Disprove God

[Eponymic]

Just because I'm not educated in a certain theory does not mean that my proof in God is shattered.  There is information on both sides of the arguement.  One side says they have proof in evolution and so there is no need for a "God."  The other side, however, says there is not enough valid evidence supporting evolution.  So which side is correct?

 

Who says you have to be on a side? Maybe something in the middle is correct. Here's the one fact that stands right now- we don't have enough evidence, proof on either side to say conclusively. So the question becomes, since you don't have conclusive proof, how can you believe in a faith that requires you do believe conclusively in a particular religious dogma?

 

Either way, you said it yourself, there's not enough proof on either side. So why not just have an idea of what you think is right (which would be deism not Christianity) and set your morals & life guidelines by an open-minded, positive, and worldly standard.

 

 

Is it possible that God used evolution to create mankind?  I have no idea because, one, I am not educated in that area, and two, I don't know the mind of God, assuming there is a God.  So you and whoever else can give me all of the "evidence" you want in disproving God, if that is your intent,  but it still won't be 100% guaranteed.  I can sit here and give you all the proof I have into why the bible is true, why there really was such a person as Jesus, and why the ressurrection is true.  You still will refute it because you don't want to believe it.

 

And there it is. You've been fronting like you want to discuss just the concept of God, but when things start to get involved, in comes Mr. Jesus & pals.

NO, no one can give you great evidence either way on the exact facts of evolution or creation of the universe. YES, we can give you a plethora of evidence regarding the fallibility, contradictory, interpolated, and plagurized nature of the Bible.

 

In my opionion, a lot of people believe in things such as evolution to avoid believing in God.  I can make the same arguement by saying those people are ignorant.  Those people who call me ignorant do so in accordance with what they believe in, why can't I do the same thing?

 

You are putting people into to big of boxes, and seem to be totally ignoring all the people who have been touting deism to you so far. There are plenty of people here who believe in evolution and God, just not the biblical God. And that's because we have plenty of evidence against Biblical god, but not enough substantial evidence to disprove the notion of a God creator in principal.

[Asimov]

Just because I'm not educated in a certain theory does not mean that my proof in God is shattered.

 

 

Buddy, your entire argument was based on either Cosmology or Evolution, those sciences are two things you don't understand. You admit it to be so.

 

You have no basis for saying that it is proof of God if you don't even understand the universe you live in.

[Asimov]

I still say there's no use talking about this subject at all until dario here defines what exactly he/she means by "God" in the first place.  For all I know, "God" could be dario's name for Mookie Wilson and he certainly does exist.

 

 

I know, I'm trying to get him to do that as well...he doesn't seem to want to.

[dario]

You are putting people into to big of boxes, and seem to be totally ignoring all the people who have been touting deism to you so far. There are plenty of people here who believe in evolution and God, just not the biblical God. And that's because we have plenty of evidence against Biblical god, but not enough substantial evidence to disprove the notion of a God creator in principal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Ok, I realize that I have been talking to a lot of people who believe in a God. There were some people who said they did not believe in a God and that's who I was mostly communicating to. If it is ok with everyone here, I would like to change gears to a different subject, but one, that has been hinted to.

 

"And that's because we have plenty of evidence against Biblical god" -eponymic

 

Ok, so most of you believe in a God, but not the "biblical god." What evidence, which you said you have, can you give me to disprove the bible god? If you think this is just my agenda to witness to you then don't bother answering the question. I want people to answer that say they have evidence against Christianity and its God.

[Asimov]

Ok, so most of you believe in a God, but not the "biblical god."  What evidence, which you said you have, can you give me to disprove the bible god?  If you think this is just my agenda to witness to you then don't bother answering the question.  I want people to answer that say they have evidence against Christianity and its God.

 

 

Define the Christian God please....

[Pariah]

Dario, you keep redefining the arguement every few posts. Is this so that you can escape having to actually defend your views? I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt here but you seem to be using pretty dishonest methods to debate with us.

 

Define the Christian God please....

 

Yes, before we can disprove the Christian God we have to know which version of him you believe in, Dario.

