Disprove god!

[History_Buff]

I provided multiple "claims" about what the Earth was like before (and after) "creation" - and the science backs them up. A water covered world was transformed into one with seas, "dry land" (called Earth in Genesis), and life...

Your other references have explanations, but I'd say creation of the world is quite enough to deal with, dont you think?

I said I'd point out nonsense; not that no part of it could be construed as true. Is your assertion that Genesis is not full of nonsense? Because that is a claim few dare to make.

I also didn't think you could possibly have been serious with your reply.

 

[Aroddo]

I call upon all so called "scientists" to disprove my theory that god is real.
God is an invisible force, neither has it got mass nor is it measurable in any other way.

It is the beginning and the end. We are its creation.
All came out of it.

Until you can disprove it, it is true, correct?

Well, I can't disprove him to your satisfaction because the counter to every argument is "God made it so and his ways are mysterious".

But I can prove to you that he sucks at his job.
Take us, for instance. Shoddy work. Our eyes work decent enough inside a fairly short range, but we only ever see a tiny tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. Oh, there's a lethal source of radiation over there, completely invisible!
And the nose ... totally unable to detect a very common, lethal gas like carbon monoxide. Clearly an oversight of the "intelligent designer".
And what kind of idiot puts the vital oxygen supply right next to the food intake, resulting in thousands of people choking to death on pretzels or such !?!

And most of all: Reproduction, of all things!
Come on, honestly ... what sane designer puts a whole entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system?


Of course, this doesn't disprove god .... but it either proves that he is an idiot or that we are not the pinnacle of his creation but merely a waste product or an early prototype.

 

[Ailedhoo]

As a agnostic I see that one cannot disprove or prove a god, gods, God, supream force of spirits, etch...

That said one can question and give thought to the possibilities. Possibilities are of wonder as the unknown is a wonderful place.

 

[timtofly]

Well, I can't disprove him to your satisfaction because the counter to every argument is "God made it so and his ways are mysterious".

But I can prove to you that he sucks at his job.
Take us, for instance. Shoddy work. Our eyes work decent enough inside a fairly short range, but we only ever see a tiny tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. Oh, there's a lethal source of radiation over there, completely invisible!
And the nose ... totally unable to detect a very common, lethal gas like carbon monoxide. Clearly an oversight of the "intelligent designer".
And what kind of idiot puts the vital oxygen supply right next to the food intake, resulting in thousands of people choking to death on pretzels or such !?!

And most of all: Reproduction, of all things!
Come on, honestly ... what sane designer puts a whole entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system?


Of course, this doesn't disprove god .... but it either proves that he is an idiot or that we are not the pinnacle of his creation but merely a waste product or an early prototype.

I do not hold to the belief that the current "human" body is what was originally designed as in the excuse "god's image". I am not sure what claim can be made that would support what I do believe, since hardly any one takes the genesis account literally. I would say that what originally was would be as alien to us now as what we imagine meeting from a different part of the universe.

While your points are all valid, How much different are we from any other creature thriving on this planet? Seems to me that most have the same "obstacles" facing them as well. Maybe God is waiting for humans to stop complaining and fighting each other, so as to allow them to advance to the next level. As opposed to just surviving and fighting one's way to the top.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It simplifies understanding to a point where understanding of anything isn't needed at all since belief in God supersedes everything. A belief which undermines a human curiosity and need to explore, experience & investigate one's surroundings. A scary thought, or if considered as a belief even more scary.

G

If one gravitates to any kind of exploring belief doesnt have to be necessary an obstacle. Well at least not the kind I employ. Who says there is no need for cooks or scientists becouse we believe in God?
Belief is only temporary tool. As spiritual seeker I need faith and believe but not for its own sake. I expect to gain knowledge from my spiritual practise. I dont expect heavenly retirment but the knowledge of God. If one knows God or ones true self one can easily know the rest. So you see there is way of simplification in spiritual process.

G

 

[Core Imposter]

I once went with a friend to a party and there discovered that all present but me were Trekkies and atheists. Who figured?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Of course, this doesn't disprove god .... but it either proves that he is an idiot or that we are not the pinnacle of his creation but merely a waste product or an early prototype.

That is cute post. B is correct - humans are not the end of evolution.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I do not hold to the belief that the current "human" body is what was originally designed as in the excuse "god's image". I am not sure what claim can be made that would support what I do believe, since hardly any one takes the genesis account literally.

I think its not just matter of human body but human being in its complexity. We are the only terrestrial beings capable of uniting with God. And we can harbour and manifest Divinity.

 

[Grendeldef]

Who says there is no need for cooks or scientists becouse we believe in God?

G

Well, for what do you need scientists when everything is already explained by a belief ? It doesn't say that there can't be scientists but every aspect of research is then to back up a belief and if there's a contradiction between belief & science the latter will be overruled.

I disagree with you but I approve your signature.

G

 

[Arakhor]

I call upon all so called "scientists" to disprove my theory that god is real.

