Proof that God does not exist...

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai Incorrect. Geez you guys are making it easy today. Go back up to the first post on this page. Where in that post did I say that there are no problems in the translation of Islamic holy texts? It's a rhetorical question, the answer is never.

"To the credit of the Islamic faith, there are no vagaries in their holy book"

Ahem. You said these exact words. I wasn't looking at the first post when I said you said that.

Proof behind the statement that there are contradictions in the Bible? I did a search in Google for "contradictions in the Bible" minus the quotes and got a huge list I was going to post here, but instead I found one site that proves my point for me: BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered 143 contradictions listed, yet the explanations are terribly weak, in some cases. A great example is the very first one listed, which I'll quote here for those who don't want to read the site, even though it is an excellent proof against the Bible's truth. Notice how the explanation dismisses the contradiction by basically saying that after man goofed then God wasn't happy any more. All the contradictions cite this kind of thing. If all the Bible is supposed to be true, how can anyone take it seriously then when God changes his mind so much? These are the kinds of contradictions, and the kind of apologist explanations, that cause distrust. Before you even bother quoting scripture or expressing your devotion, save your time. You can either acknowledge that some of us have a legitimate reason to not trust the Bible, or you can go back to your usual stuff anyway. Personally, if I were you I'd pony up and admit that even though I don't agree, the rest of us have a valid issue. But would just be demonstrating intellectual honesty, maturity, and good debating form.

The weakest one in the book. If you knew anything about tenses, you would never bring that up. It is a case of first/second, not both/and. It is spoken in a chronological sense. I say I agree with you on one thing and then say I disagree with you on another, is that a contradiction?

If I wanted to say you had a legitimate reason to distrust the Bible, I would expect more than the classic examples I have run over several times before. This, to me, is a cheap cop-out.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: dthmstr This, to me, is a cheap cop-out.

Do you understand that not everyone is you???

We don't all have your singularly dedicated faith to the words of the Bible. Some of us question the things we don't directly experience. A great many people consider that more intellectually honest than accepting the words of a thousand year old contradictory book.

You have a right to your opinion, no one is denying that, but with the way you persist on insisting that your opinion is the truth makes you an ignorant ass.

Hiding behind your faith and not addressing the intellectual questions raised by others is also a cheap cop-out.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai Do you understand that not everyone is you??? We don't all have your singularly dedicated faith to the words of the Bible. Some of us question the things we don't directly experience. A great many people consider that more intellectually honest than accepting the words of a thousand year old contradictory book. You have a right to your opinion, no one is denying that, but with the way you persist on insisting that your opinion is the truth makes you an ignorant ass. Hiding behind your faith and not addressing the intellectual questions raised by others is also a cheap cop-out.

So you are going to focus on a single sentence and ignore the challenge I put up. :rolleyes: Give me a real debate or leave me alone. This is not my opinion. It is a simple understanding of allegory. Claiming contradictions that break all three major rules of document examination is not a valid reason. Yes, I came to the Bible with certain biases. I came to science with certain biases. In BOTH studies I have been pleased. Modern day scientists have come to science to try to get rid of the Bible and yet are getting more and more frustrated trying to find a way for evolution to work, and failing to get a successful experiment. Claiming a supernatural explanation is the most reasonable inference when there are only theories to explain life. It takes more faith to believe that E.T. started life here on earth than to believe God did. That is because you then have to explain his cause and his cause's cause etc. The logic that everything that began to exist has a cause is a reliable philosophical and scientific ideal.

Now, you want to get on topic and address my explanation of why they see this contradiction and why it is not a contradiction? or will you leave the board to someone who wants to?

[Fonceai]

If I have a problem with the Bible and I don't like your answers, why should my opinion change?

I agree with nearly every single one of those contradictions being contradictory. None of them seem unreasonable.

Your problem, dthmstr, is that now I'm the one making the claim.

I cited a source that includes both contradictions and cites explanations that I feel are inadequate.

