If it could be proved no god exists

[PruePhillip]

Don't forget the Biblical god character got an unmarried girl pregnant even though she was betrothed to a human. Jesus liked his drink, he made sure it didn't run out at that wedding party.

Drink was never the problem - it was the excess.
Sex wasn't the problem - it's to whom and when

As for that Joseph thing - it's interesting that the
Pharisees apparently heard the "virgin Mary"
story, though Jesus is not recorded as having
mentioned it. It clearly was one more thing to
mock Jesus about. Jesus didn't answer their
point.

 

[JJ50]

Drink was never the problem - it was the excess.
Sex wasn't the problem - it's to whom and when

As for that Joseph thing - it's interesting that the
Pharisees apparently heard the "virgin Mary"
story, though Jesus is not recorded as having
mentioned it. It clearly was one more thing to
mock Jesus about. Jesus didn't answer their
point.

There is nothing wrong with sex in a consensual adult relationship, as long as you are not cheating on your partner.

How did god get Mary pregnant without having sex with her, IVF hadn't been invented? In those days you could only get pregnant by having sex, the virgin birth story is rubbish.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@A Vestigial Mote
@TagliatelliMonster
@QuestioningMind

FOR MANY OF those who do not believe in God and ask this question if God exist, they insist that this question be answered according to their own standard which means you have to show them only “evidences” they wanted to see and dismiss otherwise. Because they already set their mind to accept only evidences they wanted to see, they insist to show to them only those they want, and will easily dismiss otherwise.


“SHOW ME YOUR GOD”

“Show me your God?” This what many of those who don’t believe in God wanted in order for them to believe that God truly exists. However, the Bible explicitly tells us that God is spirit:

“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 NKJV)

Because God is spirit, we cannot see Him or God is invisible:

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17 NKJV)

It is a fact that not because we cannot see it, it means it does not exist. Like air, atom, electricity and many else, these are not visible, but it does not mean that they do not exist. “Life” itself cannot be seen, heard or touched, but there are proofs or evidences that “life” truly exists.



It is ridiculous that a person insists to show him “life” itself or else he will not believe it exists. A living thing grows, moves and many else that proves that it has life. What do you of a person that after you show him other evidences that life truly exists but immediately dismiss these evidences and still insists to show him life itself or else he will not believe that it exists?



Thus, we must not insist to “show God” for He is an invisible spirit. However, although we cannot see God Himself, but it does not mean that He does not exists.


“PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PLEASE”

Others demand for “physical” or “material” evidence. However, because God is spirit, He is not only invisible, but He has no flesh and bones:

“And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24:38-39 NKJV)

If we cannot show you any physical or material evidence to prove that God exists, you will easily conclude that God does not exist? Then, you must also dismiss the “Big Bang theory” because there are no physical or material evidence to prove that it really occurred. Others might point to the elements in the universe, the stars, the planets and others as material evidences for the Big Bang theory. However, existence of the elements, suns and others does not follow that these were created through the “Big Bang.” No direct evidence that one can show that these are created through the Big Bang. Also take note, “missing link” in the so-called “evolution of man” means lack of material of physical evidences.



My point is, why insisting for physical or material evidences or else you will not believe that God exists? Lacking or having no material or physical evidences is not sufficient to conclude that God does not exist because there are other evidences that can prove that God truly exists, unless you are ridiculous enough having already set your mind to accept only those evidences you want to see and dismiss otherwise.



“SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”?

Proving through experimentation? However, how can we experiment God? Because of this, can we conclude that God does not exist? If so, why hang on “evolution”? Evolution cannot also be proven through experimentation.

Concerning God, the Book of Job rhetorically asks, thus:

“Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than heaven-what can you do? Deeper than Sheol-what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea.” (Job 11:7-9 NKJV)

New Living Translation renders the following verse as follows:

“Can you solve the mysteries of God? Can you discover everything about the Almighty? Such knowledge is higher than the heavens—and who are you? It is deeper than the underworld—what do you know? It is broader than the earth and wider than the sea.” (Job 11:7-9 NLT)


EVERYTHING WILL ONLY END
UP IN NON SEQUITUR

Many attempt to show evidences according to man’s standard to prove the existence of God, like the “designer and design” theory and other “scientific evidences,” but this only end up in “non sequitur” (it doesn’t follows).



However, the same is also with the other side. Not because there is a Big Bang it follows that there is no God. Not because there is evolution it follows that there is no God. Not because you can explain everything through science it follows that there is no God.



Everything will only end up in Non Sequitur, in an endless debate.



Thus, let us not attempt to prove the existence of God through man’s standard. Skeptics must open their mind and stop insisting to show to them evidences of the existence of God which they prefer and dismiss otherwise.





THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE
THAT GOD REALLY EXISTS

The strongest evidence that God truly exists is the words of God written in the Bible. We are certain that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and many more existed because their work survived.

Proving that the Bible is indeed the words of God proves that God really exists. There is no word of God if there is no God. If the Bible is the word of God, thus there is God who spoken those words. Why are we certain that the Bible is indeed the words of God?

I stopped watching the video when the guy said that man's arrogance has increased and reached such a point that some people now question God's very existence. The man is deluded. There have been nonbelievers toward every faith/religion/deity ever presented to humanity from the moment there were concepts of deity to disbelieve. And do you know why? Because with the complete lack of evidence, and believers so often turning to "it's just a feeling" or "you have to have faith" and expecting others to just believe along with them, IT ONLY MAKES SENSE NOT TO BELIEVE. Believing is what does not conform to sense.

Because they already set their mind to accept only evidences they wanted to see,

How about ANY evidence that is worth a damn? Have any of that kind? Because that is all I am asking for. And no... "The Bible" doesn't cut it. We can't know that The Bible is "God's word", because men wrote it! We can't know that they were inspired by God... we simply can't. How would you even begin to verify such a claim? And we're not even talking scientific inquiry here - we're just talking inquiry OF ANY KIND. We have no verifiable evidence to turn to in order to test that some other-worldly or supernatural source if the origin for the words written in The Bible. All we have is hearsay from other people. That's it. That's all you have. You say so... or your pastor says so... or the writer's of The Bible say so. ALL HEARSAY! And that's not good enough.

 

[ecco]

There's that "distinction" thing I mentioned before.
A good argument must handle the distinctions.

In Genesis there are TWO aspects to the creation account
1 - God created the heavens (meaning everything we see, feel, hear etc..)
2 - God created the earth and life (which is a natural process of the "heavens"
ie gravity, atoms, physical law etc..)

So you start off by making nonsense assumptions.

How do you justify stating that "the heavens" as written in the bible means "everything we see, feel, hear etc". Most people take "the heavens" as meaning the sky and the stars. No big mystery.

How do you justify stating that "the earth and life" is a natural process of the "heavens".
You make up silly stuff and expect people to agree with you. Nonsense.

It was a profound mystery to generations of bible reading people that "God
commanded the seas to bring forth life." Meaning, God didn't create life,
instead He :"commanded", and what "created" life was the physical laws
governing chemistry.

More made up stuff. On what do you base your assertion that anything "was a profound mystery to generations of bible reading people"? Do you have anything to support your assertion?

Most Bible-believing people, even today, understand:

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
​

Some take it literally, some take it as allegory. Who considers it a profound mystery?

 

[ecco]

Now, certain religious people pushed back against Darwin and his "little
warm pond." They were defending their beliefs, not the bible. In fact that
little warm pond, on land, was probably "how it happened" and indeed, the
bible says life came from land before the sea.

The Bible is a little confused about which came when. How is it that you don't you know that?

And that's why the churches opposed the idea of "biochemistry"
Life wasn't chemical, they said. But that's not what the bible says - it
says that life comes from the clay and from the dust of the earth.

Your point being?

 

[ecco]

“Show me your God?” This what many of those who don’t believe in God wanted in order for them to believe that God truly exists.

Who says that? I'm an atheist. I don't say show me your god.

Others demand for “physical” or “material” evidence.

Who demands that? I'm an atheist. I don't demand physical evidence for your god.

My point is, why insisting for physical or material evidences or else you will not believe that God exists?

Who does that? I'm an atheist. I don't do that.


Why do you have a need to make false comments about atheists?

 

[ecco]

The strongest evidence that God truly exists is the words of God written in the Bible. We are certain that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and many more existed because their work survived.

There are stories about Atlas and Thor and Athena and Jupitor and Akongo.

By your logic, these are all Real Gods. Why do you not accept them as Real Gods?

 

[ecco]

I did answer.

Let's try this one more time. How many of the "thousands of Christian Sects" believe there is more than one God?

Don't duck, don't dodge... just answer.

So, you have gone from ducking and dodging to building strawmen to hide behind.

Where did I say "many of the "thousands of Christian Sects" believe there is more than one God"? I didn't.

I said that there are differing views of the Christian god insofar as the trinity is concerned.

I'll recap...
Some believe in a trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Some do not. Some believe Jesus has always existed, some believe Jesus didn't exist until ~2000 years ago.


In addition to differing concepts of god, there are differing versions of the right ways to worship the god. Additionally, there are thousands of differing views on the parts of the bible that are real and those that are allegorical.

Do you really want to pretend that you believe that LDS and Jehova's Witnesses and Greek Orthodox and Catholics and Southern Baptists and Pentacostolists all share the same beliefs? It's 1000 different religions all sharing the name "Christians". In reality, they are as different as Muslims and Hindus.

