Disprove god!

A better question would be to prove Jesus existed.

Because as Jesus is an essential part of the christian belief in God it's actually remarkably easy to show how little evidence there is for him to have ever have existed, which then in turn goes along way to showing how the christian faith is fictional.

Seriously, any evidence you have for him, it can be disproved. It is often said that 'most major scholars' believe he is historcial fact. Howveer when you look into it, often they disagree on the simplest of thhins concernng his life, and the evidence is sketchy as best.

For example. There is no mention of him in any historical source dated between the supposed date of his birth and death. In fact the first apparant mentions of him don't come untill sometimes after 63CE.

Anyway, there's a whole bunch of theories online you can research if you really wnat. I'm happy to argue over any particular historcal refernces that people think is good evidence.

But generally, my view is that he didn't exist, it was a story built up and up by the Christians as they grew more powerful and had more control over governments. Thi in turn is part of my firm believe that the Christian god is fictional.
 
All assumptions are infallible.
Infallible assumptions cannot be made.
God exists is an assumption.
God does not exist is an assumption.
Contradictory assumptions are assumptions, therefore they are infallible.
Therefore God exists and does not exist.
That which can both exist and not exist simultaneously cannot be proven, since proof requires consistent existence.

LOL IDK?
 
I don't think the collision happened when there was water, but rather when Earth was still cooking with gas. (Not too sure about that claim, it may be based on the computer generated graphics they always show in the many docs of the formation of the Earth I've seen.

There's a theory about the Moon forming from the debris of a collision ~4.5 bya, but the scene in Genesis already has a water covered world waiting for God to create land and life. That makes the late heavy bombardment ~ 4 bya the prime suspect given its proximity in time to the oldest continental rocks and life. We have evidence of water going back ~4.4 bya so the proto-Earth had already cooled enough to have an ocean by 4 bya.

And that didn't spatter the moon, it formed the moon. So maybe we're not talking about the same thing. In fact I'd like to see some evidence of: "those dark spots on the Moon are there because we got blasted by something and it happened "shortly" before we have evidence of plate tectonics and life." I haven't heard of that before.

The Moon was a witness to the collision(s) that ripped the proto-Earth ~4 bya, the side facing that cataclysm still faces us today. I believe this collision is what triggered the late heavy bombardment, but only time will tell. The dark spots or "maria" (seas) were blasted out depressions that filled in with lava over the next ~1/2 b years. Compare it to "the dark side of the moon".

One thing is for certain, you cannot claim they had knowledge. You don't know that. And I addressed the many myths around the world already. Norse mythology had 9 worlds. And they did include fire. So they were closer to the truth in that regard.

The world tree had 9 branches, the world mountain had 9 peaks, 9 levels in Dante's Inferno, the Toltec had 9 Lords of the Night (Chichen Itza), Siberian shaman prayed to 9 small trees, The Incan Genesis depicted the creator as an ellipse separating 9 "stars" into groups of 4 and 5... The Nazcan monkey stares down between hands with 9 digits (4 & 5) on 2 hands. The horned deity at Newspaper Rock, Utah, being shot at with arrows by the creator accompanies 9 celestial "sheep" and is both the 4th and 6th "planet" just as the Enuma Elish places Tiamat in the solar system - and there are 9 planetary gods described in the Enuma Elish joining the Sun before Marduk is called upon to battle Tiamat resulting in the "creation" of Heaven and Earth. The list goes on and on...

oh yeah, the Enuma Elish describes the fiery death of Tiamat and her rebirth as the Earth...

They didn't have knowledge beyond their observations.

Peoples in both the old and new worlds depicted the solar system with more planets than can be seen with the naked eye, and that was what Democritus reported upon returning from Egypt and Mesopotomia.

edit: How about the Chinese. They claim humans were created from yellow clay and talk about a creation of an egglike world. No, Genesis and pagan myths from all over the world do not say the same thing. The ones you decide to cherry-pick do. Do a random selection and then see which ones say the same thing.

So you edited your post to accuse me of doing what you did in your edit? :goodjob: You cited 1 myth when we have a world of myths - and HB asked me to offer any religious text in support of my position and he'd shoot it down. I didn't say every myth you can find says the same thing, but another Chinese myth says the creator was in the sky hammering out rock and throwing it down to a world covered by water thereby creating the lands. They do have the same myth...

Because they didn't use 4B as a number. They just said that in the beginning the Earth was covered in water. Then you come along and say, well, at some point the Earth was covered by water, so they were right.