If the Bible is supposed to be regarded as truth, and if God changes his mind in the Bible, how am I supposed to take it seriously?

Even given that first example, it's making an assumption as to why God was disappointed, the Bible never says it. So I have to accept someone's personal interpretation and neglect my own? I thought the whole point of the Bible was that we each take our own lessons from it?

See now why certain people have issues with the Bible, those who try to explain it, and those who contradict themselves in defense of it?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai If I have a problem with the Bible and I don't like your answers, why should my opinion change? I agree with nearly every single one of those contradictions being contradictory. None of them seem unreasonable. Your problem, dthmstr, is that now I'm the one making the claim. I cited a source that includes both contradictions and cites explanations that I feel are inadequate. If the Bible is supposed to be regarded as truth, and if God changes his mind in the Bible, how am I supposed to take it seriously? Even given that first example, it's making an assumption as to why God was disappointed, the Bible never says it. So I have to accept someone's personal interpretation and neglect my own? I thought the whole point of the Bible was that we each take our own lessons from it? See now why certain people have issues with the Bible, those who try to explain it, and those who contradict themselves in defense of it?

Reasonable by way of logic or just reasonable because you are biased?

If you cared to read the areas in between the two passages quoted, you would notice something. Before Adam and Eve sinned, God was pleased. Then when they sinned, God was displeased.

Before a child disobeys their parents, the parent is pleased with the child. After, the parent is displeased.

You need to forsake all logic to claim this as a contradiction. And there is no getting around that.

In other words, I don't see why you can claim to be logical and still forsake logic in the dumbest of areas. If you don't understand when I speak of things that are simple, how can you dream of understanding things that are complex?

You say the Bible never says why He was dissappointed, but that is because you don't read the background story. God created us in His image and then WE used the free will that He gave us to tarnish that image. If that isn't enough reason to dissappoint God, then I don't know what is.

The reason your site is useless? it puts words in to our mouths. If you don't hear what we truly say, you get a preconceived notion of what we will say and when we say something completely and totally different, you simply close your ears and deny that it was ever said. Now, I could go on psychoanalysing you, but I would like to get this debate on. Read the whole Bible and not just the seeming contradictions. I don't just mean to read it. I mean to read it critically. Read it like you were reading a book that you were writing a report on. Then tell me if any of those supposed contradictions hold up.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: dthmstr Reasonable by way of logic or just reasonable because you are biased?

By way of logic. The Bible is a wholly illogical book and should be neither cited, referenced, nor quoted in any debate as proof of anything.

Quote by: dthmstr Before a child disobeys their parents, the parent is pleased with the child. After, the parent is displeased.

Is that how it works? As a parent, I know better than to be displeased with my child. It's called good parenting. Parents who become disappointed or displeased with their children's behavior have misplaced emotional expression. If God is a good parent, then he wouldn't be displeased. Otherwise, he's not a good parent. Which is it?

Quote by: dthmstr You need to forsake all logic to claim this as a contradiction. And there is no getting around that.

Incomplete statement.

If I can "get around that" just once, then your claim is false. You should elaborate more, or I'll start giving you examples showing that there are either contradictions, or God is a bipolar nutjob.

Quote by: dthmstr In other words, I don't see why you can claim to be logical and still forsake logic in the dumbest of areas.

You claimed earlier I'm forsaking logic in reference to the Bible.

Now you call it "the dumbest of areas".

Might want to check your own posts for continuity because right now I have no clue what you are trying to infer.

Quote by: dthmstr you don't read the background story.

There is no "background". The specific part you are mentioning only describes what happened. It doesn't talk about how God felt about each occurrence. It simply mentions God at the end by saying he was displeased with Man. Not Adam and Eve, but with Man. Quite the emo-God, to be displeased with an entire race because of the actions of one man and one woman.

Quote by: dthmstr The reason your site is useless? it puts words in to our mouths.

The reason your argument is useless? It puts words into other people's mouths.

Are you understanding, yet, the problem with your argument?

