Atheism (2)

[Going Merry]

Understandable Gadarene but of course I am more positive when looking at things like that to verify the bibles authenticity

To other comments, I keep thinking it would be silly to try to prove God with science... Since we're debating the existence of the Creator, then why try to prove Him with something he created? SO you see then it would be more worthwhile to use what believers use to prove/disprove, scripture

 

[createdtoworship]

In Christian beliefs, god is omnipresent, is he not? Even so, if god has had the massive effect on our earth, you'd think that we would be able to find some evidence of it.

There are more to the universe than Christians, and I am one!

 

[Gadarene]

Understandable Gadarene but of course I am more positive when looking at things like that to verify the bibles authenticity

Doesn't matter. You made invalid arguments.

To other comments, I keep thinking it would be silly to try to prove God with science... Since we're debating the existence of the Creator, then why try to prove Him with something he created? SO you see then it would be more worthwhile to use what believers use to prove/disprove, scripture

The Creator didn't create the Bible?

 

[Going Merry]

Hehe I somehow involved my self in this thread
I always knew I was insane

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok. What testable, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence have you?

Think about it like this; you are in court, what do you show.

why? What do you show for God's non existence? can't see Him?
Evil and Suffering? What?

Cause I can tell you how do you know the God of the universe is not a Good God, who is visible, and is on the far side of the universe?

 

[Going Merry]

Doesn't matter. You made invalid arguments.



The Creator didn't create the Bible?

No comment to first line

Of course He did.
But that is what He gave us to explain what He did.

 

[Gadarene]

Of course He did.
But that is what He gave us to explain what He did.

"Since we're debating the existence of the Creator, then why try to prove Him with something he created?"

Regardless of whether you use science or the Bible, you are going to be looking at something he created, so your objection to using the Bible over science fails too.

And I would argue that the Bible actually explains nothing, it merely claims he created. It does little to explain how he created. Certainly not the sort of level of detail that science is capable of.

 

[createdtoworship]

 

[Non sequitur]

why? What do you show for God's non existence? can't see Him?
Evil and Suffering? What?

Cause I can tell you how do you know the God of the universe is not a Good God, who is visible, and is on the far side of the universe?

No, nice try turning it on me (as I never said I could show evidence for his non-existence)

Again, back-peddler, what testable, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence have you?

 

[madaz]

Understandable Gadarene but of course I am more positive when looking at things like that to verify the bibles authenticity

To other comments, I keep thinking it would be silly to try to prove God with science...

Its not only silly its impossible.

Since we're debating the existence of the Creator, then why try to prove Him with something he created?

We are not debating the existence of a creator. The essence of this thread is for a christians to learn about Atheists yet christians are exploiting this thread to push their beliefs instead.

SO you see then it would be more worthwhile to use what believers use to prove/disprove, scripture

It is wrong to assume all believers dismiss science as a method of validation.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, nice try turning it on me (as I never said I could show evidence for his non-existence)

Again, back-peddler, what testable, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence have you?

the first post I commented on was a definition of atheism. It said that no evidence was available that God exists. So I say, prove it. Prove that there is no evidence in the entire universe that God exists.

 

[Gadarene]

the first post I commented on was a definition of atheism. It said that no evidence was available that God exists. So I say, prove it. Prove that there is no evidence in the entire universe that God exists.

To do this we'd need to go through every single argument for God ever made, and refute each one. Hardly expedient.

Alternatively, you could give your best shot to the case that God DOES exist and let us examine it. If your best doesn't work, hardly worth bothering with the others, is it?

All you need is a singular counterexample - so easy. Go for it.

 

[Going Merry]

"Since we're debating the existence of the Creator, then why try to prove Him with something he created?"

Regardless of whether you use science or the Bible, you are going to be looking at something he created, so your objection to using the Bible over science fails too.

And I would argue that the Bible actually explains nothing, it merely claims he created. It does little to explain how he created. Certainly not the sort of level of detail that science is capable of.

I understand we're going to be looking at something He created. But humanity is fallible, so the word should be fallible if there is no God, since men did write it, but claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit, who is infallible.

Anywho thanks for the responses, I am not good at debating on these topics. Cause I never do it haha

 

[Gadarene]

nm

 

[Going Merry]

We are not debating the existence of a creator. The essence of this thread is for a christians to learn about Atheists yet christians are exploiting this thread to push their beliefs instead.



It is wrong to assume all believers dismiss science as a method of validation.

I am sorry i am still new to this section and just barely got into this thread. I didn't know what the purpose was truthfully but saw it as a debate thread between atheists and believers as that is what I saw.

And I understand many believers use science as well, which is not wrong. But I do know the bible is not a science book but a book of salvation. I wouldn't think it would effect the validity of the bible (science that is). But you can't validate the bible with science I would think(?) Not sure, never thought about it much to be honest!

 

[Zack454]

why? What do you show for God's non existence? can't see Him?
Evil and Suffering? What?

Cause I can tell you how do you know the God of the universe is not a Good God, who is visible, and is on the far side of the universe?

That's the entire point of not existing. It can be proven. See the word "not"? Or that prefix "non"? It means that there can't be proof. Because it doesn't exist. Understand? There is no proof that leprechauns don't exist, yet you don't go skipping down to the end of the rainbow every time, now do you?

 

[Gadarene]

I understand we're going to be looking at something He created. But humanity is fallible, so the word should be fallible if there is no God, since men did write it, but claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit, who is infallible.

Which hardly holds up to scrutiny, as the Bible is very definitely fallible. Plus you have the usual problem of interpretation.

The advantage of looking at nature is that while you may still have the interpretation problem to some degree, man definitely did not author the earth. He did with the Bible, so there is an extra layer of fallibility.

 

[Gadarene]

I am sorry i am still new to this section and just barely got into this thread. I didn't know what the purpose was truthfully but saw it as a debate thread between atheists and believers as that is what I saw.

And I understand many believers use science as well, which is not wrong. But I do know the bible is not a science book but a book of salvation. I wouldn't think it would effect the validity of the bible (science that is). But you can't validate the bible with science I would think(?) Not sure, never thought about it much to be honest!

I don't know if you could get scientific proof beyond reasonable doubt for some of the more supernatural Biblical claims, but it'd be a mistake to say science could never be relevant.

Even miracles leave material effects behind. So while God's direct involvement may not be detectable, one could certainly try and observe the outcome of prayer by looking at the distribution of outcomes. However there is simply no positive correlation observed with prayer for healing for example beyond a common psychological boost the belief in prayer brings to someone.

So while the correlation wouldn't prove God outright, it's a material observation we should expect if God exists. We also don't see one.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's the entire point of not existing. It can be proven. See the word "not"? Or that prefix "non"? It means that there can't be proof. Because it doesn't exist. Understand? There is no proof that leprechauns don't exist, yet you don't go skipping down to the end of the rainbow every time, now do you?

You can't prove a negative. Anything, I have said that like six times already.

 

[Going Merry]

Which hardly holds up to scrutiny, as the Bible is very definitely fallible. Plus you have the usual problem of interpretation.

The advantage of looking at nature is that while you may still have the interpretation problem to some degree, man definitely did not author the earth. He did with the Bible, so there is an extra layer of fallibility.

Yes interpretation... if you ever looked at general theology I was being made fun of earlier because I was claiming many people who believe in Jesus believe blindly. They think we have to believe in "who" instead of "what" and brought up many examples scripturally and was told my questions were idiotic. So interpretation is a large problem for both believers and unbelievers.

I understand your view of men authoring the bible, but through my faith I would (have) to disagree. I see your point of view though if that were not the case. (i am sensing what I said might work against me )