Proof god doesn't exist

[Underseer]

[...]

Circa 430BC the Jewish prophets, whose words are written in the Jewish Nevi'im, predicted that one in their line would claim the right to be called Messiah, born of the line of David. They foresaw his birth, his ministry, and his resurrection from death. The prophecies were specific, and all of those predicting the life of the Messiah were fufilled in time.

[...]

The Bible contains a mistranslation of those prophecies that completely changes them. It's pretty obvious that the prophecies were deliberately mistranslated from the original Hebrew in order to retroactively make them apply to Jesus. Of course, it's possible that this is not the case. The people who wrote the Bible may just have been stupid or very poor at Hebrew.

If the prophecy in the original Hebrew was exactly like the mistranslation in the Bible, there would be no Jews left in the world because they would have all recognized the legitimacy of the prophecy and converted to Christianity. The fact that the majority of them (and mind you, these were the people who spoke Hebrew natively) didn't convert to Christianity shows pretty convincingly that the prophecy you mention isn't really what you say it is.

 

[Underseer]

Here is a list of prophecies that the Bible gets wrong:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

 

[puglover]

The Bible contains a mistranslation of those prophecies that completely changes them. It's pretty obvious that the prophecies were deliberately mistranslated from the original Hebrew in order to retroactively make them apply to Jesus. Of course, it's possible that this is not the case. The people who wrote the Bible may just have been stupid or very poor at Hebrew.

If the prophecy in the original Hebrew was exactly like the mistranslation in the Bible, there would be no Jews left in the world because they would have all recognized the legitimacy of the prophecy and converted to Christianity. The fact that the majority of them (and mind you, these were the people who spoke Hebrew natively) didn't convert to Christianity shows pretty convincingly that the prophecy you mention isn't really what you say it is.

Actually, as contemporary accounts and historical findings show, the Bible has remained remarkably intact from its original source. There are hundreds of contemporary copies of the Hebrew scriptures, and so the original meaning of the text is accurately translated into English.

BTW, I've seen the Skeptic's Annotated Bible before. Anyone with any Biblical background or knowledge of the historical context can tell you almost all of those objections are either unfounded, uninformed, or just plain ignorant of the context. Take the objections about Revelation for example, the points are frail and easily defused.

Revelation

John believed that the things that he wrote about would happen soon, within his own lifetime. After nearly 2000 years, believers still believe that "the time is at hand" and that the events described in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." 1:1, 3

"Every eye shall see him," including those who executed him. Everyone will "wail because of him." But millions have lived and died without ever seeing him coming "with clouds." 1:7

John quotes Jesus (1900 years ago) as saying, "Behold, I come quickly." 3:11, 22:7, 12, 20

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...." To John, the stars are just little lights a few miles away that can easily fall to the earth. 6:13

"And the name of the star is called Wormwood."
Some believers say that the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl was the fulfillment of the third trumpet in 8:10-11. 8:10-11

"And there was no more sea."
For an old sailor like me, this verse, if it were true, would be one of the saddest verses in the bible. 21:1

 

[CurtSibling]

1) Control people's minds? Christianity is a religion of choice. For one thing, we're not forcing you to convert.

Do you speak for every group that claims to be christian?

I think not. On paper all religions are voluntary, but we both know that is not the case in the real world.

2) The acts of extremists has no bearing on the merit of Christ's offer.

Easy to dismiss it all, but that is akin to holocaust denial.

"It affects my agenda, so I will just deny everything!"

Sorry, Pug...That 'I forgive myself' baloney does not wash with me.

3) There is no proof God exists. But the evidence is everywhere.

If you convince yourself that you can see what you think is evidence...

....Then you can see a god anywhere.

You can look at a man's heart and see virtue and love. You can look in the actual book and see the prophecies fufilled.

Again, if you read a passage from the bible, you can draw any number of different conlcusions from it...

....Then you can see a god anywhere.

You can look in history and see apostles who could not have made up what they saw, for eleven of them died without confessing any falsehood about Christ's life.

How do you know, where you there at the last supper, or at Calvary?

No, you are an American living in this current epoch, not in Palestine, 10AD.
Still, you think you understand the minds of these primitive men in classical times?
You think you do, because you read a holy book that tells you what you want to hear...

....Then you can see a god anywhere.

The evidence is plenty. But a man needs to open his eyes.

