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 130 by benchwarmer]

I don't recall anywhere someone going around gathering up the infants and taking them with them before the 'just punishment' arrived for the city Abraham was in.

benchwarmer, according to the Bible, no infant is righteous, and no unrighteous deserves to live.
According to the Bible, God's mercy is the reason anyone is alive. That included Noah, and family.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 132 by RonE]

RonE
I think I got some time to give you some attention.
Could you confirm exactly what you are requesting.
Is this it alone?

provide evidence of your god.

Or are they other things?
If so please state, or verify the above.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 135 by JoeyKnothead]

We can find such cacti, photograph 'em, and hope folks don't think we doctored the picture.

Where can God be found?

This is not the point Joey.
Let me ask then, when is something not a concept?
Is something not a concept only when others can see it?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 141 by Divine Insight]

You haven't show that your A (i.e. your God) exists, therefore you can't conclude that your God cannot exist.

You aren't even remotely using logic. To the contrary you are demonstrating a total inability to even understand logic.

I was just following your lead.
You used an idea to arrive at a conclusion, and then applied the law of contradiction.
I have done exactly what you did, with different result.
So I would conclude the math says 1+1=2 - two total inabilities to even understand logic.

And now all you have done is expose your complete ignorance of evolution and how the natural processes of the universe work. If there were a way for houses stocked with food to naturally evolve then you wouldn't be surprised to find one. But clearly houses don't evolve. So you analogy is grossly at fault. So faulty that one could even suggest that it is less than an honest analogy. The only salvation for honesty in this scenario would be to appeal to absolute ignorance of how the natural laws and processes of the universe actually work.

Ranting words mean nothing.
Evolution cannot run, if it has no motor.
For any evolution to take place, it must have a starting point. Which is?????????????????????

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 148 by rikuoamero]

Do landlords generally have the right to kill people who are on their property?

Let's say that in real life, John Smith says to me "You can live in my country house a year from now". He promises to me. Great! I won't have to spend my time looking for a new place to live.
However, when I go to move in a year from now, I find out there's people already living there. I ask John Smith what gives. Didn't he protect his house, do anything at all to ensure no-one could break in?
"Oh they were already there long before I promised the place to you" he says.
Wait what?
"Oh, you still want the place? Here, take this gun. Kill them all. Man, woman and child. Show no mercy. I promised this house to you".

So ts, let me get this straight. The Canaanites were already living in the Promised Land when God made the promise. God did NOTHING to prevent the Canaanites from moving in, which would be a far more BENIGN solution than letting them move in and having them killed off later. When the chosen people moved in later, they were given carte blanche to kill the indigenous population.

Again, my views on religion are proven true. Any and all behaviours can be excused as long as someone like you says "God said so".

I think you missed the point of the illustration rikuoamero.
The landlord example strictly dealt with ownership of land, and the rights to allow or disallow habitation.

If you are dealing with killing now, I will ask what any fair person will consider a fair question. In fact two questions.
Since when is it wrong for a judge to execute wrongdoers?
Since when is it wrong for a judge who gives the death penalty, to carry out that penalty?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 156 by benchwarmer and theStudent]

From my seat the conversation you've been having is almost fun to observe. Two guys arguing whether god did or did not do this or that. The funny part is that the claimant in this case has yet to provide proof of his god as he has been challenged to do. So I'm thinking the whole conversation needs a reset until the elephant in the room has been removed. IMHO, of course.

Quite true, but I was showing that even if you stick to scripture, you can show that God breaks his own rules. theStudent challenged, I responded. I can't help myself

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 141 by Divine Insight]

You haven't show that your A (i.e. your God) exists, therefore you can't conclude that your God cannot exist.

You aren't even remotely using logic. To the contrary you are demonstrating a total inability to even understand logic.

I was just following your lead.
You used an idea to arrive at a conclusion, and then applied the law of contradiction.
I have done exactly what you did, with different result.
So I would conclude the math says 1+1=2 - two total inabilities to even understand logic.

But you haven't done anything even remotely similar to what I did.

I used an example of a valid proof by contradiction that mathematicians use within mathematics. That example was only given to show how easily it can be done.

Then I turned to an ancient fable of a God and showed that by applying the same methods of logical proof there we can demonstrate that the fictitious God character in those fables cannot be true because the existence of that God character leads to a logical contradiction.

In short, what I have done is prove, using logic, that the God described in the Biblical fables cannot exist in reality. Of course, it's always possible to write contradictory stories, so I'm not proving that the Biblical fables can't exist. Only that the God Character they describe cannot exist.

All you did was say that if A exists then it cannot not exist.

And from that you conclude that God must exist.

That is not even remotely logical because you need to first show that your God exists before you can conclude that it cannot exist. But you haven't done that.

So no, Student, you haven't even remotely done the same thing I did at all. And the fact that you can't see the difference reveals that you don't even understand the logical reasoning behind the argument I've given.

I've shown that the fictitious Biblical God Character cannot be real.

You have not show that your God exists. And therefore you are in no position to proclaim that he cannot not exist. Yet that is your claim.

And now all you have done is expose your complete ignorance of evolution and how the natural processes of the universe work. If there were a way for houses stocked with food to naturally evolve then you wouldn't be surprised to find one. But clearly houses don't evolve. So you analogy is grossly at fault. So faulty that one could even suggest that it is less than an honest analogy. The only salvation for honesty in this scenario would be to appeal to absolute ignorance of how the natural laws and processes of the universe actually work.

