Who do you think will prove or disprove gods?

[Maponos]

Sure you can. You can show their mythological roots and how only man crated them.

You can show roots but you cannot show if man created them or not.

 

[outhouse]

You can show roots but you cannot show if man created them or not.

Actually we can with a high degree of certainty.

A court room hearing amounted to defining Jesus divinity in relationship to he god concept.

The OT god was a compilation of two Canaanite gods.

The books that describe said gods also have no credibility what so ever for historical accuracy.

And above all, no evidence exist in support for any of the manmade gods which are all defined completely different

 

[Quintessence]

You can show roots but you cannot show if man created them or not.

More importantly, tracing how humans drew their maps of the territory definitely does not mean that humans somehow created the territory.

I get a good laugh every time someone suggests that human males somehow created the planet, the sun, the stars, and everything else.

 

[Maponos]

Actually we can with a high degree of certainty.

A court room hearing amounted to defining Jesus divinity in relationship to he god concept.

The OT god was a compilation of two Canaanite gods.

The books that describe said gods also have no credibility what so ever for historical accuracy.

And above all, no evidence exist in support for any of the manmade gods which are all defined completely different

No, we don't. None of us were there. But I guess debating an atheist on this is pointless.

 

[outhouse]

tracing how humans drew their maps of the territory definitely does not mean that humans somehow created the territory.

That analogy really does not work here in this context.

We see how only man and only man drew and created the territory in full, for many deities.

It is easy to see and prove the god MOST people follow is man made in full.

 

[outhouse]

None of us were there. .

Non sequitur. Your saying if we are not witness to something we cannot know anything and that is factually not accurate.


We know many historical events with factual certainty despite not being there.

 

[outhouse]

No, we don't.

Stop, I have credible sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah


The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[71][72] With the emergence of the monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II the kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered.[73] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74] At an early stage El and Yahweh became fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult

 

[outhouse]

But I guess debating an atheist on this is pointless.

You should not stereotype. I probably have a larger passion for biblical truth then you and study this in detail where you may have no knowledge at all.

You cannot dismiss the FACT that the god concepts even the Abrahamic god concepts are all defined differently, AND that the god concepts factually evolved over time.

DO YOU understand this EXACT process of the evolution of the god concept and how it was shaped by man alone over a 3200 year period?

 

[McBell]

Who do you think will prove or disprove the existence of a deity(ies) and why?

Each and everyone of us will prove or disprove, or not bother either way.
for themselves.

Problems arise when peope think they have the right to control others based upon their own personal beliefs arrived at with their own personal proofs.

 

[Thief]

read my previous post and rebuttal....

simple denial is not a proven item

 

[Thief]

Each and everyone of us will prove or disprove, or not bother either way.
for themselves.

Problems arise when peope think they have the right to control others based upon their own personal beliefs arrived at with their own personal proofs.

militant atheism?

 

[LuisDantas]

Each and everyone of us will prove or disprove, or not bother either way.
for themselves.

Quite right.

Or even alternate freely on several conceivable stances, for any reason or even no reason at all.

It is ok to do so.

Problems arise when people think they have the right to control others based upon their own personal beliefs arrived at with their own personal proofs.

That is so true!

 

[LuisDantas]

militant atheism?

I take it you meant to be funny?

 

[Thief]

shall I do my cause and effect routine.....
I think it is MOST reasonable

 

[Thief]

I take it you meant to be funny?

I do have sense of humor

 

[LuisDantas]

So true!

 

[Etritonakin]

Incorrect, many of these stories are set in real places but no other sources describe this.

Should I assume that any story that uses our world as a setting is true?

No.

Could you provide an example of a story?

meanwhile, I will try to post an example if I have time

 

[Etritonakin]

Your implying Abrahamic Faiths are true, to those who don't believe in those faiths you're entire logic is not very true. (Can we imagine if a Hindu claimed the same logic of one of their Gods or Goddesses being the first creature?)

The truth is the truth -regardless of belief.

I am not implying that Abrahamic Faith's are true. Many believe differently, and cannot all be true.

I am saying that the God of Abraham is true -regardless of what even Abraham believed.

One example of the future being written beforehand is Nebuchadnezzar's dream.
It is a general outline of world-ruling kingdoms.

Other things written in the book of Daniel give more detail -and other books give even more detail.

The things are true -and God had them written -even though the writers did not fully understand what was written.

The beliefs of many will prevent them from considering the matter -or doing the necessary research, but it's purpose was not to cause all to understand at once.
It is proof that God declared the end from the beginning (not that he did all things, but brought about the desired and beneficial result in the end).

What I am saying is based on the belief that what is written there is true -and from God -but that does not mean it is not true -or not from God.

We can imagine what we will, but only one set of things actually are true and actually happened.

 

[Etritonakin]

None of that is credible historical evidence.

It is history written beforehand. It is perfectly credible.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No.

Could you provide an example of a story?

meanwhile, I will try to post an example if I have time

World War Z