Show me your proof

[The Grand Nudger]

Yada yada yada. So goes the same black or white semi-thoughtful rationale fundy Christians and fundy atheists use in about equal measure.

God does not have to be 100% omniscient or 100% omnipotent to create anything. Maybe he is just one million times more powerful than a human. He's still God to that human. The Biblical God is chagrined about the amount of evil on the earth, so he is clearly not 100% omniscient. Who decided that he was 100% omniscient or even wanted to be? You? That's just an assumption atheists and Christians both make, then argue about as if it were a fact. Omnipotent

Who decides what qualifies as "omnipotent" or "all knowing"? You? If so, why you?

Well, we are the ones who came up with the prefix "omni" so yeah, -we- do get to decide what it means and what qualifies. I appreciate that you don't require that your god to be omni anything, but something tells me you'll have trouble establishing that your god has any power, any ability. In fact, I think you'll find it just as difficult to establish "any power, or relative power" as folks have found it to establish "omni" whatever. Both are equally hilarious. Not only is god not "omni" anything, it isn't "super powerful/relatively powerful" anything either. Both, mind you, for the exact same reason.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I just want to see what proof you have for or against God. Not intending to turn this into a nasty debate, I just want to hear what you all have to say about the subject of the God that I believe in, from every religious view. If you would be so kind!

Proof only applies to math and logic. The only issue is physical evidence. As you say you are a Christian, a god believer, and you are making the positive statement of existence, you go first. And as proof of a negative is impossible please do not try to turn it around and demand the impossible.

BTW: If you think you can produce the physical evidence you are only just beginning as you will have only produced evidence of gods plural. You then have to produce evidence for which god is the only real one. And then you have to establish which sect of which religion has the correct view of that god.

You have a lot ahead of you if you really want to pursue this.

---

There is none!

Just as there is no proof for or against the existence of a giant, pink, non-interacting and invisible Elephant that lives in my kitchen who instantly vanishes as soon as anyone enters the room or attempts to prove his existence!

If that elephant disappears that quickly how is it you know he has been there.

As does the god which dwells in the holy of holies in the house of the lord.

---

...
I am just a Christian. No denomination at all. I simply believe in and try hard to live by what Gods Word says.

That is one of those moronic ox things. Unless you have a conception of a christian god you cannot be a christian. You can at best claim your own denomination. Perhaps you really mean a jewish god who was quite explicit in its demanded rituals and taboos. You can't throw Jesus into it without deciding on which Christian variant you are talking about or defining your own.

---

Omnipotence is impossible due to paradoxes

Another way to disprove the almighty god is that omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god make a rock that is too heavy for him to carry? Can god build a wall that even he can't tear down?

Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will.

Yada yada yada. So goes the same black or white semi-thoughtful rationale fundy Christians and fundy atheists use in about equal measure.

God does not have to be 100% omniscient or 100% omnipotent to create anything. Maybe he is just one million times more powerful than a human. He's still God to that human. The Biblical God is chagrined about the amount of evil on the earth, so he is clearly not 100% omniscient. Who decided that he was 100% omniscient or even wanted to be? You? That's just an assumption atheists and Christians both make, then argue about as if it were a fact. Omnipotent

Who decides what qualifies as "omnipotent" or "all knowing"? You? If so, why you?

The Eden story rather clearly describes all that is required of gods in the Indo-European type of pantheon. They have to know good from evil, aka free will, and live forever. That is it. People didn't demand much of their gods in the good old days.

As for being more powerful and such I refer to A. C. Clarke. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. To paraphrase, any sufficiently advanced user of that technology is indistinguishable from a god. I could also refer to the van Daniken view of theology to say the same thing but that might drive some participants out of the woodwork and encourage them.

That medieval folks invented theology and then started copying the idea of a primal, unknowable source for the Greek gods and then started tacking on all of the incomprehensible omnis that only exist in playing with grammar but describe nothing which exists is what we call mental masturbation.

Omni has a defined meaning. Present has a defined meaning. Just because one can write omnipresent does not mean it has a defined meaning. One can give concrete example of things which are described by omni and present. That does not mean there exists something which can be described as omnipresent. Similarly one can say they have a square circle. It is fun game to play with children to get them to think. So are terms like omnipresent but we learn believers truly are like children and cannot see the problem.

[catfish]

Holy shit, he's one of those...
.

[radorth]

Omni has a defined meaning. Present has a defined meaning. Just because one can write omnipresent does not mean it has a defined meaning. One can give concrete example of things which are described by omni and present. That does not mean there exists something which can be described as omnipresent. Similarly one can say they have a square circle. It is fun game to play with children to get them to think. So are terms like omnipresent but we learn believers truly are like children and cannot see the problem.

I see it perfectly. Rhythm admitted it means whatever he wants it too mean, which is absurd.

You guys are not addressing whether a a God in one million more places than you are at any moment, or who knows one million times as much as Einstein is worthy of worship. I'd be perfectly happy with him.

Neither will atheists answer whether they would serve Jesus if he came back and healed 94% of all the terminally ill people in the entire world. Or, if they are intelligent and brave enough to answer, the answer is no because he's not powerful enough, I assume. (They don't say)

Demanding God is either omnipowerful or he is not presents a false dichotomy. Billions of people would love to see the Jesus I described return to earth whether he met some vague "omnipotent" standard or not.

