I've seen in this thread that many people will post their beliefs in that there is a God. And others will refute the fact that there is a God by tearing down what the others have stated for their reasoning that there is a God.

I propose to then turn the tables. It is obvious that there are those that have a firm belief that there is no God. So I am open to here how you can prove that there is not a God.

Please give me your proofs that there is no God and maybe you will be able to convince me that there is not a God.

This is the core of what makes religion, Religion.

Are you willing to put all of your faith into an unseeable entity? That will not once affect or direct your life, Giving you so many choices to make each day, with only 2 outcomes, IF you live your life how you want to, completely unashamed of your actions, You will go to hell.
If you live your live with this entity as your guide, Following it mindlessly, never making your own choices, but rather the predetermined ones, Then you go to heaven, Is that what religion really is? The loss of frewe will, in the name of an unsure afterlife?

So how does you statement show that there is not a God. I make choices everyday. I choose my pants, and my shirt, and what I will eat. And none of those choices will send me to Hell so your statements neither prove that God does not exist nor do they really make any sense what so ever.

Again I say show me proof that there is no God.

You'll note that the claim isn't being made that there absolutely, no-way possible that there is some sort of diety. We are not the ones making positive claims, i.e., "A god does exist." Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

One cannot "prove" a negative. But I'll make you a deal...I'll prove to you that God doesn't exist just as soon as you prove that there aren't magical invisible fairies that live in my garage.

I do not try to disprove "God" though i find believeing in him to be very difficult as all he is doing right now would be to sit here and watch what sad state this world is in, That is NOT the kind of god i would worship. A god that watches us kill each other over something like oil, or how we run the place, I want a fair god, And therefore, I beleive myself to be my god. I make my decisions, decide what happens, Are we not all our own gods, OR perhaps the people that use us make THEM gods? We all believe what we want, It's out nature, Religion really takes going out on a wing, And like i said, I'd rather believe in nothing and be wrong, Then believe in SOMETHING and be wrong.

But i actually have no problem with christians, I won't insult them, Hell, i hang out with them, But i just really do not want to be a part of the religious scene. It's just not for me.

But just to make people mad, Show me proof there IS a god.

No, what I don't get is why I have to suffer for sins committed by people I had no control over. I could not have stopped them from eating those fruits, so I am in no way responsible for what was done. So why am I not given an opportunity in the Garden of Eden?

And by the way, I'm still waiting for answers to these. You could take a look at them too, Manz.




First, it is impossible to prove a negative. It is called the argument from ignorance.

Second of all, I have stated and re-stated already in this thread that the burden of proof lies with the proposer. Why don't you prove to me, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, and then I can prove that your god doesn't exist. Why don't you prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist, and I will prove to you that your god doesn't exist. Hell, why don't you prove to me that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry doesn't exist, and I will prove that god doesn't exist.

And lastly, I have always said that the probability of god's existence is low. I have never outruled god. Why don't you look at my first post in the thread (the one that addressed the voters based on what option they voted for).

Well for one, The "Truth" i was raised to believe is that God has always been there. An eternity before us, Sitting there, no one created him, He has just always been there, If you think to hard, Your head starts to hurt, no?
And secondly, Why would god sit there for an infinity before us? Was he bored and decided to make us?

And also: Adam and Eve were the most base version of humanity, God knew that they were capable of wrongdoing and gave them that choice, I believe that god knows what we would have all done, before we, ourselves did it, Fair? No. But that's just how lovely he is.
I personally would have been happy naked and stupid. But clothed and banished from a garden seems okay too..

My point stands: What god is that merciless?

The Bible is full of proof. First had accounts of people meeting, speaking, and learning from God. Centuries of historical proof that shows that God is there. That is proof. If you state that the Bible can not be used, then you in return can not use any books, writings, or historical events as backing to prove your points.

And by the way the Bible is full of extraordinary evidence. Some would even say supernatural.




