Can You Technically Disprove the God of the Bible?

[Salacious B. Crumb]

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.

First of all, the creation accounts were likely myths, speaking the truth that there is one God who created everything. 

How do you distinguish what is a myth? The creation story is a myth, but the jesus walking on water story isn't? How about Jonah, Samson, the talking burning bush, moses parting the Red Sea, etc.?

[Lek]

First of all, the creation accounts were likely myths, speaking the truth that there is one God who created everything. 

How do you distinguish what is a myth? The creation story is a myth, but the jesus walking on water story isn't? How about Jonah, Samson, the talking burning bush, moses parting the Red Sea, etc.?

I just read the bible to get the message that it is transmitting to me. Numerous witness of Jesus' life have attested to the factual and historical basis of the new testament gospels. I have not read of the same attestation to the old testament events. To be honest, I don't know which of the old testament events are fact or myth. They could all be fact or not, but the important thing is that they lead me to Jesus, the messiah, as written in numerous old testament prophesies and foreshadowed in old testament events. I really don't think that the bible's writers meant to relay a scientific fact that the sun revolves around the earth. I could read a scientific textbook concerning evolution and come to believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that every word in that book is true.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

That is how I feel. I realize that you can't disprove a god, fairies, or invisible dragons. According to the bible, god is infallible and every word of that book is true. When things that I've mentioned from the bible in my original post contradict each other, The Law of Contradiction states that both premises can't be true, therefore one premise is true. If you look at the facts, you will see humans didn't pop into existence 10,000 years ago. I can spend all day going through the bible and give you at least 100 contradictions, therefore every word of his book isn't true, therefore the god of the bible doesn't exist, because he no longer would be infallible. That's how I see it anyway. Some things are true in it, but not everything.

Where does the bible claim that every word in it is true?

Psalm 19:7 7The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Proverbs 30:5-65 “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.


I found about 6 more or so that are very similar. Do you not agree the bible is the word of god? Is not every word flawless?

[Jericho]

Where does the bible claim that every word in it is true?

The following is an excerpt from your fairy tale book:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," -2 Timothy 3:16

Most theists I have spoken to accept 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The text indicates that all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching. They say that every writing in the Bible is a revelation from God that can be trusted as factually true. Clearly, if the Bible is given by revelation of the God of truth, then it can be trusted at every point as an accurate depiction. The problem with answering the question this way is that it presupposes that the verse itself is truthful—which is the very claim at issue.

When I ask the simple question, "How do we know that that verse is true?" I am always answered with: “Well it’s in the Bible." But how do we know the Bible is true? “2 Timothy 3:16 assures us that it is.” This is a vicious circular argument. It must first arbitrarily assume the very thing it is trying to prove. Circular reasoning of this type is not useful in a debate because it does not prove anything beyond what it merely assumes. After all, this type of argument would be equally valid for any other book that claims to be inspired by a god or gods. How do we know that book X is inspired by God? “Because it says it is.” But how do we know that what it’s saying is true? “Well, God wouldn’t lie!”

[Salacious B. Crumb]

The god of the bible is easily disproven; all you need is a few quotes and some common sense.

[Pyrrho]

I can't 'disprove' invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in my garage.

Like fucking god however there is no evidence for them.

You must have a very strange notion of "disprove."  Nothing can be both invisible and pink, and consequently everyone who understands what is being stated knows absolutely that there are no invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in your garage.


What typically happens in these discussions is that the standards of "proof," for a theist considering evidence against the existence of God, are pushed to impossible extremes, such that nothing, or virtually nothing, could be "proven."  In the way that "prove" is used in common life, the God of the Bible can be proven to not exist.  The fact that some fool rejects the proof is no sign of anything, other than the imbecility of the one rejecting the proof.

If someone rejects a valid proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, that does not mean that the Pythagorean Theorem has not been proven.  It just means that the person rejecting it is wrong.

When one argues with a stubborn fool who rejects reason, that does not mean anything bad about reason.  It just means something about the stubborn fool.

[Minimalist]

Nothing can be both invisible and pink,

Prove it.

It's invisible.  It could be pink or blue or magenta.  

[Pyrrho]

Nothing can be both invisible and pink,

Prove it.

It's invisible.  It could be pink or blue or magenta.  

Come on, you know better than that.  For something to be pink, it must be visible.  Part of what it means to be pink is that it is visible.  It has to reflect certain frequencies of light, such that it looks pink.  Which means, it must be visible to be pink.

[Minimalist]

For something to be pink, it must be visible.

How do you know?  Have you ever seen an invisible unicorn of any color? 

Try the Bertrand Russel Teapot Analogy if you prefer.

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”


― Bertrand Russell

[robvalue]

What about my prime pink unicorn? It's indivisible except by itself and one.