Believing arcane dogma and thinking you see a god everywhere is not what
I would call 'opening your eyes'. Despite all this, there is still no proof of a
god. Old stories, personal belief, heart-warming anecdotes??? All of this
does not amount to anything, really. You want to believe it, so you do.

But you have no proof of god, and it strengthens the case that there is
no god, all I see is people scrabbling in the dark, and still giving that old,
tired line: "You really have to be there to understand!"

In other words, you have to lose your marbles...

No thanks.

 

[CurtSibling]

Not to mention the authenticity of the resurrection account, and the prophecies not only about Jesus but also about his lineage and the actions of enemies he had no control over.

Christians are assured he is of God because of the signs he has performed, and the sacrifice he has made to cover sin.

If you actually think there was a resurrection of a dead man, I would
like to know how you can actually rationalise this with a straight face.

.

 

[puglover]

Do you speak for every group that claims to be christian?

I think not. On paper all religions are voluntary, but we both know that is not the case in the real world.

Of course I don't speak for all Christians, just as you don't speak for all athiests. I'm merely sharing what I've found to be true.

Easy to dismiss it all, but that is akin to holocaust denial.

"It affects my agenda, so I will just deny everything!"

Sorry, Pug...That 'I forgive myself' baloney does not wash with me.

Holocaust denial? I thought comparing someone to Nazis was the sign of a bad argument.

I am not denying the murders in Christ's name. But I can assure you that the true Christian faith is contrary to the actions of wicked men, and that the greedy crusades and hateful inquisitions are the actions of those who pervert the gospel rather than serve its true purpose.

If you convince yourself that you can see what you think is evidence...

....Then you can see a god anywhere.

I see the evidence for God's existence. If it is not enough for you...

... you can continue to deny.

Again, if you read a passage from the bible, you can draw any number of different conlcusions from it...

....Then you can see a god anywhere.

And that is why we read it with a critical eye, to try to understand it through the context of the original hearers, or...

... you can continue to deny.

How do you know, where you there at the last supper, or at Calvary?

No, you are an American living in this current epoch, not in Palestine, 10AD.
Still, you think you understand the minds of these primitive men in classical times?

Were you at the bombing of London? Have you seen the tide wash upon the shores of Roman-occupied Gaul? People are people throughout history, Curt, and through history we can understand what the people (who are really no more "primitive" than you or I) of ancient times had to say to us.

You think you do, because you read a holy book that tells you what you want to hear...

....Then you can see a god anywhere.

You think I want to hear that I am a sinner? That I am not the measure of my own existence? I believe that he has called me to die to myself and serve. It isn't a comfortable thought, and it isn't the cozy bedtime story you picture it to be. In spite of what you know Christians believe...

... you can continue to deny

Believing arcane dogma and thinking you see a god everywhere is not what I would call 'opening your eyes'. Despite all this, there is still no proof of a god. Old stories, personal belief, heart-warming anecdotes??? All of this does not amount to anything, really. You want to believe it, so you do.

The more of your words I read, the more I know that you are not listening to what I say, but simply hearing the babble and nonsense you want me to say.

But you have no proof of god, and it strengthens the case that there is
no god, all I see is people scrabbling in the dark, and still giving that old,
tired line: "You really have to be there to understand!"

In other words, you have to lose your marbles...

No thanks

Again, I have never said anything of the sort. You are creating my words from thin air, making me say things you feel good rejecting. You can't hear me because you have closed your mind. By your choice you can stay that way, or you can abandon your petty preconceptions and make your choice based on what you see, instead of repeating to yourself the same ignorant names for my kind you've concieved over the years. May Lord bless you in whatever endeavor you choose.

 

[Perfection]

If it does, then is your development of reasoning in this line irrelevant? In fact, this is a huge obstacle which is the focus of much frantic scientific discussion in academia... its implications are very uncomfortable for many scientists with personal views devoid of God or Creator. But at this time, evidence and mainstream theory both support the creation event. Further, it supports creation an a specific, quantifiable instant in space-time. And even further, it cannot describe a mechanism to allow for its occurrance without introducing an "uncomfortable" thought of a "creator"... since there is still no model which can describe the event. And further... scientific theory is unable to extend observable laws and theory from the post-creation universe we live in, to the pre-creation state across the creation singularity. In fact, the theory itself asserts its scientific inability to even allow the question to be asked "What was before?" This is a fairly hard thing for some to follow (the true concept of infinity and singularity, in rigorous scientific context).

