gods" they worshipped. Judaism is no different, actually they are just the same. They worshipped many gods along with trying to worship the one supreme God.

No authority as a demiurge, no "one and only" Deity, no "salvation" necessary, and the Abrahamics become what they are, just more religions and another Deity one doesn't have to follow. Not to mention completely dismantling any and all reasons for the theodemocratic movement in the US.

Are you sure you know enough about the old israelites to make such a claim because the opposite is written through many cultures of a supreme Being and salvation of "their" people. If anything christianity differs because it may be one of the few that actually included the whole world and not just a group of people.