First of all God does not like the state the world is in. God did not like the original sin in the garden of eden. God loves everyone and wants to have a personal relationship with Him. God does not like religion or religious piety. Jesus himself called the religious elitists of the Jewish people a brood of vipers. I have seen people that were so called religious people do evil things. These people were not a child of God and did not have a personal relationship with God. And that is what God wants is a relationship with you. Our natural nature is selfish and self gratifying.

Again I offer the historical proof of the Bible taken over thousands of years that there is a God.




First of all aren’t you the proposer of this thread. And you have proposed that there is no God or that the existence is nearly impossible. And when people have stated that they believe you have answered in such a way that would lead one to believe that you do not believe in a God. So isn’t then the burden of proof on you.

Again I offer proof from the Bible that has historical and first hand accounts of dealings with God. My proof is well documented in many languages and forms.

Jesus was a man like us, And died like a man as well. The difference between us and him is that he actually had god helping him.

God lost his only son, only for him to rise 3 days later?

People on earth lose children, family, loved ones, in more brutal ways then this, do we not feel pain as well? Is god more "Worthy" of grieving?

Tch. seriously, we are all human, we all feel pain, Jesus was human, he felt pain, but then he rose again.

What am I trying to prove?

At times i feel like god is full of himself.

Yes, I am the starter of this thread. Yes, I believe god almost certainly does not exist because there is no proof of his existence. I am not proposing that "God does not exist because of <proof 1>, <proof 2>." I am saying god almost certainly does not exist because of lack of proof.

And no, the Bible is not proof. It says Moses talked to god. Where is the proof that he did talk? It says Mary was pregnant, and yet a virgin. How? It says Jesus walked on water. How?

I know you guys are probably tired of me bringing up the FSM over and over again, but I shall write here like this: The FSM exists.

There, I have just offered "proof" for the existence of the FSM, because the holy post number 90 in the holy page number 9 of the holy thread number 15388 in the holy forums of the FiestaFan said so. That enough proof for you?

And I am tired of your not responding to points you cannot counter. Try responding to some of the points such as the one about absolute omnipotence, and the incompatibility of it with omniscience.

Moses did talk to God. God told him to go to the Pharaoh of Egypt and tell the Pharaoh to let His people go. Now at the time Egypt was the most powerful society on earth. The Egyptians had bigger and stronger armies than any other people of that time that was known. Moses walks in and says let my people go and Egypt just says OKIE DOKIE. No, I don’t think so. The Jewish people were their slaves and did all their hard manual work. There is no way they would just let them go. So then God sent plagues on Egypt to the point where the Pharaoh told them to go. The left but Pharaoh decided to pursue them in order to kill or recapture them. Then God parted the Red Sea and the Jewish people were saved. All documented first had accounts written by Moses himself in the Bible. Not only did Moses himself live through this but all the Jewish people he brought out of Egypt. And then God gave them Manna from heaven to eat. Again first hand accounts. Again proof that Moses talked with God and was led by Him.

I am not responding to your point and I never stated that I couldn’t counter them. You still haven’t given me proof that there is not a God.

I'm going to sit on the fence because it is exactly my position at the moment in regards to this topic. However, I do see both sides of the debate and so will voice my opinion here.

Firstly, in response to the recurrent argument that God decides to sit still while watching this world collapse, this little story will be of help:

The flood came and a religious man who had no way to escape was gradually sinking. A camel rider went past and offered help. The man refused and said: "No, thank you but God will come save me". So the rider left. Moments later, a person in a boat came and offered help. The man repeated the same statement and sank further. The person in the boat left. When the man was at the verge of dying, both the rider and the person in the boat came and offered to help. The man refused, believing that God would save him because he has done lots of good deeds all his life. He sank and died. When his soul was escorted to meet God, the man angrily said: "Why didn't you save me? All my life, all I've ever done is follow your guide and be good to this world". To which God replied: "I sent the camel rider to help you. I sent the person in the boat to help you. I even sent both the camel rider and the person in the boat back to help you. Yet you repeatedly refused. What would you have asked more of me?".

