Can You Technically Disprove the God of the Bible?

[Lek]

Religion in general is imperfect and outdated; used to control the masses in the face of distress or suffering.  What's more is that the only evidence that exists for these gods is the text that is sponsored by the specific religion (Christians especially).  How can anyone look at any 'holy' text and logically make the decision to follow that particular god blindly?

We don't follow our faith blindly. I view a creator as very logical. I also believe based on how I see God reflected in people and all of nature. Your logic is based totally on a natural view of the view of the universe, therefore you have no tolerance for any supernatural explanations. But your logic was all established by human beings and therefore has limits as set by humans and you're blind to anything else. (When I talk about "you", I'm referring in a general way to anyone who the shoe fits, and not necessarily necessarily you particularly.)

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Religion in general is imperfect and outdated; used to control the masses in the face of distress or suffering.  What's more is that the only evidence that exists for these gods is the text that is sponsored by the specific religion (Christians especially).  How can anyone look at any 'holy' text and logically make the decision to follow that particular god blindly?

We don't follow our faith blindly.  I view a creator as very logical.  I also believe based on how I