Disprove god!

[Souron]

God is not a minimalist explanation of natural phenomena, so science rejects God outright for that. That means there is no observed and proven natural phenomena that could not be more simply be explained without God. He is, however, an alleged actor in nature, so within the domain of science. Therefore anyone who accepts the scientific method as a proper approach to determining what one should believe, should not believe in God.

It's difficult to ague with conviction whether anything exists or doesn't exist without establishing a framework for determining when it is reasonable to believe something exists. The scientific method provides one such framework, but a theist may reject it as an approach for establishing the state of existence of God. So in order to argue about the existence of God we must first establish a framework for how to prove thing exist or don't exist that we agree on.

 

[History_Buff]

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.

What I am acknowledging is that if you guess at enough things, eventually you'll be right about something. It's the same as ancient prophecies, except backwards.

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.

Come again? So, according to the Bible, was the Earth formed in 7 days or not? How were days measured before the Earth existed? Did it rotate at the same speed is currently does? Is there more than one god to contend with now? Are you arguing that the Earth was formed out the solar system, and then arrived here?

Also, before we go any further, what version of the Bible are you reading, and where can I find the text online? Just need to make sure I'm drawing from the same source you're reading.

 

[GoodGame]

Santa is real---the acuweather man told me so! He's never wrong!

Here's a thought experiment:
A certain prophet is never wrong, as a kind of reflexive identity. The prophet reveals the existence of metaphysical deity. A preacher reveals the existence of the prophet and his message to me, via an infallible source. If the preacher is sometimes wrong, but always quotes an infallible source, how can I be sure that he quoted the source correctly?

 

[Harv]

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

In my opinion this is not possible. Believing in the existance or non-existance of God is a matter of faith.

 

[timtofly]

Santa is real---the acuweather man told me so! He's never wrong!

Here's a thought experiment:
A certain prophet is never wrong, as a kind of reflexive identity. The prophet reveals the existence of metaphysical deity. A preacher reveals the existence of the prophet and his message to me, via an infallible source. If the preacher is sometimes wrong, but always quotes an infallible source, how can I be sure that he quoted the source correctly?

Many people live every day without being sure of anything. Those who are sure, can be divided into a false security or a true security. I do not think that any one can speak for any one else on the matter. Only you can know if you are sure or not. IMO, your hypothesis does not matter, nor reflect what you yourself can be sure of.

 

[Angst]

Many people live every day without being sure of anything. Those who are sure, can be divided into a false security or a true security. I do not think that any one can speak for any one else on the matter. Only you can know if you are sure or not. IMO, your hypothesis does not matter, nor reflect what you yourself can be sure of.

It does matter since it practically destroys the trustworthiness of the Bible as a fact, even if God did exist. In this thread, it is fit for the OP, for example, and perhaps some others my eyes missed. I do not know your stance, but it's a slap in the face of people basing their faith on irrelevant things such as "proof" and trying to convince others through the use of "proof".

What I can be sure of is a Descartes' question which was answered a long time ago: Only that I exist. Then he went on to try proving God on false premises, but that's another story.

Regardless...

The problem in this thread (and all others like it) is that some people try to either rationally or scientifically prove God. They mistake themselves since God is a metaphysically emotional, irrational and personal concept. God is a personal entity since it wholly bases itself on personal faith and certainty. Therefore people are free to believe in God if they want. It's about what they feel like. They just shouldn't go around trying to prove him right logically or mix him into scientific ventures, such as the bad mix of intelligent design and evolution. On the other hand, science shouldn't be mixed with religion either. It's two completely different worlds.

The whole "is there a God" debate is dumb since it is a wholly emotional issue overshadowed by a social acceptance discourse where only empirical evidence matters. The believers are dumb because they attemp to cover up their emotional issue with fallacious logic and do not care for the logic given to them. The atheists are dumb because they attemp to provide logic as arguments in a debate which is about how people feel. It's a question about feeling that you believe, not having a logical necessity to, and both sides fail horribly at it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Argumentation between two parties out of which one is always right by definition is pointless.

I see what you mean but thats not what I subscribe to either. Nothing is right by definition. 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.

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.

Respect comes from recognising the capacity. Not from mutual competition. Why would need to strip God of omnipotence? Do you need to strip infinity of its infinity first to take it into scientific accounts? God is simply a constant in natural science.

