galley / trireme, preferably with a ram.
they must have seen Ben Hur or whatever, by this age.
Who believes in God?
-
3. God does not exist
Can you prove this?
I’m am confident to say that the Christian God does not exist. However, God itself has not been proven wrong.
Yes, you can. There is no evidence of God. Case closed.
Take a look at the bible. Its full of contradictions, fiction, and propoganda.
God loves all his children, right? Except those innocent Egyptian first born children, they don’t count.
We all know (some of) the ten commandment. Despite the fact that few if any here can name all 10, are not the only moral codes listed in the book of Exodus. God defines how to sell your daughter into slavery, and if she resists or performs badly, sell her to a different land (Exodus 21: 6-8). He also says polygamy is just peachy (Exodus 21:10). God says that killing another man is punishable by death, but killing a servant/slave is not (Exodus 21:20).
Want more contradictions? In Exodus 21, God says a man who steals from another man should be put to death. In Exodus 22 1-10, God outlines in detail fines to be layed if a man steals all sorts of things.
Noah didn’t really put every animal into his ship. Moses didn’t part the red sea, nor did the Jews spent 40 (or was it 80?) years crossing the desert. In fact, besides biblical sources, there is no evidence to prove that Moses, or the Jewish slaves in Egypt, actually existed. Its all complete and utter fiction.
Do you really believe? Or do you selectively believe? It seems most Christians believe only in the PG version of their religion. Even if you believe the the Bible was written by those who claim it was written by, just read the damn thing. Actually read it cover to cover.
-
Yanny - “no evidence” does not equal “proving something does not exist”. Also different people will claim evidence which is uncapturable by a camera (although i have seen a very interesting picture taken from a plane) or tape recorder that God exists. So no, God has not been proven to not exist. This can never happen - just as I can not prove that aliens do not exist (not that i believe this - just that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist).
As for your contentions regarding early OT occurrances - there actually was in fact room for every species at the time to fit in the ark according to its dimensions. Further evidence of the ark has been found on mount Ararat. As for the Red Sea - how do you know this? Or the time spent in the desert?
Almost all Christians believe in the whole Bible, however we follow the New Testament and the commands God issues here. Jews follow the OT, and most of them still believe in all of the events then. -
Yanny,
Science has put forth some pretty wacky stuff over the years. They tried their best but looked at the world and saw things incorrectly. Does that mean all science is wrong?
Up until recently (in the terms of all human history) people saw religion as a work in process. All religions changed. It was easy. With an oral history people can make subtle changes over time and nobody notices. Now we have written text. Are we better off? People get hung up in rules and fail to connect with spirituality, IMO. We find this or that book and boom, the search is over. Look at all religious text. How did the prophets become prophets? Did they just sit around doing the same old thing every day? Where the great prophets, priests in churches? Or where they the guys like John the Baptist, and Budda who went looking for new truth?
How would a real prophet be greeted today? If God tried to speak with us, would we listien? I doubt it. We would call him a blasphemer.CC,
Don’t agree with you on “Almost all Christians believe in the whole Bible”. I don’t believe this to be a true statement. I think some do, but most in their heart think there is some artistic license being taken by the authors. There are no studies on this backing either of our arguements, but I don’t like being lumped as an outsider when you are making a judgement call. :)
Saul is the ONLY reason Chistianity exists. Before him it was a sect in the Jewish religion. Saul/Paul brought “Christianity” to the world. The Apostles had no intention of making this leap. The Apostles still followed, as did Saul the OT teachings. The big reason the OT stuff was dropped was circumcision. Without dropping that restriction, Christianity to the world would have failed. That is why we don’t have the OT as part of the main Christian doctrine. -
To Yanny:
I do not selectively believe anything. I’m an agnostic, however, I do subscribe to the cosmological argument.
You tell me, what made existence because surely it did not make itself. Everything requires cause, and I do not believe we can go infinitely back into a cause for a cause, because unless there was a first cause there would be no “Casual support” for every other cause.
Therefore, the first cause can be a creator or something else we cannot understand. however, there IS a first cause and that leaves the possibility there is a creator or God.
Apparantly you haven’t talked alot ot Janus… He says statements like that and then doesn’t back them up…
I’ll answer this for you easily.
