Proof that God doesn't exist

[Undeceived]

FallentoReason,
Do you think God would have created the earth out of molten lava or simply 'spoke it into existence'?

From the big bang, I guess it follows that Earth and all other planets formed from "molten lava" or the natural process by which it happens.

But if God created which would he do? You say God would not be deceptive in his creation. So we have to suppose what such a creation would look like in order to examine your claim. I'm not trying to trap you for a line out of context. Just... would an all-powerful creator sculpt the world out of liquid rock or make solid rock appear?

[FallentoReason]

From the big bang, I guess it follows that Earth and all other planets formed from "molten lava" or the natural process by which it happens.

But if God created which would he do? You say God would not be deceptive in his creation. So we have to suppose what such a creation would look like in order to examine your claim. I'm not trying to trap you for a line out of context. Just... would an all-powerful creator sculpt the world out of liquid rock or make solid rock appear?

I gave my answer, but I'll clarify because I left too much for you to assume:

Within the context of this thread, I'm saying God is responsible for the big bang and everything that followed as determined by our observations.

[Drich]

Why are your baseless assumptions correct over my baseless assumptions?

Because i am not so foolish to repersent one absolute answer as to the nature of the origins of the universe when none are avaiable. I have only presented a possiablity. So why does repersenting a possiablity, trump your absolute? Because my faith, my understanding, my world does not center around the idea that I nor any man at this point in our collective exsistance has any complete/absolute answers.

Meaning my mind is open to possiablities you have closed yourself and your mind off to. That means if the traditional understanding creationism is correct then I my faith remains, If what you believe to be the orgins of creation(in part) turns out to be accurate, then my faith remains. However if you or anyone else who stands behind incomplete absolutes on either side of the arguement find themselves to be wrong, what happens to your/their absolutes then, what happens to your/thier convictions? What happens to their faith?

Again I have only ever pointed to emptiness left into the creation account and these silent areas are large enough to completely encapsulate the whole evolutionary account of orgins. Which is another reason my theory trumps yours. Mine is topical and remains with in the parameters of this discussion accounting for both known accounts and tying them together.

while yours ripped off from a (good) movie, and even with in the own movies the plot line states that the opening sequence of earth being seeded undermines the whole evolutionary process! Meaning their was a designer and a design (that is why we look like the scarry tall WHITE people) and that the whole seeding process destroys any the idea of survival of the fittest/natural selection. Seeds were selected and planted, cultivated, (and in the comming movies we will find we were to be harvested as a crop.) Your theory fails on just about every level possiable concerning this conversation.

Are you done 'dancing' or do you want to go again?

[FallentoReason]

Because i am not so foolish to repersent one absolute answer as to the nature of the origins of the universe when none are avaiable. I have only presented a possiablity. So why does repersenting a possiablity, trump your absolute? Because my faith, my understanding, my world does not center around the idea that I nor any man at this point in our collective exsistance has any complete/absolute answers.

All you're saying here is that in your eyes you're not being as careless as me. I'd say living by a 2000 year old book is pretty careless really.

Meaning my mind is open to possiablities you have closed yourself and your mind off to. That means if the traditional understanding creationism is correct then I my faith remains, If what you believe to be the orgins of creation(in part) turns out to be accurate, then my faith remains. However if you or anyone else who stands behind incomplete absolutes on either side of the arguement find themselves to be wrong, what happens to your/their absolutes then, what happens to your/thier convictions? What happens to their faith?

This is a different spin on Pascal's Wager. Nothing to see here.

Again I have only ever pointed to emptiness left into the creation account and these silent areas are large enough to completely encapsulate the whole evolutionary account of orgins. Which is another reason my theory trumps yours. Mine is topical and remains with in the parameters of this discussion accounting for both known accounts and tying them together.

The reason why I used Prometheus (the movie, not the god that gave men the revelation of fire ) as an example of a creation account is because as a theory it stands, you actually cannot distinguish between reality and the theory that Prometheus sets forth (that's why I personally think the movie is so brilliant). This begs the question: why does your theory which can't be verified, just like Prometheus, actually hold any weight? We could very well be a science experiment started by beings in a higher dimension than us, which by the nature of the theory, is just as plausible as A&E getting it on with monkey men.

while yours ripped off from a (good) movie, and even with in the own movies the plot line states that the opening sequence of earth being seeded undermines the whole evolutionary process! Meaning their was a designer and a design (that is why we look like the scarry tall WHITE people) and that the whole seeding process destroys any the idea of survival of the fittest/natural selection. Seeds were selected and planted, cultivated, (and in the comming movies we will find we were to be harvested as a crop.) Your theory fails on just about every level possiable concerning this conversation.

It was just a stripped back example of Prometheus. I wouldn't read into it too much.

[Godscreated]

@ FallentoReason, Jesus did not come into this world to forgive you or me of Adam and Eve's sin. He came to forgive me of my sin, you of your's and everyone of their's. Jesus did not come to forgive me of you sin, nor of Adam and Eve's sin, I had nothing to do with their sin, and they certainly did not make me sin. They are the reason sin became part of man and their sin affected all of mankind, but your sin is yours and mine is mine, period.

[Drich]

The reason why I used Prometheus (the movie, not the god that gave men the revelation of fire ) as an example of a creation account is because as a theory it stands, you actually cannot distinguish between reality and the theory that Prometheus sets forth (that's why I personally think the movie is so brilliant). This begs the question: why does your theory which can't be verified, just like Prometheus, actually hold any weight?