They said it was covered by water immediately before the creation of land and life. That looks to be true... They were right but you said their mythology was BS.

You see the exact same thing when people try and apply prophecies to following events. The fact that it might eventually be correct does not make the prophecy a scientific statement.

a prophecy is about future events, not about Earth history

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters
(Young's Literal)

See how the Earth "hath existed" but darkness and water covered it? Earth is the name God gave the dry land that appeared when the waters were gathered into "Seas". That doesn't happen until the 3rd day:

9 And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;'

Nowhere in the Bible that I know, certainly not in Genesis, is it claimed that God created the waters - the waters in Gen 1:2 were already in existence, so was the "dry land" but it was submerged. As for Heaven:

6 And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.' 7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

So the heavens and earth dont appear until the 2nd and 3rd days... And what is Heaven? An expanse? The akkadian term is rakia, hammered out bracelet (compare with above Chinese creation myth). Firmament was an approximation but you can see how the terms have lost some of that imagery - but whatever Heaven is, it came after the waters and served to separate them.

Berzerker has a particularly odd conspiracy theory related to the creation of the Earth and his opinions are apparently as unshakeable as those of YECs.

I've been trying to shake it for ~3 decades after first learning about this theory, and I can honestly say the theory has done nothing but gain credibility with me as we learn more about the solar system. The Enuma Elish combined with cylinder seal VA 243 show people living in the land and time of Abraham had access to knowledge we're still discovering.

Berzerker desperately needs a class in comparative religion.

You should see my library
 
When I asked for some evidence I expected something more substantial than: this is my theory, so it must have happened this way. I'm really interested in this stuff, so please point me to some evidence. (wrt the moon)

And I did not what I accused you of. I did pick 2 myths randomly to see what's what. I did not select them because I knew their content. I wiki'd them on the spot.
 
I really like Michio Kaku, but I'm sincerely concerned that he might be nuts sometimes.
 
I see what you mean but thats not what I subscribe to either. Nothing is right by definition.

Glad you said that since it means that your God is not omnipotent after all. This is a base for a healthy conversation even if God's existence is still unprovable.

Science or spirituality are both form of process. Any process is not right by definition but by continuation of that process(by progress). That is what justifies its existence and usefulness.

Excellent notion but in violent disagreement with Christianity where everything was explained centuries ago. There are just different views whether Bible should be taken literally or as metaphor depending on what suits best for the occasion. Neither views are questioning whether Bible is right or wrong.

Respect comes from recognising the capacity. Not from mutual competition.

That's an illusion which is almost fine until there's a disagreement about something. The potential respect goes away when one party is always right regardless of circumstances.

Why would need to strip God of omnipotence?

I don't since what doesn't exist can hardly be omnipotent but to have an anything but totally pointless argumentation about God it is required. Surely a discussion can take place just for itself but then again why involve God in it.

Do you need to strip infinity of its infinity first to take it into scientific accounts?

Nope, I've yet meet one who thinks infinity is omnipotent but there's always a first time.

God is simply a constant in natural science.

That's wrong in so many levels that I really can't be bothered to address them all, sorry but out of curiosity why does one need a 'continuous process of spirituality' when God clearly is a constant ? Or perhaps we just use word 'science' to describe radically different things.

G
 
For all the mentions of the number nine cropping up in various mythologies and how they accurately describe the nature of the solar system, I'd like to remind you all that there are eight planets in the solar system.

(Cue references to random religions that use the number eight at some point in their creation myth.)
 
1. Find an observation.
2. Select myths using this observation, ignore those who don't.
3. !!!!!!!!!!!
4. Proven it.
 
The ancients only knew of five planets, as far as any literature will tell us.
 
A better question would be to prove Jesus existed.

Because as Jesus is an essential part of the christian belief in God it's actually remarkably easy to show how little evidence there is for him to have ever have existed, which then in turn goes along way to showing how the christian faith is fictional.

Seriously, any evidence you have for him, it can be disproved. It is often said that 'most major scholars' believe he is historcial fact. Howveer when you look into it, often they disagree on the simplest of thhins concernng his life, and the evidence is sketchy as best.

For example. There is no mention of him in any historical source dated between the supposed date of his birth and death. In fact the first apparant mentions of him don't come untill sometimes after 63CE.

Anyway, there's a whole bunch of theories online you can research if you really wnat. I'm happy to argue over any particular historcal refernces that people think is good evidence.