You believe in an infinitely great god, correct? Well, to put it simply, why? Do you say it arbitrarily exists, because you being finite cannot possibly fathom something infinitely greater than you. You can never udnerstand an God that is infinitely greater. However, the christian God is understandable. It dispenses infinite justice, yet it is powerless to stop a finite amount of evil. It has infinite wisdom, but its creation is not infinitely great. If there is a God, we simply do not understand it, and the God of the bible contradicts itself and its attributes so much it cannot possibly exist.
-
@cystic:
As for your contentions regarding early OT occurrances - there actually was in fact room for every species at the time to fit in the ark according to its dimensions.
So, when again was Noah and his Ark? How did he get the Australian Marsupials on board? that’s quite a number … so i doubt the “every species at the time”, i would think they had much more species at that time compared to what we have today (in wildlife, and probably also in already domesticated animals).
-
You tell me, what made existence because surely it did not make itself. Everything requires cause, and I do not believe we can go infinitely back into a cause for a cause, because unless there was a first cause there would be no “Casual support” for every other cause.
I agree that an iterative approach is probably not the best. I disagree though on the “surely” that existance did not make itself. How can a cuase exist when no existance exists? Or else, who created the creator?
I don’t think that a first cause has to be there. If you allow eternal and extra-reality-existance for one, why not for a second, a third or something completely different?Therefore, the first cause can be a creator or something else we cannot understand. however, there IS a first cause and that leaves the possibility there is a creator or God.
Well, so what caused the first cause to act?
That would be the zeroth cause…I am just not a fan of mono-causal thinking. Usually things have more than one cause, or none.
I liked your agument on the christian god though. -
CC,
Don’t agree with you on “Almost all Christians believe in the whole Bible”. I don’t believe this to be a true statement. I think some do, but most in their heart think there is some artistic license being taken by the authors. There are no studies on this backing either of our arguements, but I don’t like being lumped as an outsider when you are making a judgement call. :)I think that “by definition” a Christian must believe the whole Bible. If we start selecting out whatever we feel like, then where do we stop? It would be nice, i’ll admit. I would take out all references to “fornication”, “pure living”, “drunkenness”, and probably modify many of the “adultery” ones. Now granted there is likely much that is “metaphorical”, and if you’ve seen any of my evolution posts, then you would have to admit that i buy into the metaphor-idea when things appear to conflict with science and are not specific, etc.
Saul is the ONLY reason Chistianity exists. Before him it was a sect in the Jewish religion. Saul/Paul brought “Christianity” to the world. The Apostles had no intention of making this leap. The Apostles still followed, as did Saul the OT teachings. The big reason the OT stuff was dropped was circumcision. Without dropping that restriction, Christianity to the world would have failed. That is why we don’t have the OT as part of the main Christian doctrine.
false.
the apostles were scattered all over the world. Saul travelled with John-Mark and Barnabas. He had contacts in many cities, however these may well have been established by their visits to Jerusalem, or Peter’s work, John’s work, etc. The church could well have been established without Saul/Paul, but it may not have been as unified. Also it may have had a broader appeal (to Jews) without this message, but it would have lacked a lot of the “intelligensia” which got on board thanks to Saul/Paul’s brilliant writings and ability to voice things in terms others could understand. -
I just don’t understand those who believe that the bible is actually true or that it actually depicts the word of God. How can a book riven by conflicting versions of the same events or unbelievable inconsistencies (e.g. Cain, Adams son, shacking up with people who appear from no-where) actually be the literal word of God. If it actually is the word of god, it suggests that god is either stupid, forgetful, or at least not all that skilled a writter… which leads to the inevitable conclusion that God isn’t perfect. If he isn’t perfect why should I even bother to listen to him. I’m not perfect but at least I can make a cogent point, which is more than I can say for the old geezer in the clouds.
-
Yanny - “no evidence” does not equal “proving something does not exist”.
Is there any evidence that I am not a space monkey from Neptune?
As for your contentions regarding early OT occurrances - there actually was in fact room for every species at the time to fit in the ark according to its dimensions. Further evidence of the ark has been found on mount Ararat.
The Ark did not exist. Its complete myth. Just think about it. The entire world is going to flood, right? Theres going to be a ship bigger than the titanic made of wood and filled with every animal on earth? Its a damn fabel! Theres a moral, thats how it supposed to read.
