How to prove God does not exist?

by UBM101 111 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  adamah

  bohn said-

  Trying to strongly delimeter strongly between theories, hypothesis and ideas is in my oppinion best left to the philosophers of science. Is string theory for instance a theory? Is heliocentricity a theory? Is a theory without sharp numeric predictions (like early evolutionary theory) a theory?

  One good reason is a failure to do so creates a 'false equivalency' in the minds of believers, where they actually believe the nonsense arguments of those who say stuff like, "kids should get a chance to see BOTH SIDES of the scientitic issue of Intelligent Design vs Darwin's Evolution, since they're BOTH theories".

  Uh, NO, they're NOT, but the renaming of creationism to 'Intelligent Design' was merely an attempt to introduce religion into the school system by dressing it up as if it were a scientific 'theory', when it's not (it lacks supportive evidence, and instead has been disproven as a hypothesis with MOUNTAINS of counter-evidence).

  Adam
• 

  tec

  Adam, love... you don't know what faith IS... to be able to state that i am displaying a lack of it. Why would you, a person who does not HAVE faith, think that he could describe to a person who DOES have faith (all based on your interpretation of one line in the bible that you also claim is disproven)... what faith is, and that their description of what they have, is flawed? Does that make any sense at all?

  And yes, things that people have believed (and do believe) about God can be disproved. So that some things written in the bible 'about' God, due to the misunderstandings of the people (and/or scribes), can be shown as being false. But that is not the same as disproving God.

  I might misunderstand my own mother... that does not mean she does not exist.

  (my thought on the double standard about proof stands... but I'm not sure that it was meant for you)

  (And Xians simply "move the goalposts" by relocating God and Heaven conveniently just outside of the range of the most powerful telescopes as they are invented.)

  LOl... I don't.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  bohm

  adamah:

  One good reason is a failure to do so creates a 'false equivalency' in the minds of believers, where they actually believe the nonsense arguments of those who say stuff like, "kids should get a chance to see BOTH SIDES of the scientitic issue of Intelligent Design vs Darwin's Evolution, since they're BOTH theories".

  ...and the problem with focusing strongly on whether creationism is a theory is (a) who get to say what a theory is? how does one figure out if one have the right definition? what scientific evidence would you use to convince a person he had the wrong definition? If string theory is not a theory according to some definitions, how come it is taught in universities? (b) what matter is the degree to which the idea is true or not (c) only evidence is going to convince a person anyway.

  In my oppinion, the primary reason creationism should not be taught in schools is because it is false.

  By the way, creationism is not a scientific theory according to my labelling system.
• 

  cantleave

  Intelligent design has as much scientific credibility as homeopathy or spontaneous human combustion, and requires the same level of ignorance from its beleivers.
• 

  Theredeemer

  Tammy, faith can easily be described by an atheist.

  faith n.

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs. Also, no one claims that your mother is an ominpotent deity. So misunderstandings can be allowed. Blaming the scribes/people for the "misunderstanding" is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. Adamah's goal is to prove that the bible is not a credible source to prove the existence of God because of XYZ you "move the goalpost" by saying that its the scribes fault. Supposedly: GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!! HE TOLD THEM WHAT TO WRITE!! As he watched his scribes write down thier misunderstandings why not say "Whoa! Hey dude, thats not what I meant!" or "Hey bro! You better change that! Its making me look like an a-hole!!". Instead, he thought "eh...whatever. They will get the jist. They will believe anything anyway. Am I right? Heh Heh..YOLO!!". I imagine God talking like this because he kind of sounds like a douche.
• 

  Qcmbr

  I have yet to find anyone able to describe a god in any way remotely superior to mankind and more tellingly as anything other than physical - I will deal with both seperately below.

  All gods described by human language, poetry, art, religious writing, thought and all other communication (i.e. the mind is the ONLY place where gods are described since the environment does not bear any recognised signature or message from of any deity) can easily be superceded by another thought process (Zeus loses to Xenu) and be outwitted by logical and rational enquiry (Christ loses to Gervais).

