Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Leviathan · 07-15-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

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

I'm afraid you once again misunderstand my argument. I don't agree with you, and your assumption that I either believe in a 6,000 year earth or agree with you is erroneous.

My argument, I would stipulate, has been simple and succintly presented to you. I neither accept the argument that God exists, beyond a reasonable doubt, nor that he doesn't exist. Thus, for me, any atheist that claims God does not exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, and believes they can *prove* this to me, well they're going to have a difficult time in persuading me of their argument. I believe your questions are not directly addressing what I'm inquiring of you.

Quote:

Originally asked by: Jack
Do you believe it is reasonable to say "I don't believe in leprechauns"?

Who's making the observation? How much of a propensity do they have to believe the absurd? How much Nietzche, Foucault, or Kierkeegard have they read?

My point is generally, that what is "reasonable" to one person, might not be to another. To answer your question, *in my experience* I believe that it is reasonable to say "I don't believe in leprechauns." But I would like to add an amendment, if I may, to your statement. "I don't believe in leprechauns, but I certainly haven't seen everything in the world, been to every part of the world, talked to someone from every part of the world about leprechauns, or experienced everything there is in the world, thus, I can be *practically* certain in my belief there are no leprechauns, but I cannot be certain."

Now, as I have been so kind to answer your inquiry, kindly return the favor and answer mine, of you, which you perhaps neglected to answer (or possibly to find important to answer).

Quote:

Those are:
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?

And... Summarized, is your argument attempting to deny the existence of God?
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?

And...Summarized, the same as above:
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."

I am afraid we are like "two ships passing each other, in the night," but not "colliding on our thoughts. I am only concerned with whether you are trying to disprove the existence of God. You have misinterpreted my argument to make me seem a "New Creationist." I have never stated a position on such, thus your assumption is erroneous. The Bible, in one interpretation, may support the theory of a "New Creationist" as you put it, but another one does not see the Earth as only 6,000 years old. Look up the word "day" in ancient Hebrew, from Genesis of course, and see if its defined as "twenty four hours." Its not.

Jorge · 07-15-2003, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
The poster Metacristi said there are enough arguements to prove beyond reasonable doubt God does not exist. Now I am assuming the "supposed" arguements that "prove beyond reasonable doubt God does not exist" involve some kind of proof mechanism (i.e. 1>2, a*b = ab), am I right?

Peace,
SOTC

p.s. time for bed, be back tomorrow.

Goodnight to all!

Hello SignofTheCross (and to everyone else):

I believe that this will be my first post here on IIF. Be it known that I am a Fundamentalist, YEC, Born-Again Christian.

Coming to a site like this I feel a bit like Daniel must've felt staring into that den of hungry critters... Daniel had it much rougher, of course!

Anyhow, it's late for me so I'll do as SOTC and bid you all a goodnight.

Talk to you soon.

Jorge

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-15-2003, 09:11 PM

Hello Jorge - you're probably in for a tough fight over here! lol

Just wanted to state my opinion on the matter. As is the running argument - you cannot disprove God's existance, any more than you can disprove the existance of leprechauns. (they are both non-falsifiable) - of course this depends on the individual's interpretation. If someone states explicitly (for example) that you can see god with your eyes, and you can't, it is reasonable to assume that their interpretation is incorrect. Likewise if someone states that the bible speaks only literally, and contains not even a single contradiction (as it is 'written' by a perfect omniscent being), I can prove them incorrect.

My question is: Is it really wise to believe something that cannot be disproven, even by hypothetical means? Everyone's idea of proof or disproof is different, so what (be it anything from your imagination) could possibly disprove God to you?

Leprechauns don't really matter anyway, as they don't demand that you believe in them or else go to hell. At least, no people I know claim that leprechauns have such a requirement. Yet, I believe that if you invest enough faith in their existance, it will soon become truth to you.

Finally, while I don't believe God exists, I don't believe I can say that he doesn't exist. There is always a possibility for everything - including the existance of leprechauns, or giant flying pink fluffy bunny rabbits. :P

SignOfTheCross · 07-15-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
And I suppose you have read all contradictions brought up on this page, and have worked out a solution for each and every one to solve them. Or are you "REALLY SILLY!! because you are REALLY SILLY... REAALLYY!!!!" ?

Nothing like an angry ape with his squashed banana, "RUBBISH!!!".
:boohoo:

I've read enough of the "supposed" contradictions to know beyond reasonable doubt the webmaster has neither a PhD in biblical studies, nor an education (and I say this with a sarcastic tone) nor have they read the Bible in its proper context. I would investigate the site in full, but why bother when it makes claims as absurd as "does one or many Gods exist
?". The site loses ALL credibility in my eyes for that statement ALONE. Perhaps there are geuine contradictions on the site, but if you could separate them from the rubbish one's, then I'd be happy to look at them.