Also - The flood story is emulated in many Sumarian societies, and probably the Noah story probably owes its roots there.
As for the Red Sea - how do you know this? Or the time spent in the desert?
Does the world just change because its a story in the bible? The Red Sea cannot be parted, and even if it was, its a 40 mile hike across the damn thing. Can a few hundred thousand former slaves really treck for generations in the harsh Egyptian desert? Nope.
Almost all Christians believe in the whole Bible, however we follow the New Testament and the commands God issues here. Jews follow the OT, and most of them still believe in all of the events then.
You can’t selectively believe in just the New Testament, its incompatible. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the New Testament.
When you actually think about this religion (and others), I’m surprised anyone believes in them. Tell me, why did God not influence outside of the Middle East - European world for nearly two thousand years? Are the Asians and Native Americans just not important?
-
actually yanny, yes. i happen to know space monkeys from neptune, and having met you, i can say for certain, you are no space monkey.
why do i need proof that god does not exist? if you can sit there, and claim he does, with no defendable proof (you have only conjecture) why do i need it?
thing is, god doesnt exist, thats just the way it is. god, far from the common misconception of fulfilling the simplest solution (god created all, simple right?) complicates things (omniscient, all powerful, timeless being? harder to believe than big bang, and whole new concepts to deal with)
if god did exist, then we would have killed him, or he would have killed us. hell, the romans killed jesus, if they could kill the sun that easily, they could take the father. :roll:
-
the reason he came is to die for our sins, he became mortal, so that he could die, and personally, i wouldnt try to start a fight with the guy that created our planet.
-
@F_alk:
You tell me, what made existence because surely it did not make itself. Everything requires cause, and I do not believe we can go infinitely back into a cause for a cause, because unless there was a first cause there would be no “Casual support” for every other cause.
I agree that an iterative approach is probably not the best. I disagree though on the “surely” that existance did not make itself. How can a cuase exist when no existance exists? Or else, who created the creator?
I don’t think that a first cause has to be there. If you allow eternal and extra-reality-existance for one, why not for a second, a third or something completely different?Therefore, the first cause can be a creator or something else we cannot understand. however, there IS a first cause and that leaves the possibility there is a creator or God.
Well, so what caused the first cause to act?
That would be the zeroth cause…I am just not a fan of mono-causal thinking. Usually things have more than one cause, or none.
I liked your agument on the christian god though.Nothing is uncaused so that leaves two things:
an infinite regress of causesor
a first cause
now, whatever that first cause may be, it is unexplainable and unfathomable. However, I find an infinite regress backwards as ridiculous, because everything inherently started from somewhere. For the universe to be the one exception to this rule would be an udder blow to the mass historical record, so I find it far more likely for their to be some unexplainable first cause than an infinite regress of causes without a first cause (because such a notion is ridiculous according to what I said and the prinicipal of sufficient reason.)
Now, does that answer your question? I am a man of probabilities. I believe it is more probable that there is no man caused global warming for example. I also believe it is more probable there was a first cause (which would be in accordance to the historical record) than no first cause (which would be the one and only exception.) Because I have faith in nothing, I go with probability. You show me how it is more probable there’s an infinite regress and then we will talk.
-
the reason he came is to die for our sins, he became mortal, so that he could die
…… :-?
right, because that is the simplest thing ever… :roll:i wouldnt try to start a fight with the guy that created our planet
we need a showdown, jesus vs. Thor. personally, i dont think Jesus stands a chance. Thor wil lay the smack down on his ass. :wink:
my friend and i were talking, and we decided that God is like Superman (if this analogy has been drawn before, we were both unaware). For one thing, Superman is boring. I mean, he takes all the fun out of it. hes invincible, and chock full of all kinds of awesome powers. theres no humanity to him, no danger, not like with a marvel comic. but i digress. and to further confuse the issue, in each and every issue (or just about) a new way to defeat him is discovered. its absurd. hes supposed to only be vulnerable to kryptonite, yet they find more and more ways to almost kill him, before he saves the day, in a boring, Boy Scout/Apple Pie kind of way (dont get me wrong, i love apple pie).
