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?

[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.

[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.

[bishblaize]

Not so sure it flows as well when I don't use gods.

I think the term 'post-physical' carries a lot more weight. Short and snappy.

As for chocolate that is really easy to prove why I like chocolate. The chemicals in the composition of chocolate cause my brain to release copious amounts of serotonin.

Which neatly encapsulates the issue. If neither party is able or willing to see outside the paradigm of their own belief system, finding middle ground is going to be difficult.

[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?

[Artie]

You said and I quote: "when you claimed that your belief that morals and ethics are hardwired and evolved in us just like they are in vampire bats (though any biologist or anthropologist would, I think, cringe at this) proves that there is then no room for God." I don't remember claiming that my belief that morals and ethics are hardwired and evolved in us just like they are in vampire bats proves that there is then no room for God. Please quote and link to where I claimed this.

Artie, are you having fun?

You said this when you made that argument

No I didn't. And since you don't provide a quote and a link to where I said anything like "proves that there is then no room for God" I don't see any point in continuing this since anybody can read that thread and see I never said anything like "proves that there is then no room for God". Case closed.

It is ironic indeed, especially given your unwillingness to support your contention that the 'golden rule' existed before, and apart from, any religion, in humans.

So you think vampire bats got reciprocal altruism from evolutionary instinct but humans got it from religion?

[dianaiad]

You said and I quote: "when you claimed that your belief that morals and ethics are hardwired and evolved in us just like they are in vampire bats (though any biologist or anthropologist would, I think, cringe at this) proves that there is then no room for God." I don't remember claiming that my belief that morals and ethics are hardwired and evolved in us just like they are in vampire bats proves that there is then no room for God. Please quote and link to where I claimed this.

Artie, are you having fun?

You said this when you made that argument

No I didn't. And since you don't provide a quote and a link to where I said anything like "proves that there is then no room for God" I don't see any point in continuing this since anybody can read that thread and see I never said anything like "proves that there is then no room for God". Case closed.

It is ironic indeed, especially given your unwillingness to support your contention that the 'golden rule' existed before, and apart from, any religion, in humans.

So you think vampire bats got reciprocal altruism from evolutionary instinct but humans got it from religion?

Thank you, Artie, for providing the substantiation yourself for my statement.

Now as to your question...it's not about what I think. It's about what you can prove. I've already addressed the topic of this thread.

That said, what part of my believing in evolution went whoosh?

Your problem is that you want this whole thing to be a binary set, where religion is evil/wrong and science is all truth, light and accuracy.

It's not, and never has been, that simple.

[KenRU]

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,

[Artie]

So you think vampire bats got reciprocal altruism from evolutionary instinct but humans got it from religion?

Thank you, Artie, for providing the substantiation yourself for my statement.

Now as to your question...it's not about what I think. It's about what you can prove.

I would have to prove that something vampire bats certainly didn't get from religion humans got without religion too? I would have to prove that humans didn't need religion for reciprocal altruism when not even vampire bats need religion for reciprocal altruism? That humans, before they invented religions, didn't act according to the principle of reciprocal altruism, a principle even vampire bats act according to? What a terrible view of humanity. Well, you are welcome to that view. If you really need to believe that humans before they invented religions didn't even act according to the principle of reciprocal altruism, a principle even vampire bats act according to then I give up any attempt at reasoning with you.

[ttruscott]

...

The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence." https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve ... ality.html

...

This quote is not from Princeton anything but from a Wiki article "Faith and rationality" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

The Princeton link has this caveat: "This content of this page is taken from Wikipedia, and may not be up-to-date. The objective of this website is NOT to provide information, but to demonstrate an automatic document organizer and browser. " with a Do Not Cite Warning.

It is most definitely pushing the opinion of a false definition of faith that seems to have as its only value its anti-Christian stance.

I am disappointed...

Peace, Ted

[Artie]

This quote is not from Princeton anything but from a Wiki article "Faith and rationality" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

Thanks for the tip. I'll use the link to the wikipedia article next time.

It is most definitely pushing the opinion of a false definition of faith that seems to have as its only value its anti-Christian stance.

Then wikipedia is pushing the opinion of a false definition of faith. I just use it to clearly demonstrate the difference between faith and rationality.