In any case, what is an atheist to do when Bible scholars provide an exegesis for every verse in the Bible and no contradiction is cited?

If you submit that they are in denial, than that is an unreasonable response.

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 07-15-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by penumbra
posted by SOTC

Inerrant - Webster says "free from error" But you say no translation is perfect, so I gather that they all have errors? But then that would mean none were inerrant?

If you have a different meaning for "inerrant" I would be interested in learning it. I would also be interested in what you think is the "best" or "closest-to-perfect" translation/version of the Bible.

By inerrant, I mean the Bible is free from teaching theological error.

The best translation of the Bible would be the actual epistles written by the Apostles, of which we no longer have.

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 07-15-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Spenser:

Quote:

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!!!!"

No, that is not my intention. Atheists claim they can disprove God beyond reasonable doubt, I'd like to see this proof. I was actually hoping for psychological, or scientific evidence that this was the case, but so far I have received nothing except the claim the Bible is littered with contradictions, of which I deem to be false since no one on these boards (I presume) can claim to be a Bible scholar.

Quote:

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:

Well if you can't disprove a god, disprove the Christian god of the Bible, Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, God.

Quote:

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....

If the number was more like "10" or "20", I'd be interested, but I rubbish the fact there are "1000" proposed biblical contradictions, for the simple reason there aren't. To suggest there are "1000" is devient, and I question your biblical knowledge, if any.

Actually, I think you'll find there is not ONE proven contradiction ion the Bible, if we stick to what makes a contradiction a contradiction. Principle of contradiction (Logic), the axiom or law of thought that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, or a thing must either be or not be, or the same attribute can not at the same time be affirmed and and denied of the same subject.

Peace,
SOTC

NZAmoeba · 07-15-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Atheists claim they can disprove God beyond reasonable doubt

No, you said you heard one poster say he had proof beyond reasonable doubt, i don't think he was voted spokesperson for us all...

And Jack the Bodiless just gave you one very clear example of a contradiction, are the sons punished for the sins of the father?

go back and read it, its page 2, near the top, unless you have your denial glasses on and refuse to see it.

SignOfTheCross · 07-15-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

It was beautiful how you just substituted the word "envious" in 1 Corinthians 13:4 for "jealous" to make an arguement. Of course your arguement fails, since envy and jealousy are not an equal premise, nor synonyms, therefore no contradiction.

Peace,
SOTC

NZAmoeba · 07-15-2003, 10:07 PM

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=jealous

Quote:

Synonyms: anxious, apprehensive, attentive, begrudging, covetous, demanding, doubting, emulous, envious, envying, grabby, grasping, green, green-eyed, grudging, guarded, intolerant, invidious, jaundiced, jelly, mistrustful, monopolizing, possessory, protective, questioning, resentful, rival, skeptical, solicitous, suspicious, vigilant, wary, watchful, yellow-eyed, zealous

Sorry, you can't twist the english language to suit your argument

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-15-2003, 10:25 PM

I agree. How can anyone be considered envious, but not jealous? Doesn't make sense.

http://www.dictionary.com says the same as how I'd interpret the words, yet it has a seperate definition there for when it's applied to God....

Quote:

jeal�ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jls)
adj.
Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.

Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.
Inclined to suspect rivalry.
Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts.
Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.
Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2003, 09:11 PM	#33
The_Unknown_Banana Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 179	Hello Jorge - you're probably in for a tough fight over here! lol Just wanted to state my opinion on the matter. As is the running argument - you cannot disprove God's existance, any more than you can disprove the existance of leprechauns. (they are both non-falsifiable) - of course this depends on the individual's interpretation. If someone states explicitly (for example) that you can see god with your eyes, and you can't, it is reasonable to assume that their interpretation is incorrect. Likewise if someone states that the bible speaks only literally, and contains not even a single contradiction (as it is 'written' by a perfect omniscent being), I can prove them incorrect. My question is: Is it really wise to believe something that cannot be disproven, even by hypothetical means? Everyone's idea of proof or disproof is different, so what (be it anything from your imagination) could possibly disprove God to you? Leprechauns don't really matter anyway, as they don't demand that you believe in them or else go to hell. At least, no people I know claim that leprechauns have such a requirement. Yet, I believe that if you invest enough faith in their existance, it will soon become truth to you. Finally, while I don't believe God exists, I don't believe I can say that he doesn't exist. There is always a possibility for everything - including the existance of leprechauns, or giant flying pink fluffy bunny rabbits. :P

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.