Quote by: dthmstr If you don't hear what we truly say, you get a preconceived notion of what we will say and when we say something completely and totally different, you simply close your ears and deny that it was ever said.

Actually, no.

What I expect in a religious discussion, in which there are no actual answers, is for someone to say, "Yup, I can see how those contradictions turn you off to the Bible being a document of perfect truth."

You don't even have to agree. It's simply good interpersonal communication to listen to what someone says, understand where they are coming from, and let them know that even though you disagree, they have a valid point from their own perspective.

If you don't understand that perspective, or think it is based on wholly inaccurate logical reasoning, then you say so. But you aren't really presenting anything to challenge my claim. You're just blaming me personally for not seeing the truth in your answers. Not quite the same thing.

Quote by: dthmstr Read the whole Bible and not just the seeming contradictions. I don't just mean to read it. I mean to read it critically. Read it like you were reading a book that you were writing a report on. Then tell me if any of those supposed contradictions hold up.

Those contradictions become evident when you read the Bible critically, as do the contradictions in your argument.

You say to not take it literally, you say to ignore certain translated versions, now you're saying to read it critically. I've read three different versions "critically" and found the same problems.

Quote by: dthmstr Now, I could go on psychoanalysing you, but I would like to get this debate on.

This is the debate. If you want to be cute and "psychoanalysing", should we talk about what happens to a deaf person who has such a problem fitting into the world that they attach themself to something that has no place in this world? Let's not.

Stick to the points I've addressed and not me personally. All you'd be doing is showing that you need to attack the character of your opponent instead of their points.

[shunyadragon]

The witness of today's knowledge concerning the nature of existence, vasteness of known time and space of existence, the vaste scope of human history, and the diversity of human existence have essentially disproved the narrow worldview of God found in individual ancient religions. Any claims of exclusiveness of religions, language preference (ie Latin or Arabic) for understanding scripture puts a high human cultural context on the what God would be in the worldview of these ancient religions. This is vaste contradiction that is difficult to overcome if God is truely an omnipotent universal God.

If there is universal omnipotent God, the vaste nature of existence is God's greatest witness, this cannot be proven or diproven, but it would give more credance to a religion like the Baha'i Faith that believes in this nature of a Divine Creator we call God.

Go with the flow . . .
the River knows.

Frank

[zauhiyq]

You guys can't even deal with your own used term GOD. And think you know what you're talking about. Who and what is God? And I mean according to a reference. what book, what creditable source? And you can either start with the bible, the etomology of the word or what it's translated from and then where that term even came from and so on.

[Jack]

God, being a human invention and existing only in believer's minds, will never be proven or dis-proven. However, individuals can be convinced, individual minds can be changed, enlightened.
The death of god will be marked by the last person who ceases taking that concept seriously.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai By way of logic. The Bible is a wholly illogical book and should be neither cited, referenced, nor quoted in any debate as proof of anything.

put up or shut up.

Is that how it works? As a parent, I know better than to be displeased with my child. It's called good parenting. Parents who become disappointed or displeased with their children's behavior have misplaced emotional expression. If God is a good parent, then he wouldn't be displeased. Otherwise, he's not a good parent. Which is it?

So if your child kills someone, would that not displease you? A good parent wants to see there children make good choices in life. Because of God's want for men to make the right decision and eat of the thousands or even millions of other trees with the same type of fruit, and man's disobedience, God was displeased.

The parenting style you describe is called the tolerant/neglectful parenting style, in which there is no right or wrong. It has been shown in studies that children raised in such a household lack the necessary respect and thus, the connection that parents need to forge with their parents. I could NOT respect a god who does not have ground rules that he expects us to follow. I could not respect you because you are releasing your kids from the structure necessary for good mental, cognitive, and behavioural growth. I speak not only as a Christian, but as a big brother. I was blessed with the chance to raise my own sister up to the age of 6 when I went to college. She not only is the brightest bulb in the class, but also has much more respect for authority in the classroom. I watched a family that raised there daughter up like you say is the right way. Does she respect her parents? No. Does she respect other authority? No. Is she being succesful in life? no possible way. She still is bumming off her parents and she is three or four years older than me. I am sorry. I do not respect any parent who chooses a path that has consistently raised their kids to be nothing more than burger flippers.