 

Ok, so most of you believe in a God, but not the "biblical god." What evidence, which you said you have, can you give me to disprove the bible god?

 

Well, there are many reasons, which, again, we can get into once you define your God. For starters, though, have you read any of the articles and exchristian testimonies on this site?

[chefranden]

God is defined in the Bible...yes, it takes that much to define a single being as it would to define maybe even you! 

 

In Christ,

 

LoT

 

The bible is hardly a definition.

 

Nevertheless it would be helpful if you were to inform us as to which god of the bible you are referring to, as I'm sure you know there are several.

 

Would it be Lutheran God, Orthodox God, Morman God, Fire Baptized Holyness God, Jewish Reformed God, Jehovah Witness God, Catholic God, Coptic God, Pat Roberson God, Bishop Shelby Spong God, Jewish Orthodox God... and so on and on. Just be a little more specific then I will be able to disprove it for you.

[Asimov]

The bible is hardly a definition.

 

Nevertheless it would be helpful if you were to inform us as to which god of the bible you are referring to, as I'm sure you know there are several.

 

Would it be Lutheran God, Orthodox God, Morman God, Fire Baptized Holyness God, Jewish Reformed God, Jehovah Witness God, Catholic God, Coptic God, Pat Roberson God, Bishop Shelby Spong God, Jewish Orthodox God... and so on and on.  Just be a little more specific then I will be able to disprove it for you.

 

Chef, aside from that not being dario who said that, I'd like to point out that even stating names isn't a good definition...he needs to provide primary, secondary, and tertiary characteristics in order to define something.

[chefranden]

Perhaps you need to open your heart and mind to God.  Reading the Bible reveals the Truth about His Love and His Sacrifice for the ones who prostrate themselves before Him in humble repentance.  It is but a signpost to the Truth.

 

I suppose that you missed the part where the site is labled Ex-Christian? Perhaps we have already done that.

[Asimov]

I suppose that you missed the part where the site is labled Ex-Christian?  Perhaps we have already done that.

 

Chef...anything by Light of Truth is made up by me.

[chefranden]

Hell is created for those who outright reject God even though they have direct knowledge of God's existence.  We, who must operate on faith, do not have direct knowledge, but must use Faith in God as our Guide in life.

 

How is this different from "We, who must pretend there is a God and it is the god of the bible because we do not have direct knowledge, but must pretend God as our Guide in life?

[chefranden]

This life is but a blink of an eye and a pinprick of pain compared to the glorious existence of paradise.

 

Well so you say. But that doesn't make it so.

[chefranden]

Well, then I guess you'd see my pooper...that is, if you looked, pervert.

 

[Amethyst]

say every society has rules of behavior, but where did the rules come from? You say behavior is either genetic or learned. Where did this originally come from?

 

Okay. Let's say that once upon a time there were two cave men. For the basis of discussion, we'll call one "Ugh" and the other "Ook."

 

One bright sunny day, Ugh looked at Ook across the cave and thought Ook was pretty ugly. Not to mention, Ook stunk up the cave a lot. But Ook was a good hunter and often brought fresh killed mammoth meat in (or something).

 

Ook also had a beautiful (relatively speaking) wife named Eek. Eek was good at gathering herbs and making hides for them to protect themselves from the harsh elements.

 

Ugh thought Eek looked pretty damn good, but Ugh wasn't about to harm Eek because he liked the mushrooms she found. Not to mention, he was afraid of Ook because Ook was bigger and stronger than he was. But he knew that Ook wouldn't hurt him because he was the only one who knew how to light the campfire every night to keep the wolves (or whatever) away. Also, Ugh was pretty good at making tools for them to use out of the sticks and stones nearby.

 

Do you understand what I am trying to say? Societies survive because of cooperation. We consider some things good and some things bad because they are necessary for our survival as a species.

 

Now, let's take this into a little more detail.

 

One day, Ook saw the sun shining. The sun looked like it was smiling at him through a cloud, so Ook waved. "Grunt. Sun good. Must do something nice for sun. Me hunt great beast for sun, surely sun will like that."

