What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

[abnoxio]

I'm interested what it would take for a Christian, Catholic, etc. to be convinced that God did not exist.
In other words what kind of proof would convince you. The discovery of Jesus's body? Alien invaders? that kind of thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[Diana Holberg]

I don't get a few things. First of all, The whole religion thing with God is said to be loving. If this is true, why are there so many people fighting and killing each other because of religion.

It seems that part of man's nature is to want to conquer... and what better name to try to conquer in than "God"?

There is nothing in the Christian message about men conquering, though. The men who attempted to conquer the world in God's name really should have prayed more. Jesus is King of Kings, but He doesn't ask us to physically fight to conquer. Now, defense may be a different story...

One thing I want to know, How do they know that the Bible is real? Who died and came back to life and told all these stories.

How do we know that any ancient texts are real? Archaeologists dig up copies and we compare them. If multiple copies say the same thing, that's considered evidence of authenticity. In ancient times, there was no such thing as "The National Inquirer" -- if something hit paper, chances are that it was accurate. Very few people (and I mean very few) were educated enough to write.

Why do people have to depend on something, that they have no scientific evidence to back up, for help or guidance through life. Why can't they just depend on themselves.

Because your "self" will let you down -- and if you are lucky, it will happen pretty quickly. Those who discover that they are relatively powerless at an early age are blessed. There are many who procrastinate until old age when their bodies physically fail them to accept this truth.

In the grand scheme of things, we are frail and helpless. One stray step and *whomp*... we're just a bloody spot on the pavement. It doesn't take too much stress to wear us out mentally, either. (Don't believe me? Try sleep deprivation for a week and see what your "self" does for you...)

[Cathar1950]

bernee51 wrote:

Oh yes I can - and I haven't disappeared in a puff of logic.

The puff of logic I got from Hitchhiker guide to the Galaxy.
Where Some one proved God and God demands faith so God disappeared.
welcome back. If you were Gone.
DH wrote:

You can't get around the necessity of origins... and an Originator.

Yes you can. We may have origins but that doesn't necessitate an Originator. There is just as much reason to belive the universe or originated by its self as to God originates God.
They both come to a dead end. We don't know. It makes no sense because we don't know about before or how to describe it. We are working on it. We are still trying to figure out how the universe works.
This is where your faith comes in. For you it maybe settled for others it is not so clear.

bernee51 wrote:

No, it is impossible (and futile) to try to disprove your belief in god.

It is likewise impossible for you to prove the existence of your god.

This was the Point I was trying to make.
The most you ca do is show that God is logically impossible or logically impossible.
This is the mistake that is often done trying to prove God's existence.
Live it don't try prove it with words is my advice.
If your life seems insane don't worry some one will tell you.
I am not against the idea that God is daddy.

[bernee51]

How do we know that any ancient texts are real?

Because there is often corroborating evidence - which, in the case of the Jesus myth, is non existent.

Archaeologists dig up copies and we compare them. If multiple copies say the same thing, that's considered evidence of authenticity.

Even if one is an obvious copy of another? (cf. Mark/Luke)

Then we have the problem of Paul's silence regarding the physical Jesus. The Gospels, written years after Paul's letters, mention many things about Jesus that Paul himself never raises - it is as if he was totally unaware of the 'facts' that would be later mentioned in the Gospels. Jesus and Paul never met. He never quoted the Jesus of the Gospels, even when that would have served his purposes. He appears to have disagreed with Jesus (for example on divorce). Nary a single deed or miracle of Jesus does he mention. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man. The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.

One begins to wonder if this Jesus actually existed.

Because your "self" will let you down -- and if you are lucky, it will happen pretty quickly. Those who discover that they are relatively powerless at an early age are blessed. There are many who procrastinate until old age when their bodies physically fail them to accept this truth.

I would word it this way - knowledge of the Self will never let you down and those who learn this at an early age are blessed. But it doesn't really matter at what age you gain this knowledge.

[Diana Holberg]

Yes you can. We may have origins but that doesn't necessitate an Originator. There is just as much reason to belive the universe or originated by its self as to God originates God.

Okay, now you're out there... what originates itself?

I can demonstrate a million times things that require an originator... can you demonstrate one thing that originates itself?

Is it logical to prefer a belief that cannot be demonstrated to one that can? Is it logical to refuse to take a step of faith on the possibility that someday someone may be able to demonstrate something else?

