Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 80 by benchwarmer]

Hi benchwarmer,

Murder

Quote:
Exodus 20:13
“You shall not murder.


Quote:
Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

Are you equating just punishment with murder?

Idols

Quote:
Exodus 20:4
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.


Quote:
Numbers 21:8
The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.�

I think you forgot a little part at the end of Exodus 20:4.
The command isn't completed, until it reaches the end of verse 6.

Stealing

Quote:
Exodus 20:15
“You shall not steal.


Quote:

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

So what did God steal?
Are you suggesting that God stole his own land? (Exodus 19:5)

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 93 by rikuoamero]

If Jesus had just magicked up the animals, why have them at a village ahead of himself? Why not just conjure the animals right in front of him?
It's not a case of divine wisdom to say that 1st century Jerusalem, there would be animals tied up at nearby villages. That would be a given for that period. It's as awe-inspiring as saying that there are horses at that stable over there.
So here we have Jesus telling his disciples to go to a nearby village, find a donkey and her colt, untie them and bring them to him. Well, if they're tied up, that would indicate that they're someone's property, wouldn't it?
Imagine that playing out today. Jesus sends out his disciples saying "Go to the nearby town. In the parking lot, you'll find a bunch of cars. Find the lamborghini. Break into it and bring it to me. If anyone says anything, say that the Lord needs it"
Wow...in that modern context, the Lord our God has just clearly commanded Grand Theft Auto. And here I thought this was supposed to be where we get our morality from? Is it really as simple as "obey commands from this here Jesus guy"?

rikuoamero
Where do you find in scripture, that Jesus performed magic, or that he poofed a donkey into existence?

Of course the picture you painted above, would be outright theft.
Whose donkey was it?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 94 by Divine Insight]

This method of proof can easily be applied to the Biblical God because the Biblical God is defined in great detail by the Biblical Narrative and that that description of God necessarily leads to impossible contradictions, thus proving (by contradiction) that the God cannot exist.

There are many ways to prove that the Biblical God cannot exist as defined by the Bible. One obvious contradiction that I often point out is that the God of the Bible is supposed to be omniscient and have a Master Plan, and not be surprised or shocked by things happening that he wasn't anticipating, yet in the story of the Great Flood the Bible has God repenting that he had ever created mankind when he had to drown them out.

That is a proof by contradiction that this God character cannot exist. A truly omniscient God who knows the future and has a Master Plan would never repent because his Master Plan isn't going the way he had expected. Therefore for this God to be consistent he would have had to have been thrilled at the time of the Great Flood because that could only mean that everything was going precisely according to his Master Plan.

But clearly the authors who made these stories up didn't realize this and instead they had God repenting that he had ever created man, thus revealing the fictional character of their make-believe God.

So the Bible proves the non-existence of its own God.

And the example I gave above is only one of many such proofs by contradiction contained within the Bible that prove that the Biblical God, as defined by the Bible cannot exist. It would be a self-contradiction if it did exist.

Therefore, it's not only possible to prove a negative, but its actually quite easy to demonstrate why the Biblical God cannot exist as defined by the Bible.

And as I say, this is only one of many examples of how the Biblical God can be show to be non-existent via proof by contradiction.

The Biblical God has indeed been proven to be non-existent by the Bible itself repeatedly throughout the entire Biblical canon. There can be no doubt that this narrative of a God is clearly false.

The flaw that can be seen in this reasoning, is in mathematics too.
The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be 100%.
The ratio of persons who may apply such a law to the Bible is 5% or less.
95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God

Going by that, such a system cannot be a proper method of proof, unless of course, the proof is in favor of God, and the Bible... as usual..

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 80 by benchwarmer]

Hi benchwarmer,

Murder

Quote:
Exodus 20:13
“You shall not murder.


Quote:
Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

Are you equating just punishment with murder?

Do you consider killing every animal, bird, and infant alive at the time 'just punishment'? What did they do?

Idols

Quote:
Exodus 20:4
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.


Quote:
Numbers 21:8
The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.�

I think you forgot a little part at the end of Exodus 20:4.
The command isn't completed, until it reaches the end of verse 6.

That's an interpretation debate. One point is to not make particular images. Another point is to not worship them. Why not simply say "don't worship anything except me" if that is what is really meant? Why complicate things?

Stealing

Quote:
Exodus 20:15
“You shall not steal.


Quote:

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

So what did God steal?
Are you suggesting that God stole his own land? (Exodus 19:5)

No I'm suggesting He is asking one group of people to steal another people's land which I consider 'stealing by proxy'. This is even worse in my opinion. He is telling people not to steal, then turning around and telling them to steal because I'm going to make it easy for you. It's kind of like "Don't step on peoples toes. Here, let me take benchwarmer's shoe off so you can step on those toes".

You seem to be suggesting that since God owns everything, it's ok for His people to take something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to God. So why bother with "Don't steal" if they are God's people and taking things that belong to God is not stealing?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 95 by rikuoamero]

So now, I take this back.

The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be 100%.

The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be ?%.
I'll let the mathematicians work it out.
My brain is not that "wired".

[Divine Insight]

The flaw that can be seen in this reasoning, is in mathematics too.
The ratio of the mathematicians who accept the law of contradiction in mathematics may be 100%.
The ratio of persons who may apply such a law to the Bible is 5% or less.
95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God

Going by that, such a system cannot be a proper method of proof, unless of course, the proof is in favor of God, and the Bible... as usual..

But the vast majority of theists aren't use reasoning when it comes to their theistic beliefs. Especially not any formal logical proofs which most of them wouldn't even know how to properly apply anyway.

The vast majority of theists confess to believing on faith for totally irrational reasons. They offer excuses to dismiss logic like "God works in mysterious ways" and things like "God's thinking is so far beyond our ideas of logic that we just can't comprehend it", etc.