 

[timtofly]

It does matter since it practically destroys the trustworthiness of the Bible as a fact, even if God did exist. In this thread, it is fit for the OP, for example, and perhaps some others my eyes missed. I do not know your stance, but it's a slap in the face of people basing their faith on irrelevant things such as "proof" and trying to convince others through the use of "proof".

What I can be sure of is a Descartes' question which was answered a long time ago: Only that I exist. Then he went on to try proving God on false premises, but that's another story.

Regardless...

The problem in this thread (and all others like it) is that some people try to either rationally or scientifically prove God. They mistake themselves since God is a metaphysically emotional, irrational and personal concept. God is a personal entity since it wholly bases itself on personal faith and certainty. Therefore people are free to believe in God if they want. It's about what they feel like. They just shouldn't go around trying to prove him right logically or mix him into scientific ventures, such as the bad mix of intelligent design and evolution. On the other hand, science shouldn't be mixed with religion either. It's two completely different worlds.

The whole "is there a God" debate is dumb since it is a wholly emotional issue overshadowed by a social acceptance discourse where only empirical evidence matters. The believers are dumb because they attemp to cover up their emotional issue with fallacious logic and do not care for the logic given to them. The atheists are dumb because they attemp to provide logic as arguments in a debate which is about how people feel. It's a question about feeling that you believe, not having a logical necessity to, and both sides fail horribly at it.

It does not matter, because of how he phrased it. He asked how can I be sure someone else is correctly quoting the source to me. That is the whole issue of German higher criticism which is the basis for what people choose to believe today. Rational thinkers have torn apart that certaintianty and layed down a foundation of uncertainty. It may be based on logical thought and even scientific progression, but it is still uncertainty. Because of that no one can use logic to present the evidence, because it is now mired in the unchanging logic of observable science and not faith or trust. Have we been lied to? It is quite possible. No one knows, but logic suggest that we have been. Can we escape it? There is no incentive to, so probably not. We still have to answer to what is inside of us, if we are able to let go of logic long enough to let faith have a say. Most people are not comfortable letting go of what they think is a certainty inside of them.

 

[warpus]

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?

If you want to do science, you'll need a scientific theory.

You got nothin

 

[strijder20]

If they arent created, they dont. Can you think of something?

Uh, yes, the universe. I believe it just came into existence, not that it was created.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If they arent created, they dont. Can you think of something?

Yeah, I can think of 2. A natural process not requiring intervention. It has always existed.

Using the premise in this thread, of which the claim:"that how it was explained to me" is still sad it never got any attention, neither these 2 possibilities, nor the one it was created have been disproven.

Which leads us to the rather odd conclusion that the threadstarter claims all 3 are true and that this is the way science works. Well, it doesn't take a rocketscientist to see the flaw in the threads premise.

 

[Berzerker]

What I am acknowledging is that if you guess at enough things, eventually you'll be right about something. It's the same as ancient prophecies, except backwards.

How did people all over the world "guess" right about what the world was like 4 billion years ago before our first evidence of life and plate tectonics? These myths claim a water covered world existed before the creator arrived on the scene and some "disturbance" between the two resulted in life and land. And these are not prophecies, they are what our ancestors believed about the world and our "sky".

Come again? So, according to the Bible, was the Earth formed in 7 days or not?

No, the "Days" represent planetary gods - Tiamat (biblical Tehom) was the 6th planet from beyond the solar system (the direction somebody would come to visit us) and the Earth is the 7th planet now that Tiamat was pushed here following the collision that left behind the asteroid belt. This is how the Enuma Elish describes our solar system before and after the creation of Heaven and Earth. But since the Mesopotamian versions of creation have these gods appear before the creator, the monotheists hid their identity behind "Days" while claiming God made the planets after Heaven and Earth. And the Earth is not this planet, its the dry land that appeared from under the water - Genesis is clear this water was here before God showed up to create Heaven and Earth.

How were days measured before the Earth existed? Did it rotate at the same speed is currently does? Is there more than one god to contend with now? Are you arguing that the Earth was formed out the solar system, and then arrived here?

Same way as today, time to rotate once - but current theory says the world spun faster after a collision creating our moon ~4.5 bya. The problem is we know the Earth-Moon system took a beating ~4 bya and that life and plate tectonics soon followed. Thats when a new orbit closer to the sun and the seed of life was given to what was a dark, water covered world.

Also, before we go any further, what version of the Bible are you reading, and where can I find the text online? Just need to make sure I'm drawing from the same source you're reading.