Secondly, I must make clear that I don't believe in any established religion because, as controversial as my thinking might be, I believe all religions as we see are creations of the brilliant minds of the past, namely those who wrote the holy books for their respective religions and created the doctrines by which the followers have kept to this day.

Thirdly, I believe in an unseen force. I am not stating that it is "God" (a notion which, if it means anything, means just that). I am saying that there is a something we don't yet know. Perhaps, at the end of the discovery road (if it ever ends), we will discover it and for all I know, it might be the "God" that some of us now strongly profess their faith in. By conceding that there is the existence of some higher being, I am granting the opportunity, to me perfectly vindicated, that there may be a "God". I don't deny that. What I want to clarify is that, as of now, so far as the evidence accumulates, there is no positive identification of the "God" or "Gods" that the religions out there have preached.

Fourthly, as beings with extraordinary capacities for logic and insights, we are entitled to formulating our own systems of beliefs, convictions and executions thereof. Privileged with those qualities, we have managed to break ourselves (e.g. through wars that purely sprang from political schisms) and also have achieved so much. It is true that the common (and also largely ridiculous) prediction shared by the many religions is that if you don't follow their God, you're going straight to Hell. It must be considered, however, that human beings, while capable of transcribing their thoughts into beliefs which they judge by invoking their own intelligence and conception of right and wrong, the problem lies in the difference in their abilities to interpret the "moral codes". Religions were established, I believe, to standardise a set of moral codes for all to follow. That is, religions were designed to keep peope from bad thoughts, which, without a formal and explicit system, would to the procurers be perfectly justified. The analogous example is the system in which we live with a stanard set of rules so everyone can follow, e.g. traffic rules.

Lastly, every belief sustains at least a flaw, even if it is supported by powerful scientific instruments. The reason why we are growing (in figurative terms) is due to the fact that we never stop asking. Aristotle asked and answered many of his own questions, many of which were wrong but at the time, they were beautiful conjectures and could not be wrong. With the advent of modern technology, we begin to assess situations using our own logical systems. To argue against a scientific theory, we use another theory which was more shown to be more concrete - more concrete, at least, during our life time. It eludes me, though, that a debate on deities can possibly be conducted fairly using the knowledge that we form by using our own observations and theories. The principal and underlying key that has maintained religions is that "God" created us, and therefore, has the power to create the laws themselves. By using our science to support/refute the existence of God, who supposedly crafted this science, is not conducive to progress. To further this point, consider that when Newton's laws came about, later the introduction of Maxwell's famous electromagnetic equations, the contemporary scientists actually believed that we knew everything there was to know, until Einstein came along, followed by the advent of quantum mechanics. The point is that our peception has a limit. By using knowledge within a limit to argue a point that is still outside the current limit of science is to me not feasible. I have seen a debate using the highly intricate Relativity and biological developments and the result is still a draw, at least, where I left it.

If I have to choose between science and Creationism, I will gladly pick science because Creationism, if popularised, will bring a demise to our advancements. To surmise the existence of a God, however, is largely a matter of belief and to me, is not the least convicing. To outright refuse the existence of a higher being is also a matter of belief and is not any more persuasive. The two beliefs can be backed up with science (yes, science) and still result in no victory for either side.

This is why I am tolerant of beliefs - everyone's entitled to his or her belief. To have me make a decision will require the eventuation of scientific studies which, in this life time, will most likely not be close to inventing a time machine (even though early promising sign has been sighted - quantum jump, anyone?). And since we can't convince each other to relinquish our own convictions, it's best to live in peace. It is much better than the crusades of the medieval ages, the religious persecutions that stain our hsitory, and perhaps more broadly, the wars of any rationale - religious or political, but in the end, it's political - that were the results of ideological differences, manifested through violence.

This is why I'm sitting on the fence in this issue. Life is too complex to evolve due to chance or life is just so wonderful because it miraculously evolved by chance. It's your take, and remember, it is just what we currently believe in.

Nice way of putting it, Lam.

Perhaps it's not that he's merciless... perhaps the world is going to have some kind of dramatic change because of everything that's happening. perhaps the world will be 10 times better because of all of this in a few years. maybe a new government will form and we'll have world peace. Who knows till it happens?

