Proof for God's Non-existance?

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.

quote:

---

How do you know he was ever a real person?

---

I assume you mean the Socrates in the Dialogues.When we see an advertisement with someone dressed up like President Abraham Lincoln selling a car, what we are viewing is a fictional situation. We know that isn't really Abraham Lincoln, because he is dead. The character on the screen is a fictional character. It would be the same for those who lived in Plato's time.Socrates the man was not dependent on an author to determine what he said or did. The character in the dialogues does.Although you still haven't given any parameters for the Christian God, Christianity claims that their God is not dead. The Christian God should not be dependent on authors, etc. to determine what he says or does.

As I've said, I haven't read them and they were written over 1500 years ago. I personally can't attest to anything that far back or in another country.But as I stated, one premise of the Christian God is that he isn't dead.So while we may be dependent on thousand year old documents or records to discern if a person existed, we shouldn't have to for someone or something that currently exists.If that something or someone's existence is dependent on an author, literary work, people, etc.; then it is a fictional character.

quote:

---

So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.

---

Is there anything (besides you) that supports what you're saying?In explaining this babble to me in Message 138 you said: By your explanation "no-" in front of something means that thing is a concept only.So in the OP when you state: You're saying that atheists say that there is a concept of God.

quote:

---

and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.

---

What you're saying here is that the concept of God is unverifiable. That might have been true before written language, but as soon as you put the concept on paper it is verifiable.So while the 3D existence of the no-house may not be verifiable in the real world, the written concept can be.Now concerning the real world you say above that it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existenceSo if the Book of Luke contains no fiction, then the following statement by Jesus in Luke 11:9-13 (Everyone who asks receives!) is a means to asking for evidence.I ask the Christian God to reveal himself before me as a small pillar of fire. In the real world the opposite of receiving what you ask for is not receiving what you ask for. So if no small pillar of fire appears, I received no answer and that is my evidence.So it is either evidence of God's nonexistence or it is evidence that the Book of Luke (and Matthew) contains fictional information, which puts two more ticks in the pro column for God being a fictional character.

quote:

---

Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth).

---

The opposite of 5 may be -5 in the numerical world, but opposites in nature don't function in the same way. Something is the opposite of nothing.The opposite of having a car is not having a car or IOW absence. The opposite of having an idea of a car is not having an idea of a car. Again absence. So the opposite of having flatearth evidence is not having flatEarth evidence.

But you failed to provide where God made his claim. All we have is you saying that God made a claim.Show where God made his claim.

In Message 180, sidelined stated: In response you stated:

quote:

---

So is this your way of saying we can never prove whether or not God created the heavens and the earth?

---

No this is my way of saying provide support that there is a claim.
When and where did God make the claim?
Where are the specifics of the claim listed?

pbee,This isn't a game or a chat line. This is a debate board.You made a vague claim with no support. I simply asked for support that the claim was made. Word of mouth isn't tangible evidence. You provided nothing to evaluate.Unless you plan on actually substantiating your statement, please don't respond to this post. The owner frowns upon posts that don't further the discussion and without substance there's nothing for me to address.

quote:

---

Enough evading and babbling already, what about the evidence? Is anyone ever going to step up and acknowledge it, or are we going to continue finding ways to dance around it? The truth is quite obvious.... You have nothing! it's a bluff. People will talk out of their asses as though they possess some wild card or truth all the while, they have nothing.

---

You need to remove the plank from your own eye.

quote:

---

I brought you plenty to substantiate, look around you.

---

I see. You stated in Message 181: God made a claim. He created all things, therefore all things are accounted for. This is the evidence, now it's up to us to disprove it.God made a claim. But you didn't produce the actual claim made by God.God created all things... Paul is the only one who makes that statement. (Eph 3:9, Col 1:16)So your contention is that God created everything around me. I just have to look around. Although you are using created in the past tense. Aside from the dirt nothing around me is older than 500 years.God did not create darkness.
God did not create diamonds.
God did not create volcanoes.
God did not create plastics.
God did not create string.
God did not create weaving.
God did not create my one of a kind art.

quote:

---

He created the heavens and the earth.

---

Now you've changed the "claim". Did God claim to create all things or not?

quote:

---

So I ask quite simply, can anyone actually contradict this claim? Is anyone actually willing to evaluate the evidence that we do indeed exists and our origin remains a mystery? It's not so complicated is it?

---

Now you say that our existence is the evidence and our lack of knowledge is the proof.That's why I asked for the actual source of the claim.Due to their lack of knowledge, many ancients believed that God caused earthquakes. Now we know otherwise.Due to their lack of knowledge, many ancients believed that disease, blindness, etc. or misfortune were God's punishment for sin. Now we know otherwise. Even the author of Job knew otherwise.Lack of knowledge isn't proof. It's just lack of knowledge.

quote:

---

The original poster asked to evaluate each piece of evidence and determine if the evidence is any good or not.

---

Actually the originator wanted the Atheist evidence evaluated. Message 1My point in asking for substantiation for the claim goes back to my premise that gods are fictional characters. Paul is an ancient author.The Christian God should not be dependent on authors, etc. to determine what he says or does since he supposedly exists in the present.Even if we conceded that the mystery of our existence is proof that supreme beings existed, it isn't proof that gods exist today.

Yes it is quite simple. What you have quoted is not a claim by God. It is a statement made by the author of the story.The issue at hand deals with whether God currently exists. At the most the scriptures you allude to lead one to examine if a god existed, which would take time since we are billions of years from the supposed event.But as I've said before, Christians claim a god exists today. The fact that references to evidence for a god are in the past, is very good clue that a god does not exist today.But you have no claim from a god, you have claims by men.We should not have to look to the past to tell if a god exists today.

quote:

---

Not quite, the claim is that God transposed the information to man to humans through various means.

---

As I noted in Message 216 the claim isn't very specific. It keeps changing.But what you aren't addressing is the point I made in Message 216 and Message 223. What you are pulling from the scriptures is the past. Christians claimed a god exists today.Documents that are over 2000 years old are not evidence for a god that exists today.That's why I feel that the fact that Christians can only reference ancient documents for specifics on their god and for supposed evidence supports my premise that gods are fictional characters.If you want to discount my position, you need to show evidence that shows a god exists currently today, in the present.

quote:

---

Here is a more direct claim found in (Job 38:1,11)

---

The Book of Job is fiction. There's a conversation between God and Satan.So how can a claim in a fictional writing be considered an actual claim by God? Unless of course the God in the story is a fictional character.So you still have no proof an actual god made such a claim.

quote:

---

I see no problem with a conversation between God and Satan. I doubt this is isolated either. I think there are a few who believe Satan is not real, however, I have read the information to that effect and concluded that according to the scriptures, he is indeed real. So, this is a matter of personal belief and oppinion.

---

The problem is that you are using the Book of Job as substantiation that God made a claim. So while in your life you can have any personal belief or opinion you wish, in this type of debate it serves no purpose.You continue to assert that God made a claim, but have yet to provide the source containing the claim.A fictional work does not fit the bill.