It dont matter much, but Young's Literal is fine. I suggest reading the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Epic of Creation), this was the text used every New Year's when creation was re-enacted over several days (7 or 12 I think).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How did people all over the world "guess" right about what the world was like 4 billion years ago before our first evidence of life and plate tectonics? These myths claim a water covered world existed before the creator arrived on the scene and some "disturbance" between the two resulted in life and land. And these are not prophecies, they are what our ancestors believed about the world and our "sky".

There's plenty more myths which talk about a whole different creation story. And a whole lot which include the water covered world, but have different stories about the start of life.

But really, if the myths had said "ice" they'd be right at some point. If they'd said "lava" they'd have been right at some point. You put guess erroneously between quotation marks by the way.

This is all very weak evidence indeed.

 

[Berzerker]

There's plenty more myths which talk about a whole different creation story. And a whole lot which include the water covered world, but have different stories about the start of life.

But really, if the myths had said "ice" they'd be right at some point. If they'd said "lava" they'd have been right at some point. You put guess erroneously between quotation marks by the way.

This is all very weak evidence indeed.

I was quoting HB, he said they "guess"ed right. There's many creation myths, some deal with life, humans, and how the gods worked the land and then had us work it for them before and after the Flood. But here's the key - Genesis and pagan myths from all over the world say the same thing... A water covered world was disturbed by the creator and land that had been submerged was revealed and life followed. Thats a description of what happened ~ 4 bya when a water covered world (certainly could have been some ice) suffered massive collisions splattering the Moon with enough debris to freeze its face in position - imagine that, 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.

Somebody back then had knowledge we're just discovering, and it was so far back that knowledge either survived our migrations over ~100,000 years and/or it was shared at some later point, maybe thru an event like the Tower of Babel. The Inca and Maya have too much in common with old world religions to have survived an early trip around the Pacific rim.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

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.

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.

What would really impress me is a myth that went through all stages of the creation of the earth. Including the firey beginning. The coming and withdrawing of the ice. The darkened skies as a result of the volcanoes surely deserve a mention. If they'd specified that life as being very small and invisible to the eye, I'd be impressed. Instead they talk about creatures which they were familiar with. As they were familiar with large bodies of water. It's not that great a leap to create a myth with large bodies of water where something happened and the kind of creatures you see around you appear. They very much did use all the stuff they were familiar with, and left out all the stuff they didn't know.

They didn't have knowledge beyond their observations.

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.

 

[History_Buff]

How did people all over the world "guess" right about what the world was like 4 billion years ago before our first evidence of life and plate tectonics? These myths claim a water covered world existed before the creator arrived on the scene and some "disturbance" between the two resulted in life and land. And these are not prophecies, they are what our ancestors believed about the world and our "sky".

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.

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.

No, the "Days" represent planetary gods - Tiamat (biblical Tehom) was the 6th planet from beyond the solar system (the direction somebody would come to visit us) and the Earth is the 7th planet now that Tiamat was pushed here following the collision that left behind the asteroid belt. This is how the Enuma Elish describes our solar system before and after the creation of Heaven and Earth. But since the Mesopotamian versions of creation have these gods appear before the creator, the monotheists hid their identity behind "Days" while claiming God made the planets after Heaven and Earth. And the Earth is not this planet, its the dry land that appeared from under the water - Genesis is clear this water was here before God showed up to create Heaven and Earth.

Same way as today, time to rotate once - but current theory says the world spun faster after a collision creating our moon ~4.5 bya. The problem is we know the Earth-Moon system took a beating ~4 bya and that life and plate tectonics soon followed. Thats when a new orbit closer to the sun and the seed of life was given to what was a dark, water covered world.

It dont matter much, but Young's Literal is fine. I suggest reading the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Epic of Creation), this was the text used every New Year's when creation was re-enacted over several days (7 or 12 I think).

You're going to have to give me some time to get back to this, because it's certainly not any Biblical account as I was ever taught it. Hell, from the way you're describing it, the Earth already existed (and was submerged) before God came along, which contradicts most biblical accounts.

 

[Harv]

Hell, from the way you're describing it, the Earth already existed (and was submerged) before God came along, which contradicts most biblical accounts.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

 

[Arakhor]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

Berzerker desperately needs a class in comparative religion.

 

[TheLastOne36]

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

Evolution doesn't work that way.