And on the topic of original sin: Life is passed down from our forefathers, and so is the first sin. it's simply it's nature. it's not a sin in the regular sense of the word, just a lack of holiness.

And as for the omnipotent vs. omnicient view, how do you know he IS going to change anything? who's to say he didnt plan this out at the beginning of time and is just going to stick to his plan?

And lastly, to lam: who's to say science and creationism cant co-exist? Who's to say he didnt use the laws of science to his advantage and begin creating with it? I'm Catholic, for example, but i still believe in evolution, i just believe it was God molding it out and stuff. And the only real current area of science that religion hinders is stem cell research, which could be viewed as wrong outside of religion too.

Okay, for the moment, I will concede and drop the point of whether the Bible constitutes proof. But let me now give you a first hand account that there are fairies in my garden which are only visible to me. Do you believe me? No? Prove me wrong. Okay, I'll say there are invisible fairies in your garden. This is my first hand account. I saw them from way over here. Prove me wrong.

I have already told you it is impossible to prove a negative, so why are you insisting that I prove god does not exist?


This is from the wiki. Seems like not everybody agrees with your definition.



The point is not whether he is. The point is whether he can.

Also from wikipedia; you failed to mention this:

"Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.[7]"

And perhaps he can and knows if/when it will happen. it's strange, but possible. Animals dont understand us; whos to say our feeble minds are ment to understand him?

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMM MMMM!!!!!

I would have quoted you but man it was a WoT. :laugh:

Okay, I love the story first of all.

I too believe that established religions can and do become corrupted. Man can use any power to obtain advantage over others and will use that if left unchecked. Religion is not immune to this corruption. But belief in God should not be a religion in my view, it should be a personal experience.

I believe in the supernatural force of God. I like how you are searching.

There is absolute truth. I have put my faith in my God. If I die and nothing happens to me then I have lost nothing. But if I die and go to heaven, I have gained everything.

I do not hold to the belief that if you have a belief in God you can not strive to answer the questions that surround us as people. Science is in simple terms the observation of things. This observation can happen whether or not I believe in a God. And if I truly want to know and understand I will push until I have the answer. I have heard many people say that creationists just say God did it. That is not true. Yes, a creationists starting point is God did it but that is not the ending point. I would love to figure out how God did it, to understand how a sun can burn like it does. But alas, I have been blessed with a financial and economic mind though I have had my share of chemistry, biology, and my favorite physics. So I can state that belief in God does not cause people to stop striving for answers. Do you think that someone wanting to find the cure for cancer who is a believer in God would simply go God will do it.

I do agree with everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

It boils down to the same thing. Why am I not given the chance to be born holy, for the mistake which someone I had not an iota of control over did?

How do you know animals don't understand us? Perhaps he can? If he can, he isn't omniscient. If he can't, he isn't omnipotent. Pick one.

Please, I ask you again, reply to all the points I have listed.

To a certain degree, i agree with Manzacar; Is it not possible that Science is the hand of God? seeing as he created everything, you would think he would've written the laws of science along with them.

Why must you choose one or the other? Who's to say that they cant coexist in an imensely strange way? who's to say that he cant know all the possible tracks, and know what he's going to choose, but all at the same time have the power to pull the lever to switch the tracks at the exact same time? If you were given a gun and asked if you would kill your best friend, you would have the power to kill him, but you would know you wouldnt.

And, just as life is passed from ancestor to descendant, so is the original sin that stained mankind.

and i was simply saying that they dont really have the capacity to understand electronics and stuff like that, just as we might have the capacity to understand him.

Science and religion could be one side of the same coin, Cliche'd i know, But a very old book once said that "Without science and Religion, A soldier would never get paid"
God created everything that was, is, and will be, So it's possible that Science was his doing as well.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent; Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent; Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?; Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? --Epicurus

Also, the problem of the Bible is that, well, it's pretty inconsistent as far as content goes. And not just between... say... the "Bible", Koran, and Torah but between different versions of the Bible itself (ie. King James vs. any other), and within the Bible itself. If the Bible is the word of God, how there be so many different versions of the same story running around. And if we attribute this error in consistency to human error, what validates the Bible as the true word of God and not the word of "human."