This is by-and-large untrue.

My favored interpretation (and a common one among scientists) of big bang theory is that there simply wasn't time before and the big bang. Time does not act in a simple newtonian manner as a clock independant of what is going around it, instead is dependant on the physical universe. Without the universe time is meaningless, so there is no logical need for causality outside of the universe. This renders the arguement for the neccesity of a creator unfounded because causality outside the universe is meaningless.

There are theoretical structures that interpret big bang in a different manner that has a universe or metaverse before the big bang, but these are theoretical structures are incomplete, unconfirmed by experiment (and some are unconfirmable), and carry a lot of philosophical baggage. These interpretations (by and large) also don't require a creator.

Given that most interpretations have the same experimental results from our frame physicists don't really see the need to choose a model and stick with it. Atheist physicists don't have a problem with this either because no interpretation requires a creator. The real problem from an atheist physicist's perspective is not that one cannot explain the universe without God, rather that one cannot determine which of the Godless models best describes the universe.

 

[warpus]

You don't have to take my word for it. Just because there are many who claim truth doesn't change the fact that truth is out there.

Yes it is out there, and there are also hundreds of religions and philosophies attempting to claim that their version of the truth is "the one"

Circa 430BC the Jewish prophets, whose words are written in the Jewish Nevi'im, predicted that one in their line would claim the right to be called Messiah, born of the line of David. They foresaw his birth, his ministry, and his resurrection from death. The prophecies were specific, and all of those predicting the life of the Messiah were fufilled in time.

That's funny, because the Jews themselves disagree that this Messiah has indeed come. They are still waiting for him

So I should take the Christian view on this over the Jewish one why exactly?

The real problem from an atheist physicist's perspective is not that one cannot explain the universe without God, rather that one cannot determine which of the Godless models best describes the universe.

yet

IMO most (ie. 99.9%) of physicists would be VERY happy if somebody built a falsifiable model of the Universe incorporating God and proved it true. We're not trying to exclude God from our theories. There is just no reason to include him since there is no reason to believe that he exists. A lot of religious people do not seem to understand this.

 

[puglover]

Yes it is out there, and there are also hundreds of religions and philosophies attempting to claim that their version of the truth is "the one"

People who say such things are too lazy to go out and seek the truth. How do you think any truth was found at all?

That's funny, because the Jews themselves disagree that this Messiah has indeed come. They are still waiting for him

So I should take the Christian view on this over the Jewish one why exactly?

Where do you think much of the early Christian church came from? Who do you think followed Jesus around? Answer? The Jews. Jesus is the fufillment of the prophecies the Jews put their faith in. Judaism today is a small sect, and even then few believe in God, prefering to put faith in their heritage. Jesus is their completion, and I believe his word over the words of modern Jews because I have seen the evidence to back up what he has said.

 

[eyrei]

I don't totally reject everything that has been done with religion in mind.
But I see modern man has twisted religion all out of shape, and turned it
into some sad badge of superiority, to make up for the average person's
total lack of knowledge and understanding. Most people don't even see
where the context of their religion fits in history or the world.

I agree. Much of the problem lies in the introduction of dogma, probably by those seeking earthly power. The goal of religion as I see it, is the search for god, and it is hard to believe we found it so easily.

So, why should illogical people be allowed to bully everyone else?

I don't see why they should...they are, however, entitled to their opinion, whether they find themselves in the majority or not.

I think we can agree completely.
None of us really know the big picture. And in any case, there may not even
be a 'big picture' to even understand. A person has to unlatch his thinking and
not see the universe as a big guy with white beard controlling everything...

I think people are too ready to use infantile dogmatic ideas and smush these
in our faces and threaten us with 'hell' if we do not supplicate to their egos.

That is my main gripe. I don't mind if people want to sit and wonder what the
universe is about. I prefer not to offer in any answers, because the question
is far too big to even try. And I hope you will keep this debate in mind the next
time a relgionist gets over-excited and starts preaching and bullying...

After all, they think all secular ideals are ridiculous.

I'm not sure I agree that the desire to convert others is really egotistical, other than the fact that it shows they believe they have chosen the correct god, and since that choice is often decided by circumstance, it shows more a confidence in ones own culture than in oneself. At least, it is no more egotistical than attempting to convince anyone of any moral stance we might have, or that our society has accepted as 'right'.

