Proof for God's Non-existance?

pbee But the content is written by the very same people making the claim. The claim is not supported outside the story itself in many instances.
As a record of history it fails often. As a book of moral guidance it contradicts itself time and again.Such is what we would come to expect of myth and legend produced by people who had agendas both politically and socially. What resulting evidence would that be sir? But we do have alternatives that plausibly explain origins within the context of our knowledge of physics.See the following website {Page not found | Philosophy | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder} Though we cannot as yet determine the validity of the proposals until we can support the claims with evidence we can at the least work towards testing the predictions for the universe that such physics entails.The existence of a god has no evidence available other than that which the human population makes claims on and that is not ever found to be a consensus issue wherein believers can agree on the properties of said entity. Again this is as we would expect from something that originates from the imagination of primitive cultures and not reality. Indeed this is true since for some people it does not matter that the world operates without regard for their personal needs and desires.
We are all of us clueless in this regard ,however,and many of us see that there is an overarching structure to the universe and stand in awe of it. That said though, we do not start from the premise of something for which there is no demonstratable existence, but choose to take what we can agree upon as a starting point and test the resulting predictions for new phenomena that should be explained by our premises. I am not sure what you are referring to here sir. Could you expand on this for clarification? No. In the realm of science investigation possibilities are constantly eliminated by what we learn about the world.It is this elimination of possibilities that allows for advances in knowledge and many things that were once thought possible have been found to be impossible in light of modern understanding.
Cherry picking is involved when we make claims for which we can offer no support at all. This is true in all aspects of human investigation including science.Indeed ,science is unique in that it deliberately tries to unravel the explanations{hypotheses} offered. When the hypothesis continues to remain valid in spite of these attempts to dislodge it we gain a greater level of confidence for it. That said however any new hypothesis that comes along cannot supplant the one that has worked sufficiently for a long time without also explaining the phenomena that the first one did as well.
Imagination in a straight jacket as one physicist put it.

---

Hello pbee,I just wanted to point out that perhaps you should remember Rule 5 when posting.I've seen a couple of times where you've quoted biblical verses without referring to the chapter and verse.I did, however, enjoy message 218 a lot. I should add, though, that no one is expecting you be that lengthy every time. That is not what I'm suggesting at all.I am just reminding you to quote sources, followed up with your own interpretation. And if you are going to be brief, be sure to at least make the body of the argument apparent.Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

quote:

---

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.

---

Not quite, the claim is that God transposed the information to man to humans through various means. In order to discount the claim you will need to discredit the possibility that it is God's word. So you see, while you waist time evading the obvious we already know that arguing over the evidence of our existence is a dead end.God created the heavens and the earth. He said so, and it has been recorded as such. it was written that God spoke to a man named Moses, and that the information would be handed down through generations unto this very day(just as it did). So the onus is on you(the critics) to prove that this event never took place.No matter how we try to reformulate it, the framework does not change. At least not in a general sense.

Have you thoroughly evaluated the claims of other nonChristian scriptures that make similar claims and discounted them? So many scriptures so little time. For the last time... He did not say so. These are the writings of men, they are based in historical context and mindset of bronze and early iron age.Would the being that created the universe in all its grandeur really give detailed rules as is given in the OT, command genocide and conquest, allow for child rape and sexual slavery, relegate women to lower status, etc.. Think about the relative scale and merits of these events and try to sort out those that are possibly from the mind of man and those that might be from a divine being. It may help to read other works of the same time period.Now when you say the "event" if you are referring to Genesis style creation then yes the critics have done a swimmingly good job of discounting that event. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Hmm, I suppose then that you believe that after his resurrection, Jesus went to minister in the Americas? After all he said so, and it has been recorded as such. It was written that Jesus spoke to a man named Mormon in the Americas. The onus is on the critics to prove that this event never took place.Likewise, the onus is on the critics to prove that God did not speak to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel, AS WAS WRITTEN!That is why I am a Judeo-Christian-Mormon-Muslim. There is more to the title, but I find it gets a little mouthy. As I concluded much earlier in the thread - you must be just like me!

That is the point. There is no evidence that any of that happened except that the story claims it.It is written that Ahmad ibn Fadlan traveled to visit the Norse and fought the Wendol.God sent Gabriel to dictate the TRUE story to Mohammud since the New Testament folk got it all wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Hmm, I suppose then that you believe that after his resurrection, Jesus went to minister in the Americas? After all he said so, and it has been recorded as such. It was written that Jesus spoke to a man named Mormon in the Americas. The onus is on the critics to prove that this event never took place.

​

Likewise, the onus is on the critics to prove that God did not speak to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel, AS WAS WRITTEN!