Edit: Clearly, you guys post too fast for me.

Ralath, you left out one option there; What if he's willing and able to, but his will for us to do it ourself and to learn and choose to be good outweighs it?

if you're handed things on a silver platter, how are you going to learn what to do and what not to do? perhaps he wants humankind as a whole to learn from its mistakes.

If a parent tells a child the way they should go and they disregard their advice and do things that cause themselves harm. Who's fault is it.

Ralath PM me your list of inconsistencies I would like to see them. Thanks.

Who's to say that eggs aren't the same thing as bacon? Who's to say that we aren't all bananas?

I shall explain this again. My apologies to all the feminists out there, but I shall refer to god as "he."


God knows everything, and can do anything. Cool?

Therefore god knows, from all the possibilities he has available to him, what he is going to do in the future, for sure.

Now, since god can do anything, can he change that decision that he took?

If yes, he does not know everything because he did not foresee this change.

If no, he cannot do everything because he cannot change this decision of his.


And finally, can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?


And, because my dad is a murderer, so am I.

But we can most certainly understand logic. Tell me, are you saying that they will happen in a way we cannot understand? Cop out.

God says that we are Man, and we stand seperate from the animals, and rule over them.

God said that he created Adam in the image of Himself.

Yes, but if he is omnipotent, he could find an alternative way and have a way for us to do those things. You make it sound like we're his playthings.

If by child, you mean Adam and Eve... then.... I honestly have no idea how to respond to that. Nor really how it relates to what I've posted. But if the parent knew beforehand (being omniscient and all) that the child was going to disregard his advice... and doesn't do anything to stop him... isn't that bad parenting? I think this is kind of a bad analogy. But notwithstanding, there's something that clashes with this idea that God would tell man to do one thing, knowing well that man is clearly not going to to listen...

Feel free to do any search on the web for them. They're fairly common (and I'm not talking about sources where there's a clearly anti-religion slant or even Wikipedia. Respectable sources ie. universities)

...that didnt really address anything i said, but i'll repeat myself.

He has the power, but knows he wont use it. he could, but knows he wont.

If i gave you a detonator, you know you wouldnt use it, but you have the power to. Correct?

And as for the stone thing, he would have to power himself down temporarily, i guess.

And it's of no fault of yours, and no flaw in your character; The FIRST sin stained humanity. that's all.

He might be able to trancend logic, but i condcede that it was an innaccurate comparison. all apologies.

You're looking at him in an incorrect way.

You're looking at him as if he decides to control our lives; but you're leaving out one key decision that he made while making us:

He gave us free will. When you choose to do wrong, is God at fault? or is it you? he gave us freedom. He understands the value of choice. He leaves it to us to learn the right choices and the wrong ones.

And no, it's not bad parenting. It's not good if you're forced into it. There is no good choice without a wrong one.

You are assuming I am not suicidal. But that is quibbling, and I will accept the assumption.

Now the point is how "could" he? It doesn't matter if he won't and never will. The point is "can" he or "could" he?


Do explain.


So there is absolutely no difference between me and Adam at the moment when I am born. Right?

I think my entire point is getting lost again as feared.

No one can prove that God does not exists. I state that the Bible shows proof of God's existence.

Why does it matter if I believe. If you really believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs what use is this thread.

I contend that this thread was not meant for a discussion, but to state that there is no God and if you dare say there is then you have to give proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But no one has to prove that God does not exist.

i'll restate what i said earlier: Original sin is seperate from personal sin. once again:

"Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.[7]" -Wikipedia.

As for the stone, i guess it would be impossible since nothing can overpower God, not even his own creation.

And yes, he could, but his decisions are always right the first time since he's all knowing and all wise, therefore his first decision is right.

Okay. The Bible states that god is omnipotent and omniscient. I have just proved that they are incompatible. There'a a discrepancy right there.