Not as a credit to the theory or arguement your have chosen to repersent. This movie stands in stark contrast to everything you believe, as such your appeal to this movie discounts any merrit your orginal arguement had. (It comes off as an desperate act) therefore it cuts any weight you may have had in your orginal arguement.

We could very well be a science experiment started by beings in a higher dimension than us, which by the nature of the theory, is just as plausible as A&E getting it on with monkey men.

Change the phrase 'science experiment' to a "demonstration in Faith" and I can agree with everything you just said. Because if we were to find/verify God, by our definations He/They fit the profiles we created of "Being from a Higher dimension" than us. and if you look at us being created in "His Image" apart of us has been made to exist in the higher dimension, but we have been put here to "Get it on with monkey men," and see if we can remain faithful to the Being in that other dimension.

[Whateverist]

I completely agree. To construct my argument though, I was forced to assume that a divine being exists, that it created a universe it actually cared about, that it created other heavenly beings which he knew would possibly rebel i.e. Satan, that he created a garden where his first creations were deceived by the thing he knew would decieve his creations, that these beings would produce 3 000+ other gods, that Satan conveniently set up these 3 000+ other gods to make it harder to find the true god, that Jesus is 100% original despite all this, that he came to redeem us from what he started and that people in a superstitious world actually were recording the One Truth, which can be found in the Bible. Only then can I say that God's two wills make it seem like he decided to will his own non-existence in the first place.

Meeting theists halfway really drains you intellectually. So many hoops to jump through!

Have any theists called you on this assumption that their God is all powerful? Perhaps, far from being a skill event, creating worlds is like a bad case of gas for a God. Yes, that's right, perhaps creating the world/universe is just a natural body function for a god. They don't choose what it looks like. It just comes out that way.

Come on theists! Don't make me do all the work for you. Don't let us get away with unwarranted assumptions about your skyboy's intentions. That may just all be one big, steaming pile of shit.

[Undeceived]

I gave my answer, but I'll clarify because I left too much for you to assume:

Within the context of this thread, I'm saying God is responsible for the big bang and everything that followed as determined by our observations.

I see. Do you have a line of reasoning why God would choose the Big Bang?

[festive1]

@ FallentoReason, Jesus did not come into this world to forgive you or me of Adam and Eve's sin. He came to forgive me of my sin, you of your's and everyone of their's. Jesus did not come to forgive me of you sin, nor of Adam and Eve's sin, I had nothing to do with their sin, and they certainly did not make me sin. They are the reason sin became part of man and their sin affected all of mankind, but your sin is yours and mine is mine, period.

Isn't the sin of Eve the reason the bible gives for women menstruating? for the pain of childbirth? Being male, maybe god doesn't hold you to that standard, but as a female, it was made quite clear in my religious experience that I was going to suffer because Eve ate the apple.

[FallentoReason]

RE: Proof that God doesn't exist
@ FallentoReason, Jesus did not come into this world to forgive you or me of Adam and Eve's sin. He came to forgive me of my sin, you of your's and everyone of their's. Jesus did not come to forgive me of you sin, nor of Adam and Eve's sin, I had nothing to do with their sin, and they certainly did not make me sin. They are the reason sin became part of man and their sin affected all of mankind, but your sin is yours and mine is mine, period.

Remind me again why it is that I can even sin? I think the answer has the words "tree" and "knowledge" in there.

Not as a credit to the theory or arguement your have chosen to repersent. This movie stands in stark contrast to everything you believe, as such your appeal to this movie discounts any merrit your orginal arguement had. (It comes off as an desperate act) therefore it cuts any weight you may have had in your orginal arguement.

It would only be a desperate act if reality actually cared for one second about what my desires are, which you and I both know isn't the case. It doesn't matter what I think of Prometheus. It could very well be the reality.

Change the phrase 'science experiment' to a "demonstration in Faith" and I can agree with everything you just said. Because if we were to find/verify God, by our definations He/They fit the profiles we created of "Being from a Higher dimension" than us. and if you look at us being created in "His Image" apart of us has been made to exist in the higher dimension, but we have been put here to "Get it on with monkey men," and see if we can remain faithful to the Being in that other dimension.

I just find that to be the oddest explanation for our purpose. "God created you so you could make an ill-founded choice on whether to follow him or not. Muck up and you suffer eternally." Given the amount of people that never knew the bizzare game they got thrown into, I'd say God is borderline evil.

Have any theists called you on this assumption that their God is all powerful? Perhaps, far from being a skill event, creating worlds is like a bad case of gas for a God. Yes, that's right, perhaps creating the world/universe is just a natural body function for a god. They don't choose what it looks like. It just comes out that way.

Come on theists! Don't make me do all the work for you. Don't let us get away with unwarranted assumptions about your skyboy's intentions. That may just all be one big, steaming pile of shit.

Not that I can recall. If they did have something to say about his omnipotence and how if you do this mental backflip then that is justified, then I'm probably just gonna give up. I think with every post I'm getting more apathetic towards the "GOD" concept. We may as well be debating how much the Hulk can lift.

I see. Do you have a line of reasoning why God would choose the Big Bang?

I'm a little rusty on this topic, but I believe if you add up all the energy in the universe that he willed, it adds up to zero. That implies that the universe is flat (as opposed to some other abstract shape) which means everything expanded from a singularity i.e. the Big Bang.