Proof for God's Non-existance?

God of the Jews? Isn't that a bit racist? It seems as though God is available to all people and not races as some would believe.

Of course it's racist. More than a bit. The God of the Bible favours his chosen tribe, and chooses to communicate with them to the exclusion of all others, and helps them in conflicts with their enemies.Don't blame me. I didn't invent him, and I don't believe in him.

Nice twist. I guess it depends on what bible your quoting and who's quoting it. As I see it, the bible references God who took care of His people. In a time where tribes were indicative of peoples beliefs in contrast to religions today, there would of been God's people. But did He not carry out and tend to many different tribes and people? Furthermore... when Jesus came into the scene, he broke the mold further by extending compassion to all people regardless of their ethnicity.It would seem as though racism is carried on by people and not God as you claim.

Racism is certainly carried on by people, and if you'd thought about it, I'd hardly be likely to claim that it's literally carried on by an entity that I don't believe exists, would I?Tribal racists, like Moses, would push the idea of the racist God that existed in their minds. When Moses wants his people to commit genocide, the victim tribe is described as having "offended God", for example.In reality, the incident may well have been about grabbing land from other people. The fictional God would, of course, have promised the land to the tribe who invented him.

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.

Rahvin, pbee, and bluegenes:Please keep to the topic.Address your opponent's position concerning the topic, not personal beliefs.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Please reread Message 1 so you understand what this thread is about. If you are trying to argue against the gods-as-fictional-characters premise, then please make your argument clear.When referring to scripture, please provide the scripture so that we are all on the same page and explain how you feel that counters my position.

quote:

---

In a time where tribes were indicative of peoples beliefs in contrast to religions today,

---

What you've been saying makes my point more than countering it.The God character has changed over time as mankind has changed. If we look at gods from other cultures we can also see that some changed over time.In my position, the people change the character. The character doesn't change itself.The OP made no specifics on which God, but you are obviously speaking of the Christian God. So make your case, but keep to the topic. Don't lead the thread into various Bible adventures. There are other threads for that.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The God character has changed over time as mankind has changed. If we look at gods from other cultures we can also see that some changed over time.

​

In my position, the people change the character. The character doesn't change itself.

---

I believe there are fictional gods in wittings. Greek gods etc. However, as I mentioned in a previous comment, it is somewhat easy to identify them from the pile. I also believe there is only one God above all things and so obviously I will speak on behalf of this doctrine.As for your change, I have not seen any change over time where God's character is concerned. In fact, if anything, the scriptures have been quite consistent in demonstrating that God upheld His commands from the very beginning.So I guess that stands in favor of my argument.

quote:

---

As for your change, I have not seen any change over time where God's character is concerned. In fact, if anything, the scriptures have been quite consistent in demonstrating that God upheld His commands from the very beginning.

​

So I guess that stands in favor of my argument.

---

The God of the Bible goes from being a tribal god, but today you present God as a universal god.The Jews gleaned 613 commands from the Torah. Some of those had death penalties, but that has changed.Christians have two commands from the NT or claim not to be under "the law". Christians no longer follow the dietary laws or rituals. Who made those changes?Please provide support for your response, not just general comments.The significance is in who is making the changes.The Sabbath day was changed by the Catholic Church. The fictional character is adjusted as needed. Mankind makes the changes.

quote:

---

The God of the Bible goes from being a tribal god, but today you present God as a universal god.

---

The Bible acknowledges the intimate association between God(YHWH) and the Israelite nation. But this is no reason to consider Him as a tribal god. The Israelites did not choose God, it was God who chose them to accomplish his purpose(to prepare the way for the Messiah).Furthermore, a tribal god’s destiny is bound up with that of its people. When the tribe is vanquished, the god too suffers defeat. This has not been the case with YHWH.God's covenant with Abraham centuries before the Christian era promised blessings for people of all nations, showing God’s interest in all mankind. The Israelite King David showed that God was proprietor of more than just the land and people of Israel.Further confirming the universalness of God's headship Paul wrote that there was no distinction between Jew and Greek, since they were all under the same God(Romans 10:12).

quote:

---

The Jews gleaned 613 commands from the Torah. Some of those had death penalties, but that has changed.