​

That is why I am a Judeo-Christian-Mormon-Muslim. There is more to the title, but I find it gets a little mouthy. As I concluded much earlier in the thread - you must be just like me!

---

Hi Modulous, I for one believe that all claims are worthy of scrutiny. While my presentation did not cater to any particular faith, the point was to draw attention to the terms in its simplest form. The implications provide us with a very simple set of criteria to work with. The objective was to point out that in cases such as these(claims and evidence), that the appropriate action is to treat the information accordingly. In my opinion, any attempts made to avoid evaluating the information is nothing more than circumvention. We should have not problems treating and drawing conclusions from whatever claim regardless of it's origin and context. So I wonder now, what drives people to dodge the implications? Denial? Fear? or Defiance perhaps? Whatever the case, it does remains outstanding.

quote:

---

That is why I am a Judeo-Christian-Mormon-Muslim. There is more to the title, but I find it gets a little mouthy. As I concluded much earlier in the thread - you must be just like me!

---

Personally, I prefer to avoid religious categorizations wherever possible. Having said this, I have a great deal of respect for those exercising faith in God. I guess I have come to realize that religious categorization and personal beliefs has now become somewhat of a standard for personal discrimination.

quote:

---

That is the point. There is no evidence that any of that happened except that the story claims it.

​

It is written that Ahmad ibn Fadlan traveled to visit the Norse and fought the Wendol.

​

God sent Gabriel to dictate the TRUE story to Mohammud since the New Testament folk got it all wrong.

---

It was written and therefore we do have a form of evidence. Otherwise, public record systems would all be useless. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

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.

But we have only the claims made by the authors (unknown) of the stories. There is no provenance. Nonsense. Public records are only valuable when they can be independently verified. They MUST have a provenance.By your criteria the tale of Ahmad ibn Fadlan and the wendol carries the same authority.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Nonsense. Public records are only valuable when they can be independently verified. They MUST have a provenance.

---

Well for starters, public records do not need to be independently verified as you state. We know this because there are millions of documents, grants , deeds, birth certificates etc. that have no supporting evidence. Yet we continue to classify them. As for the provenance, a great deal of classified documents are without signature or certification. Are we to conclude that they are rubbish? Good luck trying to convince the archive holders.

quote:

---

By your criteria the tale of Ahmad ibn Fadlan and the wendol carries the same authority.

---

I for one would never discount other claims. At least not without evaluating them personally.

LOLNonsense. If you look you will find that everyone of them DOES have a provenance. Each of those you mentioned requires independent verification, so Judge, Doctor, Recorder, Lawyer or Inspector must sign off on them, independently confirming their veracity. LOL.Right, we need to evaluate them based on external evidence.That is what you have never presented.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I will not criticize your ignorance on this matter. However, you are grossly mistaken in your assumptions. Perhaps you should educate yourself on historical record keeping and archives and come back when you understand a bit more about things.

quote:

---

Right, we need to evaluate them based on external evidence. That is what you have never presented.

---

If you encounter a historical document containing claims and accounts dating hundreds or even thousands of years in the past, are you under the impression that we are no longer capable of determining it's validity? For the same reasons public record systems safeguard thousands upon thousands of records without provenance or authentication. It is because documents serve as evidence against other documents(cross reference). So you see, the thought that documents or claims which fall out of your own capacity to evaluate, has no real bearing on there value or validity.

quote:

---

But the content is written by the very same people making the claim. The claim is not supported outside the story itself in many instances.
As a record of history it fails often. As a book of moral guidance it contradicts itself time and again.Such is what we would come to expect of myth and legend produced by people who had agendas both politically and socially.

---

The Bible as it stands, is a compilation of books. We could(for example) cross reference the material against other books and historical evidence.

quote:

---

Have you thoroughly evaluated the claims of other nonChristian scriptures that make similar claims? So many scriptures so little time.

---

Not as much as I would like to, however, I am not discounting other claims either.

quote:

---

For the last time... He did not say so. These are the wittings of men, they are based in historical context and mindset of bronze and early iron age.

---

And how can we know this? At this point, the event has long past and no one here was around in the day to confirm it ever took place.

quote:

---

Would the being that created the universe in all its grandeur really give detailed rules as is given in the OT, command genocide and conquest, allow for child rape and sexual slavery, relegate women to lower status, etc.. Think about the relative scale and merits of these events and try to sort out those that are possible from the mind of man and those that might be from a divine being. It may help to read other works of the same time period.

​

Now when you say the "event" if you are referring to Genesis style creation then yes the critics have done a swimmingly good job of discounting that event.

---

Well this is another account all together. I have to admit, I would of preferred not to delve in the implications of biblical content and accounts beyond the initial statement that God Created all things. Though I realize this may be impossible, the ideal would be to keep the focus as close to the original topic as possible.