Proof for God's Non-existance?

God wrote this forum post.This forum post is inerrant.

---

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

People don't avoid it. Atheists and other non-Christians use it all the time when they say that a book cannot be evidence of its own validity.Even a book containing some facts cannot be considered inerrant without outside corroboration of each individual claim being made.For instance, the movie Independence Day featured several real-world major cities. The existence of the cities in real life has no bearing on the validity of the remainder of the movie's content. Likewise, "ancient scriptures," to use your generic term, typically contain at least some real-world locations, and can even contain real historical fact right alongside pure nonsense.Example:

quote:

---

God appeared to me in a vision, and told me to write this forum post. He said this post is inerrant, and was written in Sacramento, CA. He also said to mention that the US is currently engaged in a war in Iraq, and that World War II happened back in the 30s and 40s. The sky is blue. Also, yea verily, there is a monster living under your bed. You cant find him because he's intangible and invisible, but he's there. God said so. Verily.

---

The presence of several actual facts does not mean the rest of the statement is anything more than fiction, regardless of the claims made. The unfalsifiable claims of the "ancient scriptures" (the existence of deities of any sort, for instance) are in no way corroborated by any facts that may have snuck their way through the nonsense.When you say we must take into account the "evidence presented in the ancient scriptures," you may as well say we should take into account the evidence presented in the latest Tom Clancey novel. Somehow, you think your statement holds more validity, perhaps becasue a lot of people believe in the same nonsense, or perhaps because your book is "really really old." You are mistaken, in any case. Books cannot prove their own content. To say as much is circular reasoning.

---

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

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.

It also claims that the Earth rests on pillars. 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. 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). 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.

And the whole race card is a nice evasion on your part. You were asked why you choose to believe in the Jewish God as opposed to any of the other (some pre-existing) deities people have believed in over the centuries. I'd really like to see your response. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

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

What a stupid statement. I live in an apartment. If I claim I built the apartment, does my apartment's existence prove I actually built it? If I claim I built the apartment before the actual builder comes and says "well, actually no, I built it," does my claim somehow carry more weight?If I claim I built a rock, or a mountain, does the existence of the rock or mountain prove I created either? Does it prove either were created at all? What if nobody else ever claims to be the rock- or mountain-maker, becasue they clearly formed by natural means all on their own. Since Im the only claimant, is my claim valid?Your logic is severely flawed, pbee.

---

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