---

There were distinct phases within the Christian scriptures to depict God's plans for mankind. The transitions between these phases do not mean that God was swaying in His rule. We can confirm this since He carried His plans down to the letter.

quote:

---

Christians have two commands from the NT or claim not to be under "the law".

---

Are you referring to the Mosaic law? I think the scriptures are quite adamant in explaining that both sets of laws were designated for specific times and purposes. The first(Mosaic) was intended to carry God's people until the coming of Jesus. Once this event took place, people would fall under a new covenant. The entire process was carried out just as God commanded.

You still fail to answer my question. How do you determine if the character is real, or made up? Why is Socrates real? What is it that makes you go, 'golly gee, this man really lived, breathed, existed in the 'spatio-temporal' world...' Yet, 'nah, this God fella is just not real, didn't exist in the spatio-temporal world.' Was Socrates a real man, or not? Then you would conclude that he was not. This doesn't address my argument, nor is it even related. My argument was an attempt to prove why no-God is an unprovable concept; and your reply is to tell me what I'm talking about isn't real, but fictional? But then you have yet to prove that He's fictional. Fictional does not exist, my question was semi-rhetorical:

quote:

---

Okay, so, in keeping with the topic of this thread, your 'positive-evidence for no-God' is that God is a "fictional character"?

---

I was asking, essentially, if your proof that God does not exist was that He does not exist. When someone asks you: 'What is proof that God does not exist?' your answer is 'His non-existence'? That really isn't much in the way of proof.Having not addressed the rest of my post, I assume you agree with the statement that: 'all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can never have evidence of 'no-God'.'?Jon

quote:

---

The Bible acknowledges the intimate association between God(YHWH) and the Israelite nation.

---

The Bible is a compilation of various works by various authors. So it can't acknowledge anything.You're showing me that new authors change what the old authors said.

quote:

---

Furthermore, a tribal god’s destiny is bound up with that of its people. When the tribe is vanquished, the god too suffers defeat. This has not been the case with YHWH.

---

The YHWH character has suffered the defeats of Israel. The books that make up the OT are a testament to that.Remember a fictional character's existence is dependent on the author, literary work, people who read the work and remember the work, etc.As long as one person remembers and desires to bring the character back to popularity, the character will exist. How many times were the Israelites chastised for assimilating into the reigning power?During the fall of the kingdoms and the exile the prophets are desperately trying to keep the YHWH character in the eyes of the people.When they returned from exile King Artaxerxes gave Ezra authority to continue their religion and he did. (Ezra 7)Supposedly God had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in booths during the feast of the seventh month (Leviticus 23), but you will find in Nehemiah 8:17 that they hadn't done that before.Leviticus is considered a priestly writing written after the fall of the northern kingdom (722 BCE).It is theorized that Ezra put the five books together and was the final redactor.Even the sacrificial rules were different between the five books and the other writings in the OT.

quote:

---

There were distinct phases within the Christian scriptures to depict God's plans for mankind. The transitions between these phases do not mean that God was swaying in His rule. We can confirm this since He carried His plans down to the letter.

---

You're summarizing what you feel or have been told the Bible says, but you're not showing me what reality shows us. You're not showing me that the God character is independent of the literature or the people.

quote:

---

Are you referring to the Mosaic law? I think the scriptures are quite adamant in explaining that both sets of laws were designated for specific times and purposes. The first(Mosaic) was intended to carry God's people until the coming of Jesus. Once this event took place, people would fall under a new covenant. The entire process was carried out just as God commanded.

---

Again you are showing me that a later author or authors have changed what the first author wrote.The Mosaic covenant itself doesn't support that conclusion.

quote:

---

The Bible is a compilation of various works by various authors. So it can't acknowledge anything.

---

Well, there goes the public records system. That statement alone does not mean your right, it simply demonstrates your own refusal to acknowledge scriptural evidence as historical records. However, I think that the in question has proved to be a reliable source of information. Based on your approach, we would be discounting a great deal of written information.

quote:

---

The YHWH character has suffered the defeats of Israel. The books that make up the OT are a testament to that.