When faced with dealing with atrocities committed by some Christians, other Christians, perhaps even you, have said: "The people who did those things are not Christians". You dismiss them from your religion just as you would claim that those atrocities were committed by Muslims, Hindus, or atheists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

@A Vestigial Mote
@TagliatelliMonster
@QuestioningMind

FOR MANY OF those who do not believe in God and ask this question if God exist, they insist that this question be answered according to their own standard which means you have to show them only “evidences” they wanted to see and dismiss otherwise. Because they already set their mind to accept only evidences they wanted to see, they insist to show to them only those they want, and will easily dismiss otherwise.


“SHOW ME YOUR GOD”

“Show me your God?” This what many of those who don’t believe in God wanted in order for them to believe that God truly exists. However, the Bible explicitly tells us that God is spirit:

“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 NKJV)

Because God is spirit, we cannot see Him or God is invisible:

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17 NKJV)

It is a fact that not because we cannot see it, it means it does not exist. Like air, atom, electricity and many else, these are not visible, but it does not mean that they do not exist. “Life” itself cannot be seen, heard or touched, but there are proofs or evidences that “life” truly exists.



It is ridiculous that a person insists to show him “life” itself or else he will not believe it exists. A living thing grows, moves and many else that proves that it has life. What do you of a person that after you show him other evidences that life truly exists but immediately dismiss these evidences and still insists to show him life itself or else he will not believe that it exists?



Thus, we must not insist to “show God” for He is an invisible spirit. However, although we cannot see God Himself, but it does not mean that He does not exists.


“PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PLEASE”

Others demand for “physical” or “material” evidence. However, because God is spirit, He is not only invisible, but He has no flesh and bones:

“And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24:38-39 NKJV)

If we cannot show you any physical or material evidence to prove that God exists, you will easily conclude that God does not exist? Then, you must also dismiss the “Big Bang theory” because there are no physical or material evidence to prove that it really occurred. Others might point to the elements in the universe, the stars, the planets and others as material evidences for the Big Bang theory. However, existence of the elements, suns and others does not follow that these were created through the “Big Bang.” No direct evidence that one can show that these are created through the Big Bang. Also take note, “missing link” in the so-called “evolution of man” means lack of material of physical evidences.



My point is, why insisting for physical or material evidences or else you will not believe that God exists? Lacking or having no material or physical evidences is not sufficient to conclude that God does not exist because there are other evidences that can prove that God truly exists, unless you are ridiculous enough having already set your mind to accept only those evidences you want to see and dismiss otherwise.



“SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”?

Proving through experimentation? However, how can we experiment God? Because of this, can we conclude that God does not exist? If so, why hang on “evolution”? Evolution cannot also be proven through experimentation.

Concerning God, the Book of Job rhetorically asks, thus:

“Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than heaven-what can you do? Deeper than Sheol-what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea.” (Job 11:7-9 NKJV)

New Living Translation renders the following verse as follows:

“Can you solve the mysteries of God? Can you discover everything about the Almighty? Such knowledge is higher than the heavens—and who are you? It is deeper than the underworld—what do you know? It is broader than the earth and wider than the sea.” (Job 11:7-9 NLT)


EVERYTHING WILL ONLY END
UP IN NON SEQUITUR

Many attempt to show evidences according to man’s standard to prove the existence of God, like the “designer and design” theory and other “scientific evidences,” but this only end up in “non sequitur” (it doesn’t follows).



However, the same is also with the other side. Not because there is a Big Bang it follows that there is no God. Not because there is evolution it follows that there is no God. Not because you can explain everything through science it follows that there is no God.



Everything will only end up in Non Sequitur, in an endless debate.



Thus, let us not attempt to prove the existence of God through man’s standard. Skeptics must open their mind and stop insisting to show to them evidences of the existence of God which they prefer and dismiss otherwise.





THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE
THAT GOD REALLY EXISTS

The strongest evidence that God truly exists is the words of God written in the Bible. We are certain that Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and many more existed because their work survived.

Proving that the Bible is indeed the words of God proves that God really exists. There is no word of God if there is no God. If the Bible is the word of God, thus there is God who spoken those words. Why are we certain that the Bible is indeed the words of God?

How sad. You wrote a small novel here, yet you STILL failed to address the simple question I asked. Is that why you don't respond to posters individually? Because then you might have to actually talk specifics, instead of making sweeping generalizations that don't even apply? I NEVER asked for evidence for your god. What I KEEP asking for is verifiable evidence for your unfounded assertion that at some point NOTHING existed.

