Can Christians prove most gods don't exist?

[Artie]

In the thread "Justify the belief that gods do not exist" dianaiad says and I quote: "The challenge from me...and indeed, from the title of the post, was to prove that gods do not exist."

Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist. The challenge from me is for dianaiad and other Christians to prove that the vast majority of gods don't exist.

Can you do that?

[dianaiad]

We could always use a bible endorsed test to see if a God exists. This test was authorised by Yahweh himself to disprove the existance of Baal.

1 Kings 18. Eliijah (endorsed by Yahweh himself) challenged the prophets of Baal to a test to see if they could get their God to set fire to a sacrifice on Mr Carmal. They of course failed. Yahweh then set the sacrifice alight himself to prove he was the true God, thus endorsing the test. As a result Baal was judged as being non-existant and Yahweh ordered all the prophets of Baal to be put to death.

Clearly this is a bible authorised way of determining whether a God exists or not, so we can then challenge any God we want to such a test. If that God doesn't pass the test then he can be deemed non-existant.

Of course.

....er....a problem, though.

The priests of Baal didn't set up the test. Elijah did, in the name of Yahweh.

Which of course means that the only way this would work, using your example, is if some representative of a deity showed up and claimed that HIS deity could do something YOUR deity could not, and then the contest would begin.

The unbelievers couldn't set the terms. I can't see God, no matter how described, performing like a trained monkey on command.

Even yours.

Ok, so an unbeliever can't make this request. So why not a believer then? It seems like a fair analogy to me if we have a believer make the request.

-All the best,

You have a God that you think is better than someone else's? G'head.

You really do have to be careful of the parameters of the experiment, though.

The description of the deity I believe in....well....don't think anybody ELSE could set it up, not even someone who professes to believe in Him.

That is, if you go by the story.

[OnceConvinced]

We could always use a bible endorsed test to see if a God exists. This test was authorised by Yahweh himself to disprove the existance of Baal.

1 Kings 18. Eliijah (endorsed by Yahweh himself) challenged the prophets of Baal to a test to see if they could get their God to set fire to a sacrifice on Mr Carmal. They of course failed. Yahweh then set the sacrifice alight himself to prove he was the true God, thus endorsing the test. As a result Baal was judged as being non-existant and Yahweh ordered all the prophets of Baal to be put to death.

Clearly this is a bible authorised way of determining whether a God exists or not, so we can then challenge any God we want to such a test. If that God doesn't pass the test then he can be deemed non-existant.

Of course.

....er....a problem, though.

The priests of Baal didn't set up the test. Elijah did, in the name of Yahweh.

Which of course means that the only way this would work, using your example, is if some representative of a deity showed up and claimed that HIS deity could do something YOUR deity could not, and then the contest would begin.]

The unbelievers couldn't set the terms.

Oh ok, so it's ok for believers to make a challenge, but not unbelievers? That doesn't seem like a fair system.

But ok, lets put that stipulation in. A believer has to make the challenge. What we have here is clearly a GOD endorsed test to prove Gods don't exist. Believers should have no problem, based on the example of Elijah (or even Gideon) setting up such a test for other people's God, but I bet you they won't because they know that their God would never come through for them. They know their God would look like a fraud TOO and that all they would do would be providing further evidence that their God is non existant.

I can't see God, no matter how described, performing like a trained monkey on command.

Well he did for Elijah didn't he? He also did for Gideon. In the bible God performs like a tained monkey for people on a regular basis. If Christians are to be believed he acts as a cosmic errand boy for them all the time. According to Christians he's always jumping through hoops for them, answering their prayers and giving them blessings.

[OnceConvinced]

We could always use a bible endorsed test to see if a God exists. This test was authorised by Yahweh himself to disprove the existance of Baal.

1 Kings 18. Eliijah (endorsed by Yahweh himself) challenged the prophets of Baal to a test to see if they could get their God to set fire to a sacrifice on Mr Carmal. They of course failed. Yahweh then set the sacrifice alight himself to prove he was the true God, thus endorsing the test. As a result Baal was judged as being non-existant and Yahweh ordered all the prophets of Baal to be put to death.

Clearly this is a bible authorised way of determining whether a God exists or not, so we can then challenge any God we want to such a test. If that God doesn't pass the test then he can be deemed non-existant.

So we are to use the bible - a book written for the benefit of God - to prove God is real and exists?

So a Harry Potter (or pick any series of written stories) fan could use the Harry Potter collection to prove he is real and exists as well?
Is that the logic we're supposed to go with here?

I'm using the bible as an example for Christians, presuming it is a divine document. If it IS the word of God, then God endorsed a test against another God to prove its non exsistance. Thus Christians should be able to disprove any God using the same test and at the same time prove the existance of their own God.

What's good enough for Baal

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 3 by Artie]

That is sort of the problem with taking a strong atheist position. You can't disprove in general the existence of the supernatural.

Theism/atheism is just about gods. It doesn't have to do with other parts of the supernatural.