I also don't think that the average 'religionist' really believes all secular ideas are ridiculous. They may believe certain ones are...those that conflict strongly with their belief system, but in general, the mores of a society don't vary too much from atheist to religionist. Many times the rationalization is different, but the end result is the same.

Not so.

I always welcome a chance to speak with everyone. And I was already aware
of where you stood on religion, etc. I am not attempting to belittle anyone,
but the main point is that I am wondering what you hope to get from me here.

I have already stated that I have no idea what the universe is, and that I
think that no-one really has, least of all people who use 2000 year old texts
as their literal life-code. I too have said that I am only making my views,
and not demanding that all of the CFC adopts my ideals at nuke-point...!

So what do I do?
If you want me to be nicer to people, fine...But I am not selling out on what
are my convictions, that would be as unfair as me asking a believer to become
an atheist...That is against my code...!

And furthermore, I refuse to treat a vast amount of christian people (over a billion)
as if they are some kind of minority...They run a massive operation called the church,
and I do think they are very capable of defending themselves from one lone atheist.

Don't you?

I am not so sure that the search for god is furthered by scientific or sociological advance, so that it is not impossible that people 2000 years ago were at least on the right track.

Regardless, I share your annoyance when Christians act as though they are repressed in some way, as it is just a reaction to their losing some of their control which they had no real right to in the first place. That, however, is not really the subject of this thread.

And yes, I would like you to be nicer to people.

 

[warpus]

People who say such things are too lazy to go out and seek the truth. How do you think any truth was found at all?

So you think that the way to the truth involves examining every single holy book that's in existence?

Have you done this yourself?

Where do you think much of the early Christian church came from? Who do you think followed Jesus around? Answer? The Jews. Jesus is the fufillment of the prophecies the Jews put their faith in. Judaism today is a small sect, and even then few believe in God, prefering to put faith in their heritage. Jesus is their completion, and I believe his word over the words of modern Jews because I have seen the evidence to back up what he has said.

So this is basically a "He said, They said, She said" type of thing. I am not going to believe a group of religious followers over another, because I know that each group believes in its own little things.. I would, of course, take your word for it if you had something concrete to back it up with. As it stands now all we have is your word, which isn't good enough, because there are other words out there that contradict yours.

 

[puglover]

So you think that the way to the truth involves examining every single holy book that's in existence?

Have you done this yourself?

So this is basically a "He said, They said, She said" type of thing. I am not going to believe a group of religious followers over another, because I know that each group believes in its own little things.. I would, of course, take your word for it if you had something concrete to back it up with. As it stands now all we have is your word, which isn't good enough, because there are other words out there that contradict yours.

No one can physically examine every theory out there, but when a theory presents itself, a wise man will examine it for truth with a critical eye. I have examined Christianity and found it good, just as I have examined many other religions and found them wanting.

All you have is my word? You have more than that. Look at the Bible yourself if you want. I didn't write it. Just because others say things that contradict the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible is to be thrown out. You can accept your forced ignorance if you wish, just know that a man makes his life worthwhile only while he searches for the truth.

 

[classical_hero]

I can't duplicate the orbit of the Earth in a lab, that must be blind faith as well! Abiogenesis is the best model we have for the origin of life. It allows us to explore life and organic chemistry in a coherant manner that produces a great amount of knowledge. We might not be able to demonstrate the entirity of abiogenesis in a lab, but we can show bits and pieces, and through the frame of abiogenesis we can more effectively discover information about life and organic chemistry. The utility of the abiogenesis scheme

If abiogenesis is true then why don't we see it happening now? There has been no observation of it happening and it is only every an hypothesis. We have never seen any life come from non life, all we have seen. The problem is that we had an experiment that tried to prove Abiogenesis, namely the Urey-Millery Experiment. It appears that the experiment actually disproves this. Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
The problem is how a complex organism can come form something that is uncomplicated, from a molecular POV because the mysteries of the way how cells work are so great that even using superhigh powered computers are having difficulty understanding a process that our bodies do thousands of times a day. It takes us massive effort for us to even understand the simplest of tasks that our body does, namely the folding of proteins. This is a highly specialist task of the cells of the body that even if one thing goes wrong in this process that a major problem happens.
Even evolutionists are saying that the evidence does not stack up for abiogenesis. Perhaps the major problem is that most important thing we need fo life right now and that is Oxygen. Oxygen is vital to life but it is impossible for Abiogenesis because it breaks down the amino acids used for life, so the body can use them. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3630/

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977

Abiogenesis is clearly not the best way to look at the origin of life because it is just inadequate in explaining everything, thus we need to be looking more closely at the alternative and that is biogenesis, by default it will be supportative of the notion that God exists.