What you have there is a hypothesis, not a theory. I'd have thought you'd know the difference when moving in (pseudo-)scientific circles.

 

[timtofly]

I think its not just matter of human body but human being in its complexity. We are the only terrestrial beings capable of uniting with God. And we can harbour and manifest Divinity.

To think that we are the only ones is assuming a lot. We seem to be the only ones who choose not too.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well, for what do you need scientists when everything is already explained by a belief ? It doesn't say that there can't be scientists but every aspect of research is then to back up a belief and if there's a contradiction between belief & science the latter will be overruled.

I disagree with you but I approve your signature.

G

No I believe there should be mutual respect between religion and science. They do serve different aspects of our lives so there shouldnt be much conflict if each minds its own business.

 

[Angst]

Science does not operate this way.

Yes it does.

Why do you need proof for God anyways? Do you believe in him or are you not serious?

God can do good things and bad things to you. But if you truly believed, you wouldn't need proof.

Just remember that God is personal - he is your God and only you are testamonial to your actions. So simply act according to it and let it stay inside yourself.

 

[Grendeldef]

All these things mean ultimately nothing or change into its opposites when confronted with existence of omnipresence and omnipotent diety.

No I believe there should be mutual respect between religion and science.

Do you the see the contradiction in the these statements ?

G

 

[Berzerker]

I said I'd point out nonsense; not that no part of it could be construed as true. Is your assertion that Genesis is not full of nonsense? Because that is a claim few dare to make.

I also didn't think you could possibly have been serious with your reply.

Now, about all this 6 days, garden of Eden, woman created from man created by God, talking snake, great flood, people living hundreds of years...

Since you seem to be acknowledging Genesis might have got something right - what this world was like before plate tectonics and life ("creation") - I'll deal with your other examples.

The "Days" are planetary gods/orbits - monotheists were using pagan sources. The Enuma Elish describes the "gods" before and after creation, and Tiamat was the 6th planet (the Earth is now the 7th).

edit: 6th and 7th from outside the solar system, the Enuma Elish describes the creator as being summoned or attracted from the depths of space and passing by 5 outer gods before battling Tiamat.

The Garden lies under the Persian Gulf, satellite imagery has located 2 fossil rivers matching the description in Genesis - and we know it was a river valley during the ice age. That also explains the Flood, as the ice age ended the world saw massive flooding as ice shelves and dams collapsed unleashing vast reserves of ice and fresh water - might even help explain all that rain. But the Flood didn't cover the highest mountains, just seemed like it to peoples caught by surprise as glacial lakes and seas breached ice and earthen barriers all over the world. Thats assuming an ocean impact didn't cause tsunamis. The Tlingit of Alaska say the Flood happened 14,000 years ago, that coincides with a known flood called meltwater pulse 1a 14.6 kya. Is their Flood a lie or falsehood? The science says no...

According to Mesopotamian sources, people were made to labor for the gods. Man was made to be a slave (there was no Adam to till the ground) - this was achieved by mixing the blood of the gods with a creature found by Enki - snake god was one of his attributes (snake meaning knowledgeable, your talking snake). "Goddesses" were originally used for this process and human women followed - thats why the Garden story implies part of our "knowledge" was procreation and why Eve followed Adam. Not everyone lived long, but if long lived beings interbred with humans, I imagine their kids would have longer lives than us regular folk. The Bible says the sons of God did just that, they took women as wives and they had kids.

Now, back to Genesis 1:2 - how did they know what we're just figuring out?

 

[Leoreth]

I once went with a friend to a party and there discovered that all present but me were Trekkies and atheists. Who figured?

You have a friend who is a Trekkie and atheist?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Do you the see the contradiction in the these statements ?

G

Not really actually. I was talking about suffering and injustice if I am correct.
Science can try to minimise these by material means and spirituality on its own level. No problemo.
Yes I know, I am saying that the spirituality will have ultimately the last say or may be that they will both merge in one kind of knowledge in the future either by science fully recognising inner processes and levels of consciousness or by developed spirituality adopting more scientific approach. Hard to tell.
In any case both science and spirituality focus on expansion of capacity and knowledge so omnipotence, immortality, complex/complete freedom is something they both need to look up to.

 

[NBAfan]

Come on guys, you can't prove or disprove God on scientific grounds. It has to be done on philosophic grounds.

 

[timtofly]

Come on guys, you can't prove or disprove God on scientific grounds. It has to be done on philosophic grounds.

You could if God was observable, but then what would be the point?

 

[Grendeldef]

Not really actually. I was talking about suffering and injustice if I am correct.

Ok, and that's part of the problem. Something either is omnipotent or it isn't - a deity can't be omnipotent only in areas of suffering & injustice or any other limited field of expertise for that matter. For a religion & science to have a mutual respect for each other the starting point should be somewhat equal which would mean stripping God from his omnipotence for starters which I assume won't happen. Argumentation between two parties out of which one is always right by definition is pointless.

G