Spenser

This thread is a joke unless you give it a little more meaning. I get the feeling you are looking to demand proof that God doesn't exist over and over again just so you can raise your hands in victory while leaving here saying "Atheist's couldn't provide a scrap of evidence that God doesn't exist, I knew it!!!!"

I hope that's not the case, otherwise your presence here is pointless. You must define what it is you want us to disprove. God can be a lot of things to a lot of different people. Would you describe him as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personable, omnipresent, grey haired, smurf loving, what? You tell us which God you want disproved and we can make the attempt. I am more than willing to admit that I cannot disprove the God of Deism, yet am also more than willing to give reason for non-belief in such a being anyway. I can easily say that you cannot disprove a 3 Testicled Abhordianathonamum actually created the universe with the help of Aferfa. Would you seriously be willing to debate such an idea with out me providing meaning to those words? :banghead:

And personally I dislike your casual dismissal of over 1000 proposed biblical contradictions as 'basic, misconstrued, FALSE rubbish'. Your assertion is arrogant and pathetically unsubstantiated, it's a 'because I said so' type of remark that you wish us to swallow. The reason Xianity has so many sects has a lot to do with such contradictions and the various interpretations made from them, though I suppose you are willing to make the claim that all other forms of Xianity aside from your own are bogus....

Please, step up to the plate and define what it is you wish us to disprove.

penumbra

posted by SOTC Well, let’s see what the old dictionary says:

“Plausible” – having an appearance of truth or reason, credible

“Faith” – belief that is not based on proof or reason

Your belief in Christian Bible inerrancy appears to be based primarily on “faith”. Absent that magical “faith”, I see no logical way to determine that that one particular collection of myths and legends (many of which are of uncertain origin or authorship) is any more “inerrant” or historically accurate than The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Legend of Gilgamesh, The Quran, The Book of Mormon, or any other of several hundred such texts.

You earlier mentioned “perceived” contradictions. Can we assume then that your position is that the Bible only becomes “inerrant” when one properly interprets the words, as opposed to reading them literally? I.e., one must apply certain pre-determined theological filters or interpretations (based on faith) to get to the real “truth”? Couldn’t a similar case be made for all those other texts?

Wayne Delia

Jack the Bodiless already asked "Which God?" which is a very appropriate question. From your user name, I'll assume it's the God of Christianity, probably Catholicism.

This disproof of God's existence is based on the assumption that the three verses in the Bible (used as premises here in this argument) can be taken as true. If they're not, then it opens up a whole 'nother Pandora's Box which essentially undercuts just about all of the authority of Christianity. You've identified yourself as an inerrantist, so I presume you don't have a problem with assuming Bible verses are true.

First premise: 1 John 4:8, "God is love."
Second premise: 1 Corinthians 13:4, "Love is not envious (jealous)."
Third premise: Exodus 20:5, "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."

Such a God cannot logically exist.

WMD

Leviathan

Interesting. Identify the "evidence," for me if you would be so kind, to show to me beyond a "reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.

It is shocking to me, the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. I have never understood it, and truly believed that a true religious skeptic would have to be agnostic, one who would claim they neither know, nor do not know, whether God exists.

So, I'll be waiting for such evidence. Thank you.

Jack the Bodiless

I will ask you the same question: WHICH God?

Wayne Delia has just presented rock-solid Biblical proof that the God of Biblical inerrantists does not exist. There is plenty more: many hundreds of direct logical contradictions throughout the Bible. Plus historical and scientific errors aplenty. You've already been directed to a very comprehensive list, at www.skepticsannotatedbible.com - the scientific errors will take more time to explain, but that's why we have an Evolution/Creation forum and why sites such as www.talkorigins.org exist.

But, contrary to what many theists apparently believe about us, we atheists do NOT claim to be able to "prove" whether or not some sort of fuzzily-defined "higher power" exists. We are atheists in the same sense that you are, presumably, an aleprechaunist. We do not believe, due to insufficient evidence and the basic absurdity of the proposition. Actual proof of nonexistence is not necessary.