But generally, my view is that he didn't exist, it was a story built up and up by the Christians as they grew more powerful and had more control over governments. Thi in turn is part of my firm believe that the Christian god is fictional.
That's very conspiracy theoryish. Christianity has absolutely no basis for existing if Jesus didn't exist.
 
a prophecy is about future events, not about Earth history

To the best of my understanding a prophecy is simply a statement of truth, allegedly.

A forecast must predict the future, but a prophecy may or may not. I expect to be disproved.

Prophecy:
a. An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will.
b. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
c. Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing.
From the Greek pro before + phanai speak. (Which rather stupidly I've written in Latin script.)

Yeah, yeah. Before speak. Fore tell. What's the difference?

Dammit.
 
That's very conspiracy theoryish. Christianity has absolutely no basis for existing if Jesus didn't exist.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory, as that implies cover up.

My viewpoint is that as Christianity cemented itself as the dominant European (and thus as the age of colonisation dawned global) religion, the myth of Jesus spread and any evidence became accepted historical knowledge, because thats just how it was.

So more chinese whispers than conspiracy theory!

But as you say, yes Christianity doesn't have a basis for existing if Jesus didn't. So when someone says 'Disprove God!' my tatic as such is to disprove Jesus, because that it turn disproves (the Christain) God.
 
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory, as that implies cover up.

My viewpoint is that as Christianity cemented itself as the dominant European (and thus as the age of colonisation dawned global) religion, the myth of Jesus spread and any evidence became accepted historical knowledge, because thats just how it was.

So more chinese whispers than conspiracy theory!

But as you say, yes Christianity doesn't have a basis for existing if Jesus didn't. So when someone says 'Disprove God!' my tatic as such is to disprove Jesus, because that it turn disproves (the Christain) God.
Yet Christianity exists, which contradicts Jesus not existing. Seriously, Christianity was all about Jesus, it didn't just come up suddenly in the Middle Ages like you seem to be implying. Then you have to whole problem of saying what Christianity believed in before it became dominate. Then you have the other problem of explaining why people would give up worldly pleasures and face humiliation by their peers just to follow the teachings of a man who didn't exist.
 
Yet Christianity exists, which contradicts Jesus not existing.
Some people put Jedi on their census form. Doesn't mean that The Jedi religion is real, just means that people say they are Jedi

Seriously, Christianity was all about Jesus, it didn't just come up suddenly in the Middle Ages like you seem to be implying.
That is not at all what I am implying. Christianity grew in strength over a prolonged peroid, eventually reaching a stage where it was accepted as 'fact' and it was 'heresy' to believe otherwise. This has of course now influenced how history is percieved now.

Then you have to whole problem of saying what Christianity believed in before it became dominate.
There are many similarites between Christianity and other religions. Surely you know the term Paganism?

As for Jesus himself, well again similarities in his story and that of other religions.

Read more on wiki if you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Then you have the other problem of explaining why people would give up worldly pleasures and face humiliation by their peers just to follow the teachings of a man who didn't exist.
Because Christianity sets down rules such as not sleeping with your neighbours wife or using violence against people. Poeple liek law and order, and Christianity was an effective way of implenting it and installing it in people's way of life.
 
Xenu ( /ˈziːnuː/ ZEE-noo),[1][2][3] also spelled Xemu, was, according to the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[4][5] of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology scriptures hold that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

I knew scientology was nuts. But what? WHAT?


edit: but hmmm...what if it's right, eh?
 
Great Green Arkleseizure will save us all.

G
 
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory, as that implies cover up.

My viewpoint is that as Christianity cemented itself as the dominant European (and thus as the age of colonisation dawned global) religion, the myth of Jesus spread and any evidence became accepted historical knowledge, because thats just how it was.

So more chinese whispers than conspiracy theory!

But as you say, yes Christianity doesn't have a basis for existing if Jesus didn't. So when someone says 'Disprove God!' my tatic as such is to disprove Jesus, because that it turn disproves (the Christain) God.

You do know that the Islam, Judaism and Christianity all track back to the God of Abraham, right?
 
I knew scientology was nuts. But what? WHAT?
Scientology's success is mainly based around the fact that nobody knows what they actually "believe in" (of course what they actually believe in is money).

You do know that the Islam, Judaism and Christianity all track back to the God of Abraham, right?
Do you know that without Jesus, Christians would likely still be Jews?
 
Back
Top Bottom