Even if everything points to it not being the case without having all knowledge of the universe its impossible to say without certainty.

Strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. If you believe that, you are a strong atheist.

Certainty is a different issue. If you know that gods don't exist, then you are a gnostic strong atheist. But you don't have to be gnostic to believe that gods don't exist.

Now not all strong atheists deny the existence of all possible iterations of a god entity

The overwhelming majority of us don't. We just believe that gods don't exist. That's entirely different from denying the possibility.

[wiploc]

No one, christian or not, can prove any god exists or not if by proof we're talking in scientific terms.

How about a god who is omnipotent but can't defeat iron chariots? How about a god who is merciful but tortures people in flames for eternity? How about a god who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful? How about a god who can be seen but can't be seen?

Those gods are contradictions, like square circles or married bachelors. They absolutely positively do not exist.

There aren't two sides to that issue.

[instantc]

How about a god who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful? How about a god who can be seen but can't be seen?

I find these to be pointless "gotcha" arguments. This is like your friend saying that he's got a white Mercedes with brown leather seats, and then you responding how you caught him of a lie because the seats are part of the car and therefore if the car is white, no part of it can be brown.

When someone says that God is just and merciful, they might mean, for example, that God has perfect grasp of justice, but that he can occasionally be merciful as well.

[Wordleymaster1]

We could always use a bible endorsed test to see if a God exists. This test was authorised by Yahweh himself to disprove the existance of Baal.

1 Kings 18. Eliijah (endorsed by Yahweh himself) challenged the prophets of Baal to a test to see if they could get their God to set fire to a sacrifice on Mr Carmal. They of course failed. Yahweh then set the sacrifice alight himself to prove he was the true God, thus endorsing the test. As a result Baal was judged as being non-existant and Yahweh ordered all the prophets of Baal to be put to death.

Clearly this is a bible authorised way of determining whether a God exists or not, so we can then challenge any God we want to such a test. If that God doesn't pass the test then he can be deemed non-existant.

So we are to use the bible - a book written for the benefit of God - to prove God is real and exists?

So a Harry Potter (or pick any series of written stories) fan could use the Harry Potter collection to prove he is real and exists as well?
Is that the logic we're supposed to go with here?

I'm using the bible as an example for Christians, presuming it is a divine document. If it IS the word of God, then God endorsed a test against another God to prove its non exsistance. Thus Christians should be able to disprove any God using the same test and at the same time prove the existance of their own God.

What's good enough for Baal

But doesn't that seem to be, at best, circular reasoning? Shouldn't there be another way people can 'test for God' other than using a pro-God book?

[Wordleymaster1]

No one, christian or not, can prove any god exists or not if by proof we're talking in scientific terms.

How about a god who is omnipotent but can't defeat iron chariots? How about a god who is merciful but tortures people in flames for eternity? How about a god who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful? How about a god who can be seen but can't be seen?

Those gods are contradictions, like square circles or married bachelors. They absolutely positively do not exist.

There aren't two sides to that issue.

You could also add a God that needs a machine, like the story (I think it is) of Jerimiah and the chariot.
The bible is truly contradictatory about a lot of things - God included. But that's expected by a book written by people and not a perfect god.

[Wordleymaster1]

How about a god who is perfectly just and perfectly merciful? How about a god who can be seen but can't be seen?

I find these to be pointless "gotcha" arguments. This is like your friend saying that he's got a white Mercedes with brown leather seats, and then you responding how you caught him of a lie because the seats are part of the car and therefore if the car is white, no part of it can be brown.

When someone says that God is just and merciful, they might mean, for example, that God has perfect grasp of justice, but that he can occasionally be merciful as well.

Maybe so, but if God can be 'all things' or not definable as you seem to be saying here, there's no point in dicussing it!
What is God?
We don't know since we don't have anything to show about Him so why bother?
Might as well say God can be up AND down, left AND right, top AND bottom.....all pointless and down right silly to me and a lot of other people as well

[KenRU]

Of course.

....er....a problem, though.

The priests of Baal didn't set up the test. Elijah did, in the name of Yahweh.

Which of course means that the only way this would work, using your example, is if some representative of a deity showed up and claimed that HIS deity could do something YOUR deity could not, and then the contest would begin.

The unbelievers couldn't set the terms. I can't see God, no matter how described, performing like a trained monkey on command.

Even yours.

Ok, so an unbeliever can't make this request. So why not a believer then? It seems like a fair analogy to me if we have a believer make the request.

-All the best,

You have a God that you think is better than someone else's? G'head.

Never claimed I did. But if I did, you would then be willing to put your god up to the task? The challenge is quite reasonable, IF you believe the bible is an accurate means of learning about god (or if you believe it is inerrant).

You really do have to be careful of the parameters of the experiment, though.

Why?

The description of the deity I believe in....well....don't think anybody ELSE could set it up, not even someone who professes to believe in Him.


That is, if you go by the story.

Which story?

All the best,