 

So Ook went out and slayed a bison, and brought the meat back. He thought he saw the sun smiling more. "Sun like meat. (Grunt) Meat good. Sun good."

 

Then Ook went into the cave and shared the bison meat with his friends. "Sun likes bison. We should hunt bison for sun."

 

Ugh grunted. "Sun too hot. No like sun."

 

"Sun good," Eek said. "We hunt more. Maybe sun shine all the time then."

 

Ugh grunted again. "Don't care. Want more meat."

 

So by general consensus, the first sun-worshipping cult was born. And it eventually evolved into the various religions worshipped around the world today.

 

Okay, I'm not saying it happened *exactly* that way, but I'm sure the circumstances were pretty darn similar.

[chefranden]

I interpret the bible the way I feel it should be interpreted.  I believe the Bible is true, but not all of it is literally true.  Part of learning things is to see if they are consistent with reality.  Since the Flood did not happen, and is not evidenced in any way on Earth, then we must take it on faith that it is an allegory.

 

Shouldn't you interpret the bible the way God feels it should be interpreted?

[Mr. Neil]

Just because I'm not educated in a certain theory does not mean that my proof in God is shattered.  There is information on both sides of the arguement.  One side says they have proof in evolution and so there is no need for a "God."  The other side, however, says there is not enough valid evidence supporting evolution.  So which side is correct?  Is it possible that God used evolution to create mankind?  I have no idea because, one, I am not educated in that area, and two, I don't know the mind of God, assuming there is a God.

What are you talking about? Knowing the mind of God is irrelevent. Of course it's possible that God could use evolution. There's no reason that he couldn't.

 

 

So you and whoever else can give me all of the "evidence" you want in disproving God, if that is your intent,  but it still won't be 100% guaranteed.  I can sit here and give you all the proof I have into why the bible is true, why there really was such a person as Jesus, and why the ressurrection is true.

Well, if that's your position, then you're already lost, because the Bible is irrecoverably errant. See here and here. This is not a matter of opinion. This is actually quite demonstratable.

 

For example, the Messiah was supposed to have been the descendant of King David through a lineage of male progenetors, and yet Jesus is born of a virgin. I'm sorry, but you're worshipping the wrong guy. See for yourself.

 

You should also get your hands on this video.

 

 

You still will refute it because you don't want to believe it.  In my opionion, a lot of people believe in things such as evolution to avoid believing in God.  I can make the same arguement by saying those people are ignorant.  Those people who call me ignorant do so in accordance with what they believe in, why can't I do the same thing?

Because you're sadly mistaken.

 

Acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, I accepted evolution as a scientific truth long before I became an atheist, because evolution has all of the evidence. Molecular evidence, fossil evidence, morphological evidence, etc. In some cases, such as that of endogenous retroviruses, you have to be deliberately obtuse to ignore the evidence.

 

Evolution is not an anti-God philosophy. It's a well-supported scientific theory, and it's not at all an exaggeration to say that if you don't agree with evolution, then you don't agree with the scientific method.

 

What led me away from God was the connundrum of existence, because whether there is or isn't a God, something uncreated still exists, so I kept running into the problem where no matter what argument there was for God, it would always end up being special pleading. There wasn't one excuse I could make for God that couldn't also be true of matter and energy.

 

Divine creation is extra, unnecessary, and has no explanatory power whatsoever. It's just worthless conjecture that people say instead of "I don't know".

[Ro-bear]

Shouldn't you interpret the bible the way God feels it should be interpreted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dang, chef; we've been trying to tell you that Light of Truth is Asimov. No point dissecting those posts. Asimov pulled a fast one.

 

I have to confess I was starting to like LoT. I thought to myself, "This is one plucky little Christian." I admire pluck.

[Lunar Shadow]

Thanks for the movie recomend Neil I will definatly be checking it out

[bob]

I am in the process of studying that "proof" and seeing if it is legitimate.  But let me tell you this, so everyone knows where I am at.  I have faith that I will find out the truth and my faith will not be shaken.  Whatever evidence I find will only strenghten my faith.  Your questions only strenghten my faith because they challenge me to seek.  If nothing else kept me going, faith would.  I live by faith, and hopefully, my works show it.