God is the same way. hes all powerful, all knowing, blah blah blah. BORING! hes one dimensional. now, greek, norse, celtic, etc. mythologies all had complex gods. they were all deep and multidimensional, and fallible. hell, the norse gods were even destined to die (actually die, not some pansy Jesus resurrection way). he takes all the fun out of it. and yet despite all that, he is continually defied.
-
WRT my previous post, sorry for the random stupidity of it, its the result of caffeine and lack of sleep
-
Nothing is uncaused so that leaves two things:
an infinite regress of causes
or
a first causeWhy is nothing uncaused?
I know, in everyday live, everything (seems to have) has a cause.
If you go to quantum mechanics, the causality suddenly becomes a questionable thing: In the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, they showed that wuantum mechanics is non-local and/or non-causal. “Effects” can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, meaning they happen before the cause.
So, that is what our nowadays physics allows. We have no idea what happens in singularities, and todays theories suggest strongly that our universe started from one. The question then is: what was the cause for (a) that singularity to come into being and (b) to let it expand into what we now know as space-time.
This leads to the more fundamental question: how can you talk of “before” when time doesn’t exist (like in “before the big bang”) ?I do agree with your reasoning except for the point that “everything needs to have a cause”.
I will accept that for a moment, and i agree that the infinite regression is not logical. Then i come to the point ofa first cause. This one can’t be uncaused, as the “everything doesn’t allow for exceptions”. Then we either come back to the regression approach, or we have to make an exception from the above rule, saying “at least one thing is allowed to happen uncaused”. … And that is what i can agree: Not everything needs to have a cause. -
Yanny - “no evidence” does not equal “proving something does not exist”.
Is there any evidence that I am not a space monkey from Neptune?
please don’t make me waste my time with this.
As for your contentions regarding early OT occurrances - there actually was in fact room for every species at the time to fit in the ark according to its dimensions. Further evidence of the ark has been found on mount Ararat.
The Ark did not exist. Its complete myth. Just think about it. The entire world is going to flood, right? Theres going to be a ship bigger than the titanic made of wood and filled with every animal on earth? Its a damn fabel! Theres a moral, thats how it supposed to read. nope - far too specific. Also it is referenced in other parts of the Bible. Also (as i said) evidence for the existance of the ark has been found on Mount Ararat (where the ark was said to have rested).
And how do you know how the story is supposed to read? You don’t buy into any part of the Bible, but you are an expert on it?Also - The flood story is emulated in many Sumarian societies, and probably the Noah story probably owes its roots there.
Actually there are many “corraborating” stories in many other cultures with similar details. Perhaps these stories owe their roots to the actual event?
As for the Red Sea - how do you know this? Or the time spent in the desert?
Does the world just change because its a story in the bible? The Red Sea cannot be parted, and even if it was, its a 40 mile hike across the damn thing. Can a few hundred thousand former slaves really treck for generations in the harsh Egyptian desert? Nope.
obviously i could not part the Red Sea. This is considered to be a miracle generated by God (the creator of the world, who surely would be able to do something as simple as this.
As for the “harsh Egyptian desert” - what makes you an expert on the nature of the desert and of this time? In terms of food etc. God provided for the Jews at this time.Almost all Christians believe in the whole Bible, however we follow the New Testament and the commands God issues here. Jews follow the OT, and most of them still believe in all of the events then.
You can’t selectively believe in just the New Testament, its incompatible. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the New Testament.
you answered a question that was not asked.
When you actually think about this religion (and others), I’m surprised anyone believes in them. Tell me, why did God not influence outside of the Middle East - European world for nearly two thousand years? Are the Asians and Native Americans just not important?
when i look at the lives that have been touched by Jesus, as well as his sacrifice and truths, i am surprised that more people do not believe in Him.
As for God’s influence outside of the middle East - what makes you so sure that he did not provide any influence there? Writings from the Middle East have survived the best, and this is the home of the earliest writings (thank you Phoenicia). -
why do i need proof that god does not exist? if you can sit there, and claim he does, with no defendable proof (you have only conjecture) why do i need it?
