Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 136 of 317 (421241)
09-11-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by pbee
09-11-2007 3:37 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
quote:
Thats interesting, because the scriptures which predate your claims state that the ten commandments were penned by Moses and dictated by God. Now I don't want to seem rude, but in a case such as this, wouldn't the older claim take precedence over the younger one? especially if the material is archived?
The story does say that God dictated them to Moses. That's part of the story. Even before Jesus was born there were differences of opinion among the Jews as to whether Moses actually wrote the first five books. It is tradition that Moses wrote the first five books. See this thread: could moses have written the first five books of the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 3:37 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 5:57 PM purpledawn has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 137 of 317 (421244)
09-11-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by purpledawn
09-11-2007 5:47 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
The scriptures(Exodus)states that God dictated the words and Moses penned them. It was written in the scrolls dated at 100 BCE. Do you have a source or evidence that predates this claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2007 5:47 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2007 6:46 PM pbee has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 138 of 317 (421249)
09-11-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by purpledawn
09-11-2007 2:16 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
1. Created by an author.
2. Created at a specific point in time.
3. Their existence is dependent on the author, literary work, memory of the work, and people who can read or hear the work.
4. They are not found in the spatio-temporal world.
Well, that really was what was at the heart of my question: how do you determine if the character is a mental creation, or a living being?
When you read Plato's dialogues, what tells you that this 'Socrates' character is real, yet causes you to determine this 'God' character of the Bible to be made up?
Now, you mention one thing: "They are not found in the spatio-temporal world." How does that apply to people about whom we have no knowledge other than things others wrote about them, e.g., Socrates?
You'll have to explain in plain terms what a no-god is before I can actually answer that question. No analogies please.
Like I said, I'm not much on logic babble.
It is a difficult concept around which to grasp our minds. No-God isn't necessarily the same as an 'absence' of God. No-God is a non-existent entity, which exists inasmuch as we are able to discuss no-Him (think of imaginary numbers, sort of). Anything can be talked of in this way; we can have no-house, no-unicorn, etc.
So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world. In fact, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find or do not find in regards to 'house', none of it will be able to tell you about 'no-house'. 'No-house' becomes the 'house' non-existant. Can we find the non-existant purple trim on 'no-house'? Certainly that would be evidence; but alas, even if it were evidence, we can't find it, 'cause it doesn't exist. There is not a SHRED of evidence that will point us to the truthfulness of 'no-house'. And all the evidence that we do not find for 'house' will only tell us that what we have no evidence for 'house' and it can tell us nothing about 'no-house', or the truthfullness of 'no-house'.
Now, I know that you requested that an analogy wasn't used, but I feel that it was best to describe it using something that you could at least accept as existing in some form. We can apply this to the idea of God, and no-God in the same way. Evidence for a no-God, must be, by its very definition, evidence of the 'no-' variety, such as 'no-(6-day-creation-evidence)'. No-God is the 'exact opposite', not simply an 'absence of', and as a result requires the 'exact opposite' evidence. What is the opposite of evidence-existant? Evidence-non-existant. And so by the very nature of 'no-God' we can possess no evidence to the affirmatory, because our evidence has to be non-existing in order to affirm the no-God as truth. If our evidence does exist, it will then be evidence-existant, so, for example 'yes-(6-day-creation-evidence)'; in other words, it will be evidence that is the exact opposite of 'no-...' and be 'yes-...', which in so being only serves to affirm the yes-God statement. This has the implication that all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can never have evidence of 'no-God'.
It is true; in the world as it is today there has yet to be evidence for the existence of God in the sense that He is a testable entity, and so as it stands, we are safe in saying that there is no evidence of God (or, as I've said before, 'negative-[yes]evidence of yes-God'). But, we are not okay to say that there is evidence supporting the notion of no-God, (or, 'positive-[no]evidence of no-God') because our statement already tells us that we can have no evidence; seems foolish to go looking for it then, or to pretend that it exists.
