Can You Technically Disprove the God of the Bible?

[Mudhammam]

If I lost a brain cell for every idiotic point put forth by Lek, I fear I would become Lek.

[Jericho]

If I lost a brain cell for every idiotic point put forth by Lek, I fear I would become Lek.

I feel like I am currently undergoing the Lek transformation due to all that nonsense I just read.

[Simon Moon]

Since I am not going to take the time to respond to all these posts, testing the supposed evidence of the supernatural is nothing similar to testing or denying/affirming the existence of the supernatural itself. You can test the evidence that is claimed through science, but the very nature of the supernatural means that it cannot actually be tested by the laws of science.

If you can't test it using demonstrable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable evidence, how can you tell the difference between the supernatural things that you believe exist, and nonexistent supernatural things?

Every supernatural claim is equally untestable. Yet you disbelieve the majority of them. Why do you make an exception for yours?

And I can say that the depiction of God 3,500 years ago is inaccurate in parts of the Bible because I learned the evolution of the OT from one of the foremost Biblical scholars. Took ten minutes for one of my Christian friends to leave/drop the class when she realized the History of Ancient Israel wouldn't be taught from a Biblical perspective (though the Bible did end up getting validated quite often for its historical accuracy.....you know when you remove the supernatural references attributed to specific events).

Yes, the Bible does contain some historically accurate stories. So does Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.

So what?

[Polaris]

Because I believe in my faith. There are theists who will try and find evidence to disprove the existence of a faith, but that can't honestly be done under scientific theory. Sure, it's probably easier to disprove that Jesus was not based off the Horus myth we have now, but that can still get shaky.

The Bible is actually quite historically accurate. It basically was a poorly written thesis paper based upon the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel (for the post 1200 BCE events).

The so what was I actually used it to get a good grade on a history exam in a college course taught by an atheist. I just took out the religious explanations the Biblical authors attributed to the events referenced in those two works.

[Jericho]

So Polaris, I am actually interested in knowing what your theory is to why God is no longer as prominent in the world as he was in biblical times. I ask this because I have heard many theories, but I want to know your thoughts. He was incredibly active during those days, and was even claimed to be seen by a select few. So why not now?

[Simon Moon]

Because I believe in my faith. There are theists who will try and find evidence to disprove the existence of a faith, but that can't honestly be done under scientific theory.  Sure, it's probably easier to disprove that Jesus was not based off the Horus myth we have now, but that can still get shaky.

Why do you think that faith is a virtue? How is faith different from gullibility?

True, the Jesus myth is quite dissimilar to the Horus myth. But there are other pre-Christian mythical characters that are more similar. 

The Bible is actually quite historically accurate. It basically was a poorly written thesis paper based upon the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel (for the post 1200 BCE events).

Historically accurate, except when it's not. 

I can fill a page with the historical inaccuracies in the Bible.

The fact that the Bible has some historical accuracies  is not a surprise. But the fact that it contains some historical accuracies does not lend a shred of credence to any of the supernatural stories. Almost every document of the time was a mixture or natural and supernatural stories.

The so what was I actually used it to get a good grade on a history exam in a college course taught by an atheist. I just took out the religious explanations the Biblical authors attributed to the events referenced in those two works.

No one, not even your atheist professor, claims that the Bible does not contain some historical accuracies. 

Once again, does the fact that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contain some historical accuracies (verified by archaeology, geology, comparison to other texts) give any credence to any of the supernatural stories contained in them?


[/quote]

[RobbyPants]

We can look at things from the bible starting at the beginning: There are two ludicrous, contradicting biblical creation accounts. About 6,000-10,000 years ago, the bible claims Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet. That differs from scientific fact, that humans are at least 150,000 years old.. Need I go farther?

Also, just straightforward reasoning such as: Where are all the firsthand eyewitness written testimony of jesus's miracles he performed during his life? You would think if the only begotten son of god came to earth and performed miracles, someone would have written about it. Even if there were thousands of written statements, that shouldn't be good evidence to anyone anyway, but you would think at least that much would exist.

The bible disproves itself, that part is obvious. Would you go as far to say as the god of the bible can be disproved using the bible and/or logic? Feel free to quote more infallible passages.

It's pretty easy to prove that many events in the Bible did not happen they way the Bible claims. Also, we have a pretty good idea how a lot of it was put together and edited for several hundred years, so I'm not sure why it should be taken seriously as a "divine authority" at all.

That being said, it is technically possible the Abrahamic god exists invisibly, hiding for whatever reason. This god either lied in the Bible or allowed humans to write it without setting the record straight. I cannot prove that that god does not exist, in the same way I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist. Still, I see no reason to assume either of them do exist, either. Not only have the apologists failed to bring any proof forward, so much of the stuff they believe is ridiculous. The likelihood of them being correct on all the nonfalsifiable bits is pretty remote.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Obviously, you and I don't take it seriously. I feel it should be taken seriously, because we live in a world where a massive amount of people take it seriously; which is idiotic and detrimental to society. I also feel the same way with regards to other books, such as the koran. People need to realize how dangerous it is, just like the bible, and raise awareness of all the thing factually wrong in it, as well as how evil and ridiculous the stories that are contained in them actually are.

[robvalue]

I agree. The notion that god has had any part in the authorship of a book is one of the most dangerous concepts there could ever be. We take seriously the fact that many people take this myth seriously.