You claimed earlier I'm forsaking logic in reference to the Bible. Now you call it "the dumbest of areas". Might want to check your own posts for continuity because right now I have no clue what you are trying to infer.

By that statement I meant the really simple stuff.

There is no "background". The specific part you are mentioning only describes what happened. It doesn't talk about how God felt about each occurrence. It simply mentions God at the end by saying he was displeased with Man. Not Adam and Eve, but with Man. Quite the emo-God, to be displeased with an entire race because of the actions of one man and one woman.

The man and woman were the entire race.

Actually, no. What I expect in a religious discussion, in which there are no actual answers, is for someone to say, "Yup, I can see how those contradictions turn you off to the Bible being a document of perfect truth." You don't even have to agree. It's simply good interpersonal communication to listen to what someone says, understand where they are coming from, and let them know that even though you disagree, they have a valid point from their own perspective. If you don't understand that perspective, or think it is based on wholly inaccurate logical reasoning, then you say so. But you aren't really presenting anything to challenge my claim. You're just blaming me personally for not seeing the truth in your answers. Not quite the same thing.

Show me a contradiction and maybe I will say that, but as yet, I haven't seen one. I am only telling you the simple explanation that claiming a change over time as an instantaneous contradiction is a logical fallacy because it takes the chronological order of things out of the context and focuses only on the change.

Those contradictions become evident when you read the Bible critically, as do the contradictions in your argument. You say to not take it literally, you say to ignore certain translated versions, now you're saying to read it critically. I've read three different versions "critically" and found the same problems.

Funny, I have never heard that. I have read the Bible through several times.

This is the debate. If you want to be cute and "psychoanalysing", should we talk about what happens to a deaf person who has such a problem fitting into the world that they attach themself to something that has no place in this world? Let's not. Stick to the points I've addressed and not me personally. All you'd be doing is showing that you need to attack the character of your opponent instead of their points.

1. As I have said before, I am not deaf. I am an interpreter in training with several deaf friends and enough knowledge in deaf culture to make a character in my book deaf.

2. I have no problem fitting in. I am actually very well accustomed to the world according to the Military Entrance Processing Station's psychologists.

3. I dare you to go up to an actual Deaf person and tell them they have a problem fitting in the world. The likely response is that the hearing world is having issues getting accustomed to the Deaf world.

If you want to psychoanalyse someone online, you might want to double check what they have said. I only said there was a possibility that I had ear problems, and since I never divulged the results of the audiologist appointment, now I deal with people saying I am deaf. If I were Deaf, I would be on only Deaf Chat Forums - AllDeaf.com if I were having problems getting accustomed to the world.

So now, who were you psychoanalysing?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: dthmstr put up or shut up.

That makes no sense as a response.

Quote by: dthmstr So if your child kills someone, would that not displease you?

You misunderstand. I would be displeased, but that does not mean I'm displeased with my child.

Quote by: dthmstr The parenting style you describe is called the tolerant/neglectful parenting style, in which there is no right or wrong. It has been shown in studies that children raised in such a household lack the necessary respect and thus, the connection that parents need to forge with their parents.

Which studies are those?

I find people who quote studies on parenting usually don't have children. Give it a try sometime.

Quote by: dthmstr I speak not only as a Christian, but as a big brother. I was blessed with the chance to raise my own sister up to the age of 6 when I went to college. She not only is the brightest bulb in the class, but also has much more respect for authority in the classroom.

But you're not her father, and you're certainly not God.

Quote by: dthmstr I watched a family that raised there daughter up like you say is the right way. Does she respect her parents? No. Does she respect other authority? No. Is she being succesful in life? no possible way. She still is bumming off her parents and she is three or four years older than me. I am sorry. I do not respect any parent who chooses a path that has consistently raised their kids to be nothing more than burger flippers.