Now, one more illustration, that might add understanding:
Yes-God and no-God exist on polar opposites of the same line (the 'God' line, we can call it):
yes-God             no-God
   |__________________|
We can also add an 'evidence' line to overlap:
yes-God             no-God
   |__________________|
   |                  |
yes-Ev.             no-Ev.
In the middle of the God line, exist things which are neither 'yes-God' or 'no-God', for example, 'house'. In the middle of the evidence line exist things which are not evidence in regards to our particular cause, so, evidence in regards to house is found somewhere there. Now, you see, the closer and closer we move toward evidence of no-God, the closer we move toward no-evidence. In the end, the moment we get to no-God, our ability to prove the concept is doused because we now have no-evidence.
Without specific parameters we really can't discuss whether gods can be found in the spatio-temporal world.
The one with the specifics has to provide the information for those doing the looking.
Where do we find these specifics? In literature and stories. God's attributes are dependent on people. ...
Please read all of Message 110 so I don't have to repeat those points.
I hope that what I have written above will address all the points you say I failed to (and probably did fail to) address.
Jon
__________
Six day creation is not necessarily an attribute necessary in our defining of yes-God. We can, in fact, pick anything we want, to say it would be evidence of 'yes-God', and still realise that the opposite of that evidence cannot be evidence of 'no-God'.
House, of course, exists on the line too, in its own place. We could've put yes-house and no-house on opposite ends outside of the God line and used the house-line. Any things can be plotted independently on our continuum line, but on one side it is yes-X and on the other no-X, extending in infinite directions, both ways. In other words, each side of the line contains the essence of either yes-ness or the essence of no-ness.

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2007 2:16 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2007 8:47 PM Jon has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 139 of 317 (421252)
09-11-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by pbee
09-11-2007 5:57 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
The scriptures(Exodus)states that God dictated the words and Moses penned them. It was written in the scrolls dated at 100 BCE. Do you have a source or evidence that predates this claim?
The date a claim is made has absolutely zero relevance to the claims veracity. A few hundred years ago, people claimed the Earth was flat. Are they somehow correct becasue their claim predated the concept of a (roughly) spherical Earth? Don't be ridiculous. There are many religions that predate Christianity or even Judaism. Are their scriptures more correct than the Jewish texts because they are older?
A scroll that says "Moses wrote it and God dictated it" doesn't mean it actually happened that way. All it means is that the author of that particular scroll likely believed that to be the case. Age != veracity. An old document that says something does not mean it is in any way true.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 5:57 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 7:25 PM Rahvin has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 140 of 317 (421259)
09-11-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Rahvin
09-11-2007 6:46 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
quote:
The date a claim is made has absolutely zero relevance to the claims veracity. A few hundred years ago, people claimed the Earth was flat. Are they somehow correct becasue their claim predated the concept of a (roughly) spherical Earth? Don't be ridiculous. There are many religions that predate Christianity or even Judaism. Are their scriptures more correct than the Jewish texts because they are older?
quote:
A few hundred years ago, people claimed the Earth was flat.
Interesting thing about this, is that the scriptures(2000 yrs. old), claimed the earth was indeed round.
Your attempt at age dismissal is perhaps the most ridiculous move to gain credibility on a topic I have seen to date. I hope your line of work isn't in archeology. - Unless we have evidence which predates an artifact under scrutiny, we have nothing to bring to the table. Scriptural evidence is as good as any archaeological artifact. Asking people to consider opinions on scriptural content which date thousands of years after the fact is completely benign.
At this stage, all we are left with is to try and conclude whether the document in question is a viable source of information(credible) or not. Does it fit a fictional profile? or can it be treated as a historical record?