Ranting words mean nothing.
Evolution cannot run, if it has no motor.
For any evolution to take place, it must have a starting point. Which is?????????????????????

You have been told repeatedly on this site the different between evolution and abiogenesis for many weeks now. Yet you refuse to study the difference and acknowledge it.

Evolution has a motor. It is driven by the second law of thermodynamics called entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, it receives energy from the sun and therefore it must evolve in complexity. So that is what powers evolution.

The natural laws of chemistry could actually be said to be the "motor" which is driven by the energy of the sun.

So you are wrong to say that evolution has no motor. That conflicts with known science.

As far as the details of abiogenesis is concerned, the motor of evolution is fully prepared to act upon any potentially biological material that may appear, even if by pure chemical accident. And the potential for such chemical accidents is also covered by science.

So once again all you are doing is extending the "God of the Gaps" argument to every frontier of science that hasn't yet been fully understood.

That theistic argument has always failed in the past and will most likely continue to fail every time it is made.

And even if it turns out that some form of supernatural intelligence is necessary for abiogenesis that still wouldn't point to Hebrew folklore as being true.

In fact, my proof by contradiction of the Biblical God character would still hold true. So the Bible would still be out as a candidate for a description of any supernatural intelligence anyway.

If a God does exist we can be as certain that it is not the God described by the Hebrew Bible as we are certain that there is no rational solution to the square root of 2.

So if there exists a supernatural intelligence our best bet is to look more closely into something like Buddhism, for example. The Biblical God cannot be true as described by the Bible because it is a collection of self-contradictions.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 156 by benchwarmer and theStudent]

From my seat the conversation you've been having is almost fun to observe. Two guys arguing whether god did or did not do this or that. The funny part is that the claimant in this case has yet to provide proof of his god as he has been challenged to do. So I'm thinking the whole conversation needs a reset until the elephant in the room has been removed. IMHO, of course.

Quite true, but I was showing that even if you stick to scripture, you can show that God breaks his own rules. theStudent challenged, I responded. I can't help myself

Exactly. It's just as meaningful to demonstrate contradictions in Biblical folklore as it would be to point out contradictions in the Lord of the Rings. Neither one needs to be accepted as describing any actual reality just to comment on how logically consistent or inconsistent the fables might be.

[theStudent]

[Replying to benchwarmer]

Simple: God says don't murder. When God is displeased, murder ensues. You call it 'just punishment', but fail to explain how infants are justly punished. I think I've made the point pretty clearly. There's not much else to add.

When God is displeased, justice ensues.
That's why it took so long for some to die, because the Bible describes in Genesis that Enoch prophecied the judgment upon law defying people, and God waited patiently over 120 years, before he brought judgement upon the law defiant in Noah's day.
There were no righteous infant in the days of Noah.
I understand your stance.

Because you reverted to the whole 'life giver'/'life taker' argument. Why bother with that if you are not trying to explain why God is 'justly punishing' infants. God either killed infants or He didn't. If He did, he broke His own law. You can try to wiggle out of it all you want.

I'm not understanding you benchwarmer.
Please verify if I misunderstand.

God either killed infants or He didn't. If He did, he broke His own law.

What law did God break? Do not murder?
My answer: God did not murder the infants.
My mistake was not addressing the fact that all sinful humans were under the penalty of death.
My reason for mentioning God's right to take life was to highlight the fact that, as the source of life, he possesses the right to take life. However, he does so based on his just/righteous srandards.

Ok, now you're being pedantic for the sake of argument. Fine, He wiped everyone out expect for Noah and his family. How does that help your argument?

I learned a new word today - pedantic.

I don't know about it helping my agument, but I was making the point in answer to your statement

Love and patience would be preserving all who did not deserve 'just punishment'.

I have multiple solutions, surely an all wise God could do even better than world wide destruction:

- Send the angel of death and only take out those who have broken God's law.

- Make breaking one of God's laws instant death. (This would have been better at the start.)

- Appear to those breaking the laws and explain the immediate consequences (instant death) of not changing their ways. Follow through.

None of the above require indiscriminately wiping out every living thing except those that make it onto a boat or already live in the water.

I'm referring only to Noah's day.
These may sound like simple solutions, but what if God had something in mind by having Noah build the ark?
To illustrate:
Moses was a spokesman for God, before the nation of Israel, and the powerful Egyptian king. Many refused to listen to him. Some even claimed that they were superior, and did not need him to speak for God.
Similarly, prophets were used as spokesmen. Same response.
Jesus was used as spokesman. Same response.
Interestingly, all, or almost all these men performed powerful works.

There is a pattern here.
Although Noah did not perform a miracle, the situation was similar.
Could it be, that same pattern, would run throughout, even into our present day?

I think so.
And Jesus made it clear directly, by actually referring to Noah's day.

So, I personally don't see God as any fool, backward in understanding, beneath man's high-mindedness.
I believe the all-wise creator knows exactly what he is doing.

Thanks.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 158 by rikuoamero]

So who did the animals belong to?

But rikuoamero, it would be obvious.
If I said, Jesus did not steal, nor encourage to steal, who do you think the donkey belonged to?