Or can you prove that leprechauns either do, or do not, exist? I await your evidence.

Theli

It's not as if it's the first time this happens, either. Too often some "person" who is obviously enraged by people dissagreeing comes by this board and starts yelling, often demanding evidence for this or that, never considering the response. Might as well just joke it off and wait for Jobar or someone to toss it over to ~Elsewhere~.

Leviathan

Perhaps you're missing my point. Asking you, whom I presume to be a believer that God does not exist, "beyond a reasonable doubt," to prove to me, a skeptic of such an argument, is not stating that I can prove God exists "beyond a reasonable doubt." Asking you to prove one side of an argument does not mean I am burdened with proving the converse. I'm only inquiring into why you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that God *doesn't* exist. I will openly admit I cannot prove to you God does exist: the five senses cannot do it.

This is very interesting. So if I understand your position, you believe the aforementioned bolded statement says that you do not believe you can "prove" God doesn't exist, yet you have sighted in your preceeding paragraph "evidence" which disproves God's existance? Which way is it?

My understanding of atheism is that it denies the existance of God. Period. Look at the definition of the word: my understanding is that simply putting an "a" in front of the word theism is to simply define the word as "without theism." Thus, you are denying the existence of that which theists believe, am I correct or not?

I'm also puzzled as to the statement, "Actual proof of nonexistence is not necessary." To the contrary, I believe such evidence *is* needed, *if* you are going to claim you can prove God doesn't exist "beyond any reasonable doubt."

If you're not claiming the aforementioned, fine, then my inquiry is at an end, and I thank you for your discourse. If you are claiming that, then please elaborate on just how your evidence, based on the five senses and the incomplete, imperfect human mind, could disprove a higher power.

Jack the Bodiless

Leviathan:

Please clarify your stance regarding the existence of leprechauns.

Do you believe it is reasonable to say "I don't believe in leprechauns"? Would you normally accept "Leprechauns don't exist" as a reasonable statement for a non-believer in leprechauns (an aleprechaunist) to make?

If so, then what are you arguing about?

The nonexistence of the BIBLICAL God is a separate issue, and too big to summarize easily. Are you a Young-Earth Creationist? Do you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old and was subjected to a catastrophic worldwide flood in 2,300 BC or thereabouts? Do you believe that we all used the same language until the Babel incident about two centuries after that, and hence ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Chinese records are forgeries?

If so, why do you believe this?

If not, you agree with me. So what's this about?

Jack the Bodiless

SignOfThe Cross:

I'd like to explore this a little further.

From Contradiction 34, Are we punished for the sins of others?

Yes. The iniquity of fathers shall be visited upon their children

No. Each person shall be responsible for himself alone

...Now, how is this "basic, misconstrued, FALSE rubbish"?

Is it false that the Bible actually says these things?

Is it false that these verses contradict each other?

The punishment of innocents for the sins of others is a central and recurrent theme of Christianity, from the punishment of everyone for the sins of Adam and Eve, through the punishment of infants and animals in the Flood and the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn, right through to the punishment of Jesus "for our sins". Given all this, it seems that your best way out is to say that the punishment of innocents for the sins of others is Biblical, right and proper, and the contrary verses indicate only special exceptions.

Is this your position?

If so, do you admit that God is unjust? If not: do you actually understand what the word "justice" means: how it is defined, how it must inevitably involve linking the fate of a person to the actions of that person?

Have you actually thought about any of this at all?

When you have, we can move on to Bible class. Chapter of the day: Numbers 31. Highlights: Moses commanding the slaughter of children, the taking of virgins as war booty, and human sacrifice of 32 of those virgins to God. Explain what "omnibenevolent" means. Also "loving", "merciful" etc.

Melange_Thief

I don't think you got it. Go back and read his post. He only said that the God of Bible inerrantists is falsified.

True, atheists do NOT believe in a god or gods. But, as Jack the Bodiless said, it is because of insufficient evidence.

Evidence is needed to disprove a god. A lack of credible evidence is required to reasonably say that a god is unproven. Currently, such an evidence-vacuum does exist.