Based on my own observations, the scriptures prove to be a historical record and not fiction. As I said before, it does lend itself to scrutiny, but few if any who criticize or dismiss it, ever apply any effort into testing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2007 6:46 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2007 7:55 PM pbee has replied
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2007 8:01 PM pbee has replied
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 09-11-2007 8:41 PM pbee has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 141 of 317 (421265)
09-11-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by pbee
09-11-2007 7:25 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
Interesting thing about this, is that the scriptures(2000 yrs. old), claimed the earth was indeed round.
It also claims that the Earth rests on pillars.
Your attempt at age dismissal is perhaps the most ridiculous move to gain credibility on a topic I have seen to date. I hope your line of work isn't in archeology. - Unless we have evidence which predates an artifact under scrutiny, we have nothing to bring to the table. Scriptural evidence is as good as any archaeological artifact. Asking people to consider opinions on scriptural content which date thousands of years after the fact is completely benign.
Congratulations on missing the point. I was talking about a claim's validity, which is entirely different from proving whether a document is authentic. In other words, earlier documents will usually (not always) bear greater resemblance to the original document, this is true. But if that document makes claims (assuming the document is 100% genuine in the first place) such as, oh, I don't know...a deity exists and created the Earth in six days, for example, the age of the document has absolutely nothing to do with whether that claim is valid. The scroll you mentioned earlier may indeed have been an authentic, original document. But the claim that it makes (that a deity dictated Exodus to Moses) is entirely unverifiable, in exactly the same way as if I were to say that the invisible pink unicorn dictated this post for me to write.
Your textual evidence is proof only that belief in a God existed when those document were written. It does not prove that God actually exists. If you believe otherwise, then you must believe in the Hindu pantheon of gods, because they, too, have ancient texts detailing their existence and which claim to be valid.
A document cannot prove itself. A second document cannot prove the first document's claims. All your scroll proves is that the author of the scroll believed that God exists and dictated Exodus to Moses. It doesn't mean that the author was not wrong.
At this stage, all we are left with is to try and conclude whether the document in question is a viable source of information(credible) or not. Does it fit a fictional profile? or can it be treated as a historical record?
And we have many, many threads detailing multiple ways in which the Bible is not even remotely close to a historical account. There is no evidence, for example, of ANY of the events in Exodus (a massive Hebrew population of slaves in Egypt, the plagues, the slaying of the firstborn, remains of any mass 40-year trek across a desert, etc).
Based on my own observations, the scriptures prove to be a historical record and not fiction. As I said before, it does lend itself to scrutiny, but few if any who criticize or dismiss it, ever apply any effort into testing it.
Outright lies. Archaeologists have been searching for evidence of Biblical events since people figured out they could dig up evidence of the past. The results that have been gathered thus far have shown that the Bible is full of mythology rather than fact. There is direct contradictory evidence to Genesis. There is a lack of any supporting evidence for the events of Exodus (surely the Egyptians would have noticed the plagues and the slaying of the firstborn or the mass exodus of the Hebrew slaves and written it down somewhere). To say that they "didn't apply any effort" is ridiculous on its face.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 7:25 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 8:35 PM Rahvin has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 142 of 317 (421267)
09-11-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by pbee
09-11-2007 7:25 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
pbee writes:
Your attempt at age dismissal is perhaps the most ridiculous move to gain credibility on a topic I have seen to date.
And:
Scriptural evidence is as good as any archaeological artifact.
To you, ancient texts with lots of magic in them should be viewed as historical. Not, as I would think, a mixture of history and myth. So you would perhaps consider Homer's Odyssey (700 BC aprox.) to be true, magic, Gods, and all. Troy and Ithica existed, after all.
Or do Jewish myths, for some reason (or lack thereof), get special status in your mind? And if so, why? Could blind faith and desire be distorting your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 7:25 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 8:22 PM bluegenes has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 143 of 317 (421275)
09-11-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by bluegenes
09-11-2007 8:01 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
quote:
To you, ancient texts with lots of magic in them should be viewed as historical. Not, as I would think, a mixture of history and myth. So you would perhaps consider Homer's Odyssey (700 BC aprox.) to be true, magic, Gods, and all. Troy and Ithica existed, after all.