If so, then I think I'll stop eating, because someday someone may show that we don't actually have to eat food. In fact, people already live without eating food. This will really help my grocery budget... thanks!

I am not against the idea that God is daddy.

Glad to hear it. He'll love it when you actually call out for Him...

[Diana Holberg]

Then we have the problem of Paul's silence regarding the physical Jesus.

Why is this a problem? Paul had one experience face-to-face with Jesus, and he was blind at the time.

The Gospels, written years after Paul's letters, mention many things about Jesus that Paul himself never raises - it is as if he was totally unaware of the 'facts' that would be later mentioned in the Gospels.

Prior to their being written, the Gospels were transmitted orally. Paul's letters were not written to transmit the Gospel... that was always done in person because Baptism accompanies the Gospel message.

And anything that Paul would have written about what Jesus did would have been secondhand. He doesn't write any secondhand accounts, except when praising people for what he has been told about their progress in the Lord.

Jesus and Paul never met. He never quoted the Jesus of the Gospels, even when that would have served his purposes.

None of them quoted the Gospels... they quoted what they knew as Scripture -- which at that time did not include the Gospels.

He appears to have disagreed with Jesus (for example on divorce).

What causes you to say this?

Nary a single deed or miracle of Jesus does he mention. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man.

Why? It is not stories about Jesus' actions that save... it is the Gospel Truth that Jesus died for forgiveness of our sins.

The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.

What causes you to say this?

One begins to wonder if this Jesus actually existed.

Are you theorizing that the apostles were martyred for a myth?

[McCulloch]

Okay, now you're out there... what originates itself?
I can demonstrate a million times things that require an originator... can you demonstrate one thing that originates itself?

I believe that the point is that it is no more logical to believe that there is a supernatural being (god) which has no origin (or originates himself) than it is to believe that the universe itself has no origin. Either way there is the same logical problem. For the atheist the logical problem is stated as, "Where did the universe come from? How can it exist without an origin?" The theist answers the problem with "God created the universe." But then the theist, has the same logical problem, "Where did god come from? How can he exist without an origin?". Either way, there seems to be a first cause. If we are honest, we admit that we do not know anything about this first cause. Otherwise, we call it God and build a mythology around it.

[McCulloch]

Then we have the problem of Paul's silence regarding the physical Jesus.

Why is this a problem? Paul had one experience face-to-face with Jesus, and he was blind at the time.

The problem is that even when it would have been to his advantage to prove a theological point, Paul never quotes the words of Jesus. Why? He did not know the words of Jesus?

None of them quoted the Gospels... they quoted what they knew as Scripture -- which at that time did not include the Gospels.

But the question remains, why does Paul not quote the apparently well known words of the messiah he was promoting?

Nary a single deed or miracle of Jesus does he mention. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man.

Why? It is not stories about Jesus' actions that save... it is the Gospel Truth that Jesus died for forgiveness of our sins.

Then why are the stories of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus preached from millions of pulpits every week? Are you saying the the these texts had little or no value in ancient times but are useful theologically now?

The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.

What causes you to say this?

Try this. Read Paul's writings as if you had not read the subsequent Gospels. You will get a picture not of a flesh and blood man of history, since Paul virtually ignores that aspect of Christ. You will get a picture of a spiritual sacrifice, taking place in the spiritual realm. This is a very strange phenomenon. Here is the apostle to the gentiles, preaching a spiritual Christ and not providing his audience with any details of the earthly existence of the messiah. Certainly the gentiles in Asia Minor and points west were not familiar with the alleged life of Jesus. The written gospels were not yet in circulation. They would not even have the familiarity with Jewish prophesy. So, why would he keep this valuable data from his converts?

One begins to wonder if this Jesus actually existed.

Are you theorizing that the apostles were martyred for a myth?

They would not be the first or the last.

[Cathar1950]

[bernee51]

Why is this a problem? Paul had one experience face-to-face with Jesus, and he was blind at the time.

What causes you say this?

He appears to have disagreed with Jesus (for example on divorce).

What causes you to say this?

Matthew 5:31-32 contradicts I Corinthians 7:10-11.

The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.

What causes you to say this?

Others have answered this.

[Diana Holberg]

If we are honest, we admit that we do not know anything about this first cause. Otherwise, we call it God and build a mythology around it.

No... if we have a relationship with someone and we are honest, we do not deny that relationship.