Irrelevant statement based on you misunderstanding a key aspect of parenting. Demonstrating displeasure without being displeased.

This is a common thing when you raise a toddler. They do something you think is hilarious but you have to tell them not to do it because it will become a bad habit. So you keep a straight face and sternly tell them not to do what they just did, while the other parent usually leaves the room to laugh.

Quote by: dthmstr By that statement I meant the really simple stuff.

Elaborate on that. What is this "really simple stuff" which you think is the "dumbest of areas." You're not being very clear and it's logically corrupting your argument against me.

Quote by: dthmstr The man and woman were the entire race.

I never said they weren't. You failed to miss yet another point.

God is displeased with an entire race based on the actions of a man and woman.

If he was only displeased with just them, the Bible should say so. The implication is that God is disappointed with all mankind from then on.

Quote by: dthmstr I am only telling you the simple explanation that claiming a change over time as an instantaneous contradiction is a logical fallacy because it takes the chronological order of things out of the context and focuses only on the change.

What does time have to do with the Bible? You've said that it is timeless, why should years or days or millenia matter unless you are taking the Bible as a series of parables and not literal history.

Quote by: dthmstr Funny, I have never heard that. I have read the Bible through several times.

Never heard what?

Your response is to a statement where I'm saying that you contradict your own words.

Quote by: dthmstr So now, who were you psychoanalysing?

No one. I'd have to be some kind of asshole to assume I knew enough about a person online to break down their personality.

But I know enough about how you present your arguments about religion to know that you think faith is enough, and it isn't.

You have 143 contradictions in that link I sent you, all of which I recognize as being contradictory.

You could say, "Yup, I can see how those are contradictory and can understand how they would turn someone off to the Bible" but you're not.

You're acting like a ranting atheist; insisting that those who don't see things your way lack in certain academic areas and are blind to things that are obvious to you.

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: Isherwood God, being a human invention and existing only in believer's minds, will never be proven or dis-proven. However, individuals can be convinced, individual minds can be changed, enlightened. The death of god will be marked by the last person who ceases taking that concept seriously.

The point is YOU don't have the answers for these questions.

Where does the term God come from? What is it translated from and why? So on and so on.

[Jack]

What is the origin of the word God? Ultimately, the origin of the word god is uncertain but it appeared in various spellings in Old English c. 825 and had cognates in the Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Dutch, Old High German, Old Norse, and Gothic languages. There are two Aryan roots - one meaning 'to invoke' (Sanskrit) and the other meaning 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' and 'to boast' (Greek). The word was first used in a non-Christian sense to refer to a superhuman person who was worshipped and believed to have power over nature and the fortunes of man. The words for god were originally neuter, but when Germanic tribes adopted Christianity, God became masculine in form. In the Old Testament various names for God are used: YHWH, Adonai [my Lord], Jehovah, and Yahweh. The most common name for God in the Old Testament is Elohim, a plural form, but used as a singular when speaking of God. The spelling god is first seen in print around 900.

Source

Is that what you're looking for?

[agustine]

To iahag. This is simply a category mistake. Within the substance of your argument you have blurred the distinction between being and becoming, between actual and potential, between necessary and contingent. I think your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the law of causality. The law of causality provides that all things that begin to exist require a cause. However, the most ardent of atheists agree that something must be uncaused. In the Thomistic sense, something must exist necessarily. This notion of necessary existence is what prompted Sir Fredrick Hoyle to posit the Steady State Model of the Universe which we now know the evidence contravenes. The motivation underlying the Steady State Model is clearly influenced by the principle of necessary existence, the problem resulting from positing an infinite regress and the requirement of absolute origin. Leibnitz, in discussing the law of causality said, "All things that exist must possess an explanation of their existence either in the necessity of their own nature or by an external cause." The Judeo/Christian notion of what we refer to as God clearly contemplates that the reason for His existence is found within Himself. Try to imagine an absolute state of non-being. The exercise itself is tantamount to contemplating a one-ended stick.. It cannot be done. Even more disturbing is the absurd idea that a finite entity has the capacity to create itself. The systemic contradiction contained therein precludes such an absurd thought. The contingent entity would have to precede itself in order to cause itself. The converse leaves us with the most radical idea that nothing can bring something into being. I do not think anyone is prepared to accept that proposition insofar as it would undermine the successful ontological commitment in the history of science, namely ex nilho nilho fit, out of nothing, nothing comes.... I think the premises and thus the conclusion of the Kalam Argument are indisputable:

1. All things that begin to exist require a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe requires a cause.

If you affirm the premises, which are based upon observation, then you would agree that the conclusion would necessarily follow.

God Bless

Augustine

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: dthmstr254 put up or shut up. Show me a contradiction and maybe I will say that, but as yet, I haven't seen one. I am only telling you the simple explanation that claiming a change over time as an instantaneous contradiction is a logical fallacy because it takes the chronological order of things out of the context and focuses only on the change.

Answer this, was the infant christ taken into egypt or not?
Luke 2:22, 39 vs Matthew 2:14-15, 19, 21, 23

[Fonceai]

Something interesting of note (and I am going from memory since I don't have the references in front of me)...

In the Hebrew faith, God is simply called "the tetra-grammaton". That literally means "four letters". I don't remember why it is these specific four letters, but I believe it has to do with the translation of them into Hebrew and what they mean. YHWH.

What's interesting is that nearly every "name" for God can be derived from those letters or their equivalent in Hebrew and other languages.

Yahweh is quite obvious... Yahweh without the vowels is YHWH.

Jehovah is also obvious if you speak out the sounds of the letters and remember that W's were prounounced as V's.

EE - HA - V - HA

If you're clever, you can find ways for YHWH to relate to every name of God, in some way.

With a simple modern S between the Y and H, you have YSHWH. It's entirely possible that in some languages, transitioning between a long vowel sound and an H required using SH instead.

EE-SH-W-HA sound a lot like an Aramaic name that sounds like Joshua.

And the Aramaic name that sounds a lot like Joshua? Translates to Jesus.

Look at the name Jesus. Long vowel sound, soft consonant, some variation of U (double-U, even) and another soft consonant.

YSUS and YHWH aren't far off.

Just one of those neat little things you can do... finding coincidences where there may not be any, that is both fun to play around with and shows how easy it is to make up answers in religion.

[Lotharia]

Quote by: agustine I think the premises and thus the conclusion of the Kalam Argument are indisputable: 1. All things that begin to exist require a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe requires a cause.

There's nothing to suggest that your second premise is correct.

[Paul.T]

Let me start off by saying everyone is entitled to their individual oppinions.
My oppinion is God is real how did I come to this conclusion? well first of all
how do you non believers explain the Earth and all of the beauty contained
within it. How do you explain Life. Who created the human race it sure was not satan,or the big boom theory.I think that because the Government here in the U.S. used the Bible to control the Public alot of people fear God and others have lost respect for him because they blame all their problems,and the injustice going on worldwide on God. I do not he has to allow us to fall and get up on our own. Just consider if God got everyone over their obstacles
and there were no challenges to face we just got up lived every day to day with no problems. Life would be boring it would not be worth living.
People would be commenting suicide all the time. Now I do not attend church,nor do I read the bible but I do believe in God and jesus as well.
Thank you for allowing me to write my opinion.

[Jack]

Just consider if God got everyone over their obstacles and there were no challenges to face we just got up lived every day to day with no problems. Life would be boring it would not be worth living. People would be commenting suicide all the time.

Yet isn't that exactly what you anticipate heaven to be like? Looks like someone isn't going to have a very merry eternity.

[another day]

Quote by: Paul.T Let me start off by saying everyone is entitled to their individual oppinions. My oppinion is God is real how did I come to this conclusion? well