---

Can you show me the accounts to support this claim?

quote:

---

You're summarizing what you feel or have been told the Bible says, but you're not showing me what reality shows us. You're not showing me that the God character is independent of the literature or the people.

---

Not at all, my reasoning is based on scriptural research an evidence. I don't quite get what your asking in the final part of your statement though. If you are asking for proof that God exists then we would have to look at that problem from another perspective. The arrangement is presented in such a way that God came before the scriptures. The claim was recorded in the scriptures but the physical evidence was already there.

quote:

---

Again you are showing me that a later author or authors have changed what the first author wrote. The Mosaic covenant itself doesn't support that conclusion.

---

I doubt we will be pulling out any rabbits by laying out some form of proof what any of the scriptural contents have remained pure or intact over time. Then again, are we being realistic? The opening scriptures speak of a prophesy which depicted the coming of Christ who would redeem mankind from the sins of our original parents. Shortly after this, God issued laws for the people which would ensure that His plans were effectuated. Once the objective was met, the position between man and God was going to change, and a new set of laws would be given.Having said this, we have no proof of anything. Just as we have no proof that Timothy Vay wrote a book in 1943 and that it's contents have been preserved to this very day. Yet by observation and trials, Timothy's book proved to be a reliable source of information and so we continue to consider it as such.Likewise the scriptures have proven to be a reliable source of information. This in spite of the numerous claims within it. Additionally, the claims made by God within the scriptures do fall within our grasp to evaluate and the information openly available to scrutinize.So is God somehow by the scriptures? well we could say that, then again, there is no escaping the big question is there? Where did we come from? As long as this question exists, then God will exist. Edited by pbee, : typo's

quote:

---

You still fail to answer my question. How do you determine if the character is real, or made up?

---

You do research and look at the work. The Socrates in the Plato Dialogues is a fictional character based on a real person.

quote:

---

This doesn't address my argument, nor is it even related. My argument was an attempt to prove why no-God is an unprovable concept; and your reply is to tell me what I'm talking about isn't real, but fictional?

---

You said: How is that different than a fictional character?The purple trim on your no-house exists in your post. As soon as I read house, I picture a house. As soon as I read purple trim, I picture a house with purple trim. It exists as a concept just as God does.The no-house with the purple trim doesn't exist in the spatio-temporal world, but it does exist on this board as a written concept. You won't find it anywhere but here.Gods are concepts that can only be found in literature and the human mind. The fact that we all don't have the same concept of any particular god should prove that.A fictional character is a non-existent entity. So why isn't that proof.

quote:

---

Having not addressed the rest of my post, I assume you agree with the statement that: 'all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can never have evidence of 'no-God'.'?

---

Apparently I haven't understood what you're talking about yet.

quote:

---

That statement alone does not mean your right, it simply demonstrates your own refusal to acknowledge scriptural evidence as historical records.

---

That's the problem, you didn't give scriptural evidence. You gave a general statement. See no scriptural support.

quote:

---

Can you show me the accounts to support this claim?

---

Yes I can, but since you don't return the favor, I''m not going to extend that effort until you dish up some support for your position. I'm not really sure what your position is actually.

quote:

---

Not at all, my reasoning is based on scriptural research an evidence. I don't quite get what your asking in the final part of your statement though.

---

Then show the support, don't just say it. As for the final part, if you don't feel that God is a fictional character then show me that he functions independent of the literature or people. Show that he's not bound by authors or our minds.

quote:

---

I doubt we will be pulling out any rabbits by laying out some form of proof what any of the scriptural contents have remained pure or intact over time.

---

Not what I was talking about.You said: But you showed no scripture to support that. The Mosaic covenant is part of the Torah, I believe the new covenant is spoken of in Jeremiah and the NT is where the "carrying" idea comes in. You say the process was carried out just as God commanded. You've shown no scripture to support this complete process was commanded by God.That's why I say God is a fictional character. He is at the mercy of the authors.BTW: I have no problem showing scripture as many here can attest, but I do have a problem with putting in the work and all you do is summarize without providing specific scripture or support.