But of course when your BEST argument is
The strongest evidence that God truly exists is the words of God written in the Bible.
The it's pretty obvious why you avoid any specifics. If your BEST evidence is a book written by who know who who knows when, then your evidence is pathetically week. IF you're going at accept THAT as evidence then surely the Hindu Vedas are sufficient evidence for you that Hinduism is true... and the Koran evidence that Islam is true, and the Book of Mormon is evidence that Mormonism is true... and of course the book Dianetics is evidence that Scientology is true. At least in the last two cases we actually know WHEN the books were written and by WHOM.

 

[ecco]

Not unless you can prove a negative.

Give me an example of a negative, and we'll see if it can be proven.

Are you referring to the fact that, since gods cannot be proven, they are negatives?

 

[ecco]

I did not say that I KNOW, I said I DEDUCED.

Yes.

You deduced. And then you went from there and made assertions. About something that you cannot know. That's arrogant.

You deduced using your puny human logic. Did you ever take the time to reflect that your human logic is completely worthless in trying to deduce what God does and does not want? No. You didn't. That's arrogant.

 

[ecco]

Actually that is more likely and I even found some verses that say that there is proof.

“Know thou of a certainty
<snip>
clear proof of Our claim.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 258

After all of our discussions, do you really think I am going to be impressed by the ramblings of your Bahá’u’lláh?

 

[ecco]

I don’t know what God wants, unless it was revealed by Baha’u’llah.

That you are impressed by the ramblings of an ex-Muslim is meaningless.

 

[ecco]

Adam did not disobey God; that is just a story in the Bible.

So, when God wrote Genesis and gave it to the people through the hands of another of your Messenger/Prophets, Moses, He lied to the people.

Perhaps the things that Ballulah said are just more of God lying again. If God lied to Messenger/Prophet Moses, there is no reason to believe He didn't lie to Messenger/Prophet Ballulah. You have no way of knowing.

 

[ecco]

Adam did not disobey God; that is just a story in the Bible.

But God knew that many people would believe that story was true and become Christians.

You should know that people did not become Christians based on Genesis. They became Christians based on stories in the NT. How is it that you do not understand such basic things about your religion? Why does an atheist have to educate you?

 

[ecco]

God also knew that in the 19th century He would send Baha’u’llah and that Baha’u’llah would straighten out all of the misconceptions and misinterpretations people have regarding the Bible.

God also knows that these misconceptions and misinterpretations will continue unabated until more people recognize Baha’u’llah.

How's that working out for you? There are twice as many LDS as there are Bahai in half the time.

 

[ecco]

There is nothing wrong with sex in a consensual adult relationship, as long as you are not cheating on your partner.

How did god get Mary pregnant without having sex with her, IVF hadn't been invented? In those days you could only get pregnant by having sex, the virgin birth story is rubbish.

The 1/3 of God also known as The Holy Ghost impregnated her in order to produce an earthly 1/3 of God.

There is some dispute about whether Jesus existed always or if He was created by the Ghostly rape. If He was created by the Ghostly rape then my opening comment should have been:

The 1/2 of God also known as The Holy Ghost, impregnated her in order to produce another segment of God thereby diminishing the original two halves to one-thirds.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree somewhat of what KenS said. Like what Nietzsche said about "god is dead." Because some believe in a god so much that their morality is based on the existence of god. There will be a lot of people that will fall into chaos and nihilism. It's evident by how so many people believe that if no god exist or that if god was to die tomorrow, chaos will follow. That's just reality. Although there may be chaos at first, eventually, humanity will bring order to the chaos. Humanity will evolve.

Since this is all hypothetical -- If it could be proved no god exists -- there is no way to know what would happen if that could be proven, but since many/most believers only pay lip service to God's Laws, I cannot see how it would make much difference in society. Morality comes from having a conscience and good character, not from religion. Belief does not make anyone a good person, not unless they actually follow the teachings and laws of their religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Give me an example of a negative, and we'll see if it can be proven.

Are you referring to the fact that, since gods cannot be proven, they are negatives?

No, I mean you cannot prove that God does not exist, but that does not mean that God does exist either:

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.

If you can’t, X exists.

Example #1:

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

Proving Non-Existence

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes.

You deduced. And then you went from there and made assertions. About something that you cannot know. That's arrogant.

It is not arrogant to deduce something as long as it is only an opinion. I was conjecturing, I was not making an assertion.

You deduced using your puny human logic. Did you ever take the time to reflect that your human logic is completely worthless in trying to deduce what God does and does not want? No. You didn't. That's arrogant.

You are right, of course human logic is completely worthless in trying to deduce what God does and does not want.

If you want, I welcome you to come to my forum and explain that to an atheist who thinks he knows what god would do if god existed, all based upon his puny human logic. This conversation has been going on now for over five years so I could use some help from a *rational atheist.*