No. I do not believe that everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. Was Hitler entitled to his view that Jews were an inferior race? Are racists entitled to their view that blacks are inferior?

Actually, come to think of it, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs as long as they keep it to their own backyard. If Hitler hated Jews in his mind but never did anything about it, I would be perfectly fine with it. But religion constantly enters, influences and juggles with state policy which influences everyone. This is completely unacceptable. I am simply asking the reason for your beliefs, and so far, I have not seen an explanation which satisfies me.

Once again, this thread was made to see the reasons for the beliefs of both sides.



EDIT:


There is still a difference between me and Adam. Why am I not given a chance to be holy at birth?


So there is something god cannot do?


For the last time, how "could" he? If he can, or could, then he is not all knowing. If he can't or couldn't then he is not all powerful.

Im pretty sure i showed a way in which they could be compatible. you kinda ignored all my previous posts on that topic in there...

And in some ways, it's not religion, but common sense that goes into politics. And you're assuming everyone in the church feels the same way. Plenty are ok with gay rights, for example.

If NO personal beliefs were in politics, how would they exist? There would be no reason to run, no reason to pay taxes, no stances on any position; religion just influences moral values. i dont see how there's anything wrong with that. It's a moral line you should draw, not a personal-social one.

EDIT: posted before i saw your post.

No, it's more of that he can do too much, not a lack of being able to do something.


It's the nature of sin. not any choice made by anyone. Original sin passes down from person to person. it's of no personal fault of anyone.

And i answer you one last time, they can co-exist. He CAN change it, but he knows he wont. Therefore, he wouldnt be violating anything. he CAN but WONT. he knows he never would and wouldnt have the reason to, therefore, he CAN but knows he would never have to.

And... this is turning into a circular argument. =.= This goes back into my... earlier post. If he is omnipotent/omniscient, he would have found a way to do ALL these things. After all, he is omnipotent/omniscient. Don't ask me how. I'm using your logic.

God (or humans who believe in God to begin with) wrote Bible. Bible proves God existence.


Hm... =/

Actually, I agree. But I didn't make this thread so I really don't care one way or the other.

See: Vasu (disproving a negative)

Ralath, you forget that God helps those who helps themselves. he wants us to make some of the choices and not to do it all himself.

Once again, with no wrong choice, there is no right.

.

He's able and willing, but he would rather have us do some of it for ourselves.

I'm beginning to wonder if Manzacar was right, and if this thread is an attack on religion, not a fair and even discussion. when i post something that makes sense, you bring up an argument for it, which is acceptable. but when i post a counterargument, you bring up your first point, creating a circular argument yourselves.

I'll deal with this below.


Well, I wouldn't be too well versed with the goings on in there, but the main point on one of the party's agenda is to build a "magnificent temple for Lord Ram", and they slam anyone who even appears to question his existence. Atheists are pretty much oppressed here with statements like, "Haha, did you make the universe." I realise that is beside the point though.


Ayway, I wonder what influenced Prop. 8?




Sometimes in the wrong way.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Please clarify.


So the nature of sin is to be ascribed to someone who hasn't done anything to deserve it.

By the very fact that he CAN, he is not omniscient.



I'm sorry if some of you feel personally offended. But can you show me one place where I did such a thing? If you are talking about the omniscience/omnipotence incompatibility issue, I simply did not understand your responses.

I can sum up all of your questions in a single sentence, It will blow your mind.



Wait and see.

He's too powerful NOT to lift the rock. that's what my point was.

And yes, whenever you bring humans into play, there will be corruption.

And i see no contradiction between omniciency and omnipitance. Perhaps you should ask him yourself if you end up in heaven?

and here in america, there ARE secular republicans too, citing their own religion-less moral values, so it's not all because of religion

*shrug* Takes two people to have a circular argument. You keep bringing up the same points that I've responded to. And yet, you come up with nothing new.

IMO, that's what religion (or even science) HAS to do--withstand criticism. That's how we make sure the bad theories (ie. geocentrism or the world is flat) go away.