  It does not take me long to dismiss the standards of OT bible god who happily allows murder (Jericho), causes genocide (flood), accepts slavery, encourages animal sacrifice and shows very human passions such as jealousy and anger. There are plenty of times when I (a rather unremarkable specimen and very average human) show far higher levels of moral reasoning and action. This is repeatable for all gods who by their lack of interaction with the world make no case for either their existence orteh possession of powers bestowed upon them by their believers. We have plenty of xians on this board absolutely convined their Christ can heal amputees despite there being no evidence of this ever occurring (in short they are making up a quality of their idol which is not suggested by reality.) Despite obvious evidence to the contrary they will continue to speak in universal terms ('if you just pray right and accept him he will answer you'). They at once make their god answer to their commands (how dare they make promises on behalf of this super being) and then use sophistry to ignore the failure of their god to make good on promises they made up for them. In short the only evidence for each and every god is the communication of very unreliable individuals most suffering demonstrable brainwashing,occassional illness and/or lack of critical thinking skills.

  The old physical evidences for supernatural beings (lightning for example) have been found to be purely physical processes with no hint of supernatural direction or will. There are plenty of questions for which we do not have physical explanations for yet but so far we have been able to retire many previously impressive proofs of supernatural activity by simple natural laws (including proofs attributed to the Christian God such as the rainbow.) All things currently attributed to gods seem very trivial now as each gap closes (for example positing that god is the source of emotions such as love is rather childish and shows a complete lack of understanding behind the physiology, biology and chemistry that underpin emotional states.) Gods have been shown to have no influence over the weather (we never see a raincloud raining purely upon the head of one person as per movie cliche for example), the position of the sun (we can track its unerring position over millions of years and its relationship with its planets), plant life (crops grow according to well understood cycles, genetics, insect influences and nutrient availabilities) , the hydrological cycle(clearly prayer is no more able to evaporate water in one area and move it to another than Indian rain dances) and so on. The likelihood of a currently unexplained phenomenon requiring a divine causitive effect is diminishing with every discovery and is not predicted by any scientific model.

  Science has no case to answer because the faithful are unable to make a case. Philosophy and discussion yes but nothing beyond this; no mountain, no storm, no child, no star is currently best explained by some invisible being.
• 

  tec

  I'm sorry Adamah. Peace to you!

  I should have said this above to you instead, "why would you, a person who professes NOT to have faith..."

  May you one day have faith, and profess such faith, so as to understand and hear, and also "Come... and take the free gift of the water of life!"

  (which life is holy spirit that comes free, through Christ)

  Peace to you,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  May you one day have faith

  Translated as - May you mind atrophy. My you give up in your search for knowledge and discovery. May you learn to suppress your powers of reason and become a slave to your wishes and emotions.
• 

  tec

  Tammy, faith can easily be described by an atheist.

  I did not say that it couldn't be... but I have not seen it done so, myself. And it is kind of silly for someone who does not (yet) have faith... to correct someone who does have faith, on what faith is, isn't it?

  faith n.

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

  These are all ways to describe various uses of the word, faith... yes.

  Note that none actually state what faith is based upon... or that it is not based upon nothing (or against evidence).

  (As Adamah stated above)

  Also, no one claims that your mother is an ominpotent deity. So misunderstandings can be allowed.

  Why does that make a difference? You think people cannot misunderstand God... or abuse his name, by getting others to believe false things about Him and do false things IN His name?

  Blaming the scribes/people for the "misunderstanding" is a perfect example of moving the goalposts.

  Actually those goalposts are already set. It is right there in the bible... both in the OT (Jeremiah 8:8... how can you say, 'we are wise, for we have the law of the LORD', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handed it falsely?) And also by Christ... "woe to you, scribes and pharisees!"

  Adamah's goal is to prove that the bible is not a credible source to prove the existence of God because of XYZ you "move the goalpost" by saying that its the scribes fault.

  See above.

  Supposedly: GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!! HE TOLD THEM WHAT TO WRITE!!

  Well... supposedly is not DID. But also... scribes are those who later re-write, and in so doing... add to or take away from what was originally GIVEN. Revelation has a warning at the end that none add to or take away from the words of this book (the book of revelation), for a reason. Because scribes HAVE done that.

  As he watched his scribes write down thier misunderstandings why not say "Whoa! Hey dude, thats not what I meant!" or "Hey bro! You better change that! Its making me look like an a-hole!!". Instead, he thought "eh...whatever. They will get the jist. They will believe anything anyway. Am I right? Heh Heh..YOLO!!". I imagine God talking like this because he kind of sounds like a douche.

  See above.

  Peace to you!

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Translated as - May you mind atrophy. My you give up in your search for knowledge and discovery. May you learn to suppress your powers of reason and become a slave to your wishes and emotions.

  You don't know (or you pretend not to know) enough about me so as to translate my words, or the words of my Lord when I share those.

  Peace,

  tammy