So it isn't me who doesn't get it. It's mindless unbelievers who don't think, don't know anything about logic, and see only in black and white, just like the "fundies" they criticize.

---

You seem to put more stock in your interpretation than in the outlooks of millions of other christians, yet you've failed to provide a reason why. You've scoffed at Luckie's interpretation, but given no enticement for us to take yours any more seriously. Why should we just assume that you're right and she's wrong?

Christianity made this bed with all this talk of metaphors, and personal revelation, and yet it steadfastly refuses to lie in it. You all just keep trundling on as though everyone else is the idiot for not blindly following your interpretation of your facsimile holy book. It's weird.

I see. So you have to think in black and white because Christians do? What kind of logic is that? You are just avoiding a perfectly honest question. So would you serve a God who did not meet all standards everywhere for "omnipotent"? If not, why not? I could care less who uses the word, Christian or not. And you blame me for breaking with fundies now? That response would indicate you are just doing gotcha posting instead of dealing with the issue.

But tell us if you would serve and obey a Jesus who returned to earth and healed 94% of all terminally ill patients, like half the earth would. Inquiring minds want to know.

[FallentoReason]

Omnipotence is impossible due to paradoxes

Another way to disprove the almighty god is that omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god make a rock that is too heavy for him to carry? Can god build a wall that even he can't tear down?

Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will.

Yada yada yada. So goes the same black or white semi-thoughtful rationale fundy Christians and fundy atheists use in about equal measure.

God does not have to be 100% omniscient or 100% omnipotent to create anything. Maybe he is just one million times more powerful than a human. He's still God to that human. The Biblical God is chagrined about the amount of evil on the earth, so he is clearly not 100% omniscient. Who decided that he was 100% omniscient or even wanted to be? You? That's just an assumption atheists and Christians both make, then argue about as if it were a fact. Omnipotent

Who decides what qualifies as "omnipotent" or "all knowing"? You? If so, why you?

Conceding that your god isn't all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving means he *poofs* out of existence without a second thought: http://atheistforums.org/thread-18319.html

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Omni has a defined meaning. Present has a defined meaning. Just because one can write omnipresent does not mean it has a defined meaning. One can give concrete example of things which are described by omni and present. That does not mean there exists something which can be described as omnipresent. Similarly one can say they have a square circle. It is fun game to play with children to get them to think. So are terms like omnipresent but we learn believers truly are like children and cannot see the problem.

I see it perfectly. Rhythm admitted it means whatever he wants it too mean, which is absurd.

You guys are not addressing whether a a God in one million more places than you are at any moment, or who knows one million times as much as Einstein is worthy of worship. I'd be perfectly happy with him.

I thought the first was obvious. Every radio and TV station has signals in billions of times more places than I am. I do not worship radio transmissions.

As to knowledge, that is fact not in evidence. I do not deal with hypotheticals.

As to worship beyond getting together for a group sing along I know of no functional meaning of it beyond filling the collection plate so, no, priests do not deserve the money.

As to your beliefs in smart radio waves that line the pockets of priests you will have to answer that yourself.

Neither will atheists answer whether they would serve Jesus if he came back and healed 94% of all the terminally ill people in the entire world.

Again a hypothetical. In practice your Jesus is over 1900 years late in returning as he promised (without crossing his fingers behind his back) so in the real world the question goes to you as to your continued interest in the person.

BTW: Is there a 6% you are pissed at? Why do you believe he would have to return to do the healing? Will he restore amputees this time around?

Or, if they are intelligent and brave enough to answer, the answer is no because he's not powerful enough, I assume. (They don't say)

What kind of fool worships (i.e., pays priests) power?

What kind of "being" wants to be worshiped? (Using the same definition of worship. A rational being would get rid of the middle men as this hypothetical god of yours needs nothing.)

Demanding God is either omnipowerful or he is not presents a false dichotomy. Billions of people would love to see the Jesus I described return to earth whether he met some vague "omnipotent" standard or not.

What makes you BELIEVE atheists are demanding any but physical evidence while rejecting your imaging impossible things? You have no physical evidence so what is your point?

So it isn't me who doesn't get it. It's mindless unbelievers who don't think, don't know anything about logic, and see only in black and white, just like the "fundies" they criticize.

Produce physical evidence instead of asking about worshiping a square circle (for whatever reason) and we will have something specific to discuss. There really is no point in talking about squared circles.

Hint: You either did not get it or you are ignoring it and running on without addressing you obviously squared circles.

[Mystical]

WhY are my posts just skipped over by theists regularly and often???

A rational being would get rid of the middle men as this hypothetical god of yours needs nothing.)

A-Men.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

WhY are my posts just skipped over by theists regularly and often???

I get barely one in five and then only when there is a way to ignore most of it and respond to some small part out of context.

A rational being would get rid of the middle men as this hypothetical god of yours needs nothing.)

A-Men.

Obedience to god is never anything more than obedience to the priests.

[Tonus]

WhY are my posts just skipped over by theists regularly and often???

Because bunnies!

[A_Nony_Mouse]

WhY are my posts just skipped over by theists regularly and often???

Because bunnies!

What do they need all those carrots for?