So the arguments that theists give for why they believe in their God is almost always based on irrationality and is totally devoid of any logic. This is why they can't even convince each other of their extremely diverse and illogical apologetic excuses.

The argument that since a large number of humans are religious this loans credence to any particular theology is clearly wrong in any case.

Are you forgetting that a very large percentage of humans on Earth are Muslims, something that is in extreme opposition to Christianity. And let's not forget about the Hindus and Buddhists, etc.

In short, the argument that because a lot of people believe in something this constitutes evidence that there must be some rationality or logic behind it simply doesn't hold. If that were true then we'd need to give equal credence to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. '

That's clearly is not a compelling argument. And don't forget that at different periods in human civilizations people believed in different Gods. Clearly when the early Greeks were at their peaks a believe in Zeus and company was far more popular than a believe in Judaism for example. And Christianity and Islam hadn't even been invented yet.

So your argument above doesn't hold so much as a drop of water.

Also, the FORMAL LOGICAL PROOF that there can be no rational solution to the square root of 2 is not open to subjective opinion.

It's accepted by all mathematicians to clearly be true beyond any doubt at all. It's been formally proven to be the case. You would need to reject mathematics and logic altogether in order to reject it.

Some people could certainly do that, but they could no longer claim to be "logical" after having rejected logical formalism.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 114 by benchwarmer]

Do you consider killing every animal, bird, and infant alive at the time 'just punishment'? What did they do?

The animals were not being punished, nor were the new borns.
However, God started life. He is the life giver, and has the right to take life.
He determined that the present situation called for removing the 99% "gangrene" on his earth. Hence, he made provision to preserve procreative life - animals to restore those lost. People to continue the human population.
The fact that he preserve those 1% righteous, and give others the opportunity to be saved, shows he is just. Also, his preserving the animal kinds, shows his wisdom. Both acts demonstrate his love, and patience.
Do you disagree? Say why.

That's an interpretation debate. One point is to not make particular images. Another point is to not worship them. Why not simply say "don't worship anything except me" if that is what is really meant? Why complicate things?

Imo, it's complicated do those who want to complicate things.
I do not believe the Israelites would have had a problem understanding the command - which when taken as a whole, meant, "Do not commit idolatry - by making a carved image and bowling down to it."
Why did you call it idolatry?
Because you know idolatry refers, not to making an image, but making an image and bowling to it - a form of worship.

No I'm suggesting He is asking one group of people to steal another people's land which I consider 'stealing by proxy'. This is even worse in my opinion. He is telling people not to steal, then turning around and telling them to steal because I'm going to make it easy for you. It's kind of like "Don't step on peoples toes. Here, let me take benchwarmer's shoe off so you can step on those toes".

You seem to be suggesting that since God owns everything, it's ok for His people to take something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to God. So why bother with "Don't steal" if they are God's people and taking things that belong to God is not stealing? Think

I am not suggesting. I am saying - according to the Bible, the land belonged to Jehovah, who determined to give it to his people.
A landlord determines whom he will rent his property to.
He also decides whom he will evict from his property.

[Divine Insight]

The animals were not being punished, nor were the new borns.
However, God started life. He is the life giver, and has the right to take life.

But you had requested earlier for examples where God violates his own laws.

If by God's laws it's immoral to kill someone without good reason then this must apply to God as well, otherwise he would be in violation of his own moral codes.

When you say that this God is the life giver and therefore has the right to take a life, this could work in the case of Zeus where Zeus is not proclaimed to be righteous and just. However, this line of argument doesn't hold for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God claims to be righteous and just then he must abide by his own moral standards. Otherwise he wouldn't be righteous and just by his own standards.

So your argument here doesn't hold for the Biblical God. It would only hold for a God like Zeus who doesn't promise to be righteous and just.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 107 by rikuoamero]

Unlike magnetism though, and other similar concepts, no test has ever succeeded at actually 'proving' God.

No. You are mistaken.
Do you want me to go through the list again, for the umpteenth time?
Because I don't know why it seems to keep getting missed.

And whenever you find something scientists currently do not know, you tend to stick God right there in the gaps.

Again, no.
We can't fit God anywhere.

How can the creator be a “God-of-the-gaps� ?

The Bible refers to the creator, as the source of life. The one who made the heavens and earth, and seas, and all the things in them.

It says he established the statutes/laws of the heavens.
Who do you think testablished the laws of physics that govern matter and energy, which laws scientists are still studying?
Scientists did not establish them.

So where did this "God of the Gaps" theory come from?

You see, this is why we need definitions. I'm pretty sure that so far on this thread, you have yet to define what you mean by the word God.

God basically means mighty one.
The God of the Bible, is referred to as Jehovah, the almighty, creator of heaven, and earth, and life therein.

Does this mean it makes sense for us to be calling JoeyKnotHead "Mr President" on the off chance that he is Teddy Roosevelt?
There are absurdities, tS, and then there are absurdities.

Just making a point Doesn't seem I did very well.

Show me a superhuman doing superhuman things. Are we talking Superman, leaping tall buildings in a single bound and being faster than a speeding bullet?

How do you perceive an immortal supernatural?

So find us a whale and show us that in its insides, it keeps enough oxygen, food and water to sustain a man for 3 days.

Who said anything about a whale?
And why is it that I always have to show everything?
Soon, you'll probably be asking me to show you the Bermuda Triangle.

[help3434]

I'm not concerned about any concept of "True Christians". In fact, Jesus couldn't possibly have addressed that concept because when Jesus lived there was no such thing as Christianity or Christians.

I'm sure this is just another claim, for which you have no proof.

Acts 11:26

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Note that the purported events of Acts came after the death of Jesus.