 

[El_Machinae]

If abiogenesis is true then why don't we see it happening now?

Do you state that a self-replicating or self-organising RNA or protein is impossible? And why should the complexity of life (with your reference to computers) matter?

Your faith is based on the premise that a self-replicating protein is impossible? That seems tenuous.

 

[Perfection]

Abiogenesis is clearly not the best way to look at the origin of life because it is just inadequate in explaining everything, thus we need to be looking more closely at the alternative and that is biogenesis, by default it will be supportative of the notion that God exists.

No it isn't! But to prevent things from going off-topic I responded here.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4666434#post4666434

 

[warpus]

No one can physically examine every theory out there, but when a theory presents itself, a wise man will examine it for truth with a critical eye. I have examined Christianity and found it good, just as I have examined many other religions and found them wanting.

All you have is my word? You have more than that. Look at the Bible yourself if you want. I didn't write it. Just because others say things that contradict the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible is to be thrown out. You can accept your forced ignorance if you wish, just know that a man makes his life worthwhile only while he searches for the truth.

Oh, I've examined the Bible, I used to be a Catholic. I've examined Christianity moreso than any other religion, and I didn't find it "bad", but I didn't find much truth in it.

Also, I can play your game and call your position one of "ignorance". It doesn't make it so, just because we disagree.

One of the main missions of my life has been to find the truth. I have examined the Bible and the Christian faith, and found it to contain some truth, but not much. I have not seen any signs from the Christian God so I must assume he does not exist.

If abiogenesis is true then why don't we see it happening now?

If creation is true then why don't we see it happening now?

Abiogenesis is clearly not the best way to look at the origin of life because it is just inadequate in explaining everything, thus we need to be looking more closely at the alternative and that is biogenesis, by default it will be supportative of the notion that God exists.

That's a huge assumption. Even if abiogenesis didn't happen, that is no proof for God at all. I would say that it's far more probable that an asteroid already containing life crashed on Earth, or that early life was created by aliens in a lab. You are bringing the supernatural into the equation because you want to

I don't see how you can jump from "there isn't much to support abiogenesis" to "God must exist" without first assuming that God actually exists.

 

[ainwood]

In other words, you have to lose your marbles...

No thanks.

Moderator Action: Curt, with comments like these, you are become exceptionally tiresome, and you are dragging-down these discussions.

You can make your points without having to resort to these little trolls, and you can also make more of an effort to discuss the actual (focused) topic, rather than dragging it tangentially towards your wider anti-religious agenda.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[puglover]

Oh, I've examined the Bible, I used to be a Catholic. I've examined Christianity moreso than any other religion, and I didn't find it "bad", but I didn't find much truth in it.

Also, I can play your game and call your position one of "ignorance". It doesn't make it so, just because we disagree.

One of the main missions of my life has been to find the truth. I have examined the Bible and the Christian faith, and found it to contain some truth, but not much. I have not seen any signs from the Christian God so I must assume he does not exist.

Then please forgive me for making an assumption. I was under the impression that you were speaking in the same way as one of the earlier posters, thinking that because there is more than one faith none of them can be true.

What truth have you found in Christianity? Perhaps a different angle can give perspective.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll happily admit that Christianity has it right when it declares that "we're all sinners", but I cannot regard the Christian interpretation of 'sin' with any merit. I'll fully admit that my selfish actions indirectly hurt people against their will, even if it's unintentional that I do so.

I'm an avid fan of the Golden Rule, but have yet to form a logical construct where it's the best option under Game Theory unless one plans on living a long time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Birdjaguar:

In the final tally, I think what we have here is our personal opinions.

And we are both too well mannered to scream that we are both right,
in any case, I never claimed I was right, as eyrei accused. So where do
we go from that point? I am never going to accept human fantasies of
a god, no matter how cleverly presented...So...What then?

.

We have been here before Enemy Ace and it is likely we will find ourselves here again in the future. It is always a pleasure and a challenge. Happy trails!