There is soooo much more than conjecture. Countless people over the ages have had real experiences that have been life-changing as a result of their relationship with God/Jesus. Of course YOU can not measure this, therefore in your expert opinion, this is of no consequence. Sad.
thing is, god doesnt exist, thats just the way it is. god, far from the common misconception of fulfilling the simplest solution (god created all, simple right?) complicates things (omniscient, all powerful, timeless being? harder to believe than big bang, and whole new concepts to deal with)
if god did exist, then we would have killed him, or he would have killed us. hell, the romans killed jesus, if they could kill the sun that easily, they could take the father. :roll:
this is all such garbage. We are not looking for the “simplest solution” but rather answers that you do not have (nor does science).
As for the Romans killing Jesus - please do more research before coming up with this kind of crap. -
CC, I am not tied to the laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23, Rom. 8:1)… Therefore that is why christians do not use it as a basis for a set pattern of living because part of it is “works”… Some of it Dietarily and Sanitarily is excellent and can be drawn from but as a whole… The old as you said is yes the Foundation for the new… But it is not the “law” of the new… And as you said the truths in the stories can be drawn…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
CC, I am not tied to the laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23, Rom. 8:1)… Therefore that is why christians do not use it as a basis for a set pattern of living because part of it is “works”… Some of it Dietarily and Sanitarily is excellent and can be drawn from but as a whole… The old as you said is yes the Foundation for the new… But it is not the “law” of the new… And as you said the truths in the stories can be drawn…
GG
without too much thinking - yes, i believe i agree with most of this.
The thing is, Christians should believe that the OT is true, as not only is it “the foundation”, but the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled came from here. -
Why is nothing uncaused?
because anything without cause requires faith to believe in and this is inherently the problem of atheism and theism.
Everything has reason and cause. The reason we are not flying into outerspace is because of gravity (the reason.) Everything works with reason and cause. However, you conveniently suggest the only expection to this rule is existence itself, and wouldn’t that be funny to say “everything that exists has a cause but existence…” that logically makes absolutely no sense.
Therefore, there must be a first cause/reason that explains it all, not an infinite regress. We can go infinitely into the future, but not the past.
I know, in everyday live, everything (seems to have) has a cause.
If you go to quantum mechanics, the causality suddenly becomes a questionable thing: In the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, they showed that wuantum mechanics is non-local and/or non-causal. “Effects” can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, meaning they happen before the cause.however, there’s a reason for being. For example, if there’s a scientific REASOn that stuff just suddenly exsited, than the intial cause demand is satisfied. However, there needs to be REASON and CAUSE. Einstein never said, “if I don’t understand this, it is because there’s no reason for it”, that’s ridiculous.
So, that is what our nowadays physics allows. We have no idea what happens in singularities, and todays theories suggest strongly that our universe started from one. The question then is: what was the cause for (a) that singularity to come into being and (b) to let it expand into what we now know as space-time.
This leads to the more fundamental question: how can you talk of “before” when time doesn’t exist (like in “before the big bang”) ?You can’t, thats beyond our knowledge. However, our understanding of existence does necessitate cause and reason. All of this, everything, was not ALWAYS there. There must be a cause or reason for it, and that opens up the possibility of some sort of god.
I do agree with your reasoning except for the point that “everything needs to have a cause”.
I will accept that for a moment, and i agree that the infinite regression is not logical. Then i come to the point ofa first cause. This one can’t be uncaused, as the “everything doesn’t allow for exceptions”. Then we either come back to the regression approach, or we have to make an exception from the above rule, saying “at least one thing is allowed to happen uncaused”. … And that is what i can agree: Not everything needs to have a cause.As I already said that our understanding allows us to know there must be a first cause, but now you say the first cause is the exception to the rule. that may be, but if the first cause was God with it’s infinite powers, it can logically be beyond the rules it sets.
However, this explanation to me is far too simple. I think the only explanation is that the initial cause or reason only makes sense if we have an above human understanding of this subject.
Some physicists believe that electrons don’t go real fast, they literally change position by going in and out of existence . Now, if this is true, I’m sure there is some sort of equation or understanding that makes this possible. If so, this can easily be applied to the first cause. Then we can always ask, “where do the laws of physics come from”, but again, it is our mortal understanding that is fallible. For all we know there can be math to explain math.
However, that could be false and the uncaused first cause can indeed be God. I don’t know, nor we never could. However, I find the infinite regress and illogical explanation for the existence of our universe, because it would be contrary to the mass historical record.
Suggested Topics