These statements tell us one thing dario: You will believe what you believe regardless of the evidence. You will discard any "proof" that goes against what you believe, and you will cling to any "proof" that supports your beliefs.

 

I am an atheist. I have no belief in any god. I am open to the possibility that there may be a "god", but I will not believe based on the words in a 2,000 year old book. I am a seeker of truth, not propaganda.

 

You are a christian. You believe in the god of the bible. You are not open to the possibility that there may not be a "god" (based on your statements above) and you believe simply because of the words in a 2,000 year old book. You are not a seeker of truth, because you believe you already have the truth.

 

Friend, it is that simple.

Please have the integrity to admit this: You believe because you want to believe, not because of any evidence or "proof".

[Asimov]

Dang, chef; we've been trying to tell you that Light of Truth is Asimov. No point dissecting those posts. Asimov pulled a fast one.

 

I have to confess I was starting to like LoT. I thought to myself, "This is one plucky little Christian." I admire pluck.

 

Hey, I'M plucky. I poured my heart and soul into that character...he had a slightly rough upbringing, with two older brothers! Always the outcast of the group, he poured his heart and soul into Jesus and converted at the age of 15!

 

Heart of a champion...*sniff*

[Ro-bear]

Hey, I'M plucky.  I poured my heart and soul into that character...he had a slightly rough upbringing, with two older brothers!  Always the outcast of the group, he poured his heart and soul into Jesus and converted at the age of 15!

 

Heart of a champion...*sniff*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Mr. Neil]

Thanks for the movie recomend Neil I will definatly be checking it out

Not to get too far off topic, but that's a fantastic movie (The God Who Wasn't There). It's only a little over an hour long, but it's got two commentary tracks which aren't really commentary at all. It's actually Flemming interviewing other atheists, and there's an additional hour of extended interviews in the extras section. In all, there are about four hours of unique audio.

 

If you're a Christian and can still walk away form that movie a believer, you're really trying hard to kid yourself. I dare all Christians who visit this forum to buy that movie.

[Eponymic]

Ok, so most of you believe in a God, but not the "biblical god."  What evidence, which you said you have, can you give me to disprove the bible god?  If you think this is just my agenda to witness to you then don't bother answering the question.  I want people to answer that say they have evidence against Christianity and its God.

 

Here's a few tid bits of sources for you:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...radictions.html

 

 

http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm

 

If you wanna really start going down the massive rabbit hole of truth, try these books:

 

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Achyra S.

Ken's Guide to the Bible [Paperback] by Smith, Ken

The Dark Side of Christian History [Paperback] by Ellerbe, Helen

 

That's just a small bit of the sources out there documenting the many flaws & lies involved with the Bible and the Christian religion.

 

Have fun.

[Amethyst]

Mark 16

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

 

Gee, I guess all the Christian survivors of Hurricane Katrina don't need to worry about snakebites or toxic waste in the water then, do they?

 

 

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could believe in a god who could do that to people for no apparent reason, other than they obviously werent't Real True Christians . If that is "all part of god's plan" I want to know what sort of plan justifies mass murder.

 

 

I mean, really. If you could cure all the diseases in the world but only save like, two people (a man and a woman in order to carry on the species), and you'd have to murder everyone else to do it, would that make it ethical? IMHO, no.

[Mr. Neil]

Mark 16

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

I once asked Paul Manata if he believed that one line in Psalms that says atheists can do no good. He said yes. I see now that I should have asked him about this verse. I would love to see the looks on the faces of guys like Paul, Jason Gastrich, Jimmy Swaggart, and Peter Poppoff if anyone actually challenged them to drink poison to show that it does them no harm.

 

Now I don't want to see them drink the poison. I'm not that morbid. I'd be ready to smack the bottles out of their hands if any of them found the courage to actually drink poison. "JASON! NO!"

 

You just know that he'd be the one, too.