I thought magic was left for the olden days when people didn't understand much. Are you still in that frame of mind? Because the advent of an entity from another realm with capacities which precedes our own does not seem like magic to me. The key to the facet of God and man is to establish whether or not we are dealing with possibilities. As long as we have a logical framework to support the claim, then the claim or event remains plausible. In laman's terms, this means, if it works out, then it's possible.
Just as some intellects remain open minded towards alien life, others seem incapable of accepting alien life. Or is it the Godly status which scares them away?
Some ancient beliefs don't stand to reason as others do. While I openly admit, I have not looked at all the doctrines we do have outstanding ones. It is easier than most would care to accept to sort through the mix. All in all, the scriptures can be scrutinized and evaluated. It is all to common for flamboyants to come along and pepper the road with loose claims without ever lifting a finger to consider the underlying evidence which surround God's existence. This is a human trait that can be observed it in all areas of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2007 8:01 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2007 10:49 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 144 of 317 (421277)
09-11-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Rahvin
09-11-2007 7:55 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
quote:
It also claims that the Earth rests on pillars.
I am not familiar with such words. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
quote:
Congratulations on missing the point. I was talking about a claim's validity, which is entirely different from proving whether a document is authentic. In other words, earlier documents will usually (not always) bear greater resemblance to the original document, this is true. But if that document makes claims (assuming the document is 100% genuine in the first place) such as, oh, I don't know...a deity exists and created the Earth in six days, for example, the age of the document has absolutely nothing to do with whether that claim is valid. The scroll you mentioned earlier may indeed have been an authentic, original document. But the claim that it makes (that a deity dictated Exodus to Moses) is entirely unverifiable, in exactly the same way as if I were to say that the invisible pink unicorn dictated this post for me to write.
Your textual evidence is proof only that belief in a God existed when those document were written. It does not prove that God actually exists. If you believe otherwise, then you must believe in the Hindu pantheon of gods, because they, too, have ancient texts detailing their existence and which claim to be valid.
A document cannot prove itself. A second document cannot prove the first document's claims. All your scroll proves is that the author of the scroll believed that God exists and dictated Exodus to Moses. It doesn't mean that the author was not wrong.
Actually I backtracked to my original post and saw that I was confusing your reply with someone else's(apology on that).
I agree, there is no proof of God's existence anywheres in the bible.
quote:
Outright lies. Archaeologists have been searching for evidence of Biblical events since people figured out they could dig up evidence of the past. The results that have been gathered thus far have shown that the Bible is full of mythology rather than fact. There is direct contradictory evidence to Genesis. There is a lack of any supporting evidence for the events of Exodus (surely the Egyptians would have noticed the plagues and the slaying of the firstborn or the mass exodus of the Hebrew slaves and written it down somewhere). To say that they "didn't apply any effort" is ridiculous on its face.
Well I suppose we could conclude that the history records may not provide us evidence to support all the accounts in the bible. That doesn't mean that it is over either. Look at the dead sea scrolls? it is a good example that things can come up at any time despite what we may feel.
Additionally, if we were to setup lists of missing and found evidence to support the scriptural claims, then I wonder how it would take for some people to stand in satisfaction? Continuing on with this thought, we could look at evolution and the available evidence there also. I'm sure you would agree that we do not have all the pieces to the puzzle to satisfy the theory at this time. In fact. the puzzle if very sparse and lacking some major backing. Yet... many people accept it to be a fact.
I'm not knocking the theory of evolution but it seemed like a fine example in this case. Point of it is, I think the bible has provided us with a very positive number of verifiable accounts in it's favor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Rahvin, posted 09-11-2007 7:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 09-11-2007 8:39 PM pbee has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 145 of 317 (421279)
09-11-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by pbee
09-11-2007 8:35 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
Actually the TOE keeps getting confirmed by every new discovery and technology while the Biblical claims keep getting disproved.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 8:35 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 8:41 PM jar has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 146 of 317 (421280)
09-11-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jar
09-11-2007 8:39 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
quote:
Actually the TOE keeps getting confirmed by every new discovery and technology while the Biblical claims keep getting disproved.
sounds interesting, got a lead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 09-11-2007 8:39 PM jar has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 147 of 317 (421281)
09-11-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by pbee
09-11-2007 7:25 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
pbee writes:
Interesting thing about this, is that the scriptures(2000 yrs. old), claimed the earth was indeed round.
Circle is not Spherical! Also the bible talks about the four corners of the earth. Today that is a figure of speech due to our Biblical heritage. In its day that was not a figure of speech but a reflection of the nominal cosmology.
If you climb a tall mountain and look around, the earth indeed looks circular - probably the source of the biblical passage. Note there was a word for spherical and it was not used. This demonstrates lack of a priori knowledge.
Further note that pagan Greeks were light years ahead. The Greeks knew the earth was spherical around 500 BC, they knew that the orbit of the moon was inclined to the equator of the Earth, they determined that the morning star was not a star but a planet. If you are looking for inspiration check out the Greeks.
pbee writes:
Your attempt at age dismissal is perhaps the most ridiculous move to gain credibility on a topic I have seen to date.
You are misunderstanding veracity of claims versus authenticity. A writing can be authentic but contain invalid claims. Early dated claims may prove authenticity but not veracity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 7:25 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 9:57 PM iceage has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 148 of 317 (421284)
09-11-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Jon
09-11-2007 6:22 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
1. Created by an author.
2. Created at a specific point in time.
3. Their existence is dependent on the author, literary work, memory of the work, and people who can read or hear the work.
4. They are not found in the spatio-temporal world.
quote:
Well, that really was what was at the heart of my question: how do you determine if the character is a mental creation, or a living being?
A living person's existence is not dependent on an author, literary work, etc.
A living person can be found in the spatio-temporal world.
quote:
When you read Plato's dialogues, what tells you that this 'Socrates' character is real, yet causes you to determine this 'God' character of the Bible to be made up?
Never read them. You would check them against the criteria listed above.
Does the God character exist regardless of the literary work? Can it function independent of the literary work or people?
quote:
Now, you mention one thing: "They are not found in the spatio-temporal world." How does that apply to people about whom we have no knowledge other than things others wrote about them, e.g., Socrates?
Strictly historical writings should not have fictional characters in them. There are stories that are part fiction and part fact, but they aren't considered strictly historical. The Bible has portions that are part fact and part fiction.
quote:
So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world.
Which is what a fictional character is.
Jon writes:
Okay, so, in keeping with the topic of this thread, your 'positive-evidence for no-God' is that God is a "fictional character"?
My answer would be yes then if I understood you correctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Jon, posted 09-11-2007 6:22 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Jon, posted 09-12-2007 2:33 PM purpledawn has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 149 of 317 (421296)
09-11-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by iceage
09-11-2007 8:41 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
Isaiah 40:22 reads of One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth. When this text says that God sits above the circle of the earth, this coincides with the fact that the earth is circular(viewed from all directions), but that also makes it globular in form. The Hebrew word "hhug" is shown to mean "circle, sphere". in the Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B. Davidson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 09-11-2007 8:41 PM iceage has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 150 of 317 (421301)
09-11-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by pbee
09-11-2007 8:22 PM


Re: God the Fictional Character
pbee writes:
It is all to common for flamboyants to come along and pepper the road with loose claims without ever lifting a finger to consider the underlying evidence which surround God's existence.
What underlying evidence. Why do you reject the Gods of the Greeks, Gods that they wrote about, and accept the God of the Jews on the basis of their writings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 8:22 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by pbee, posted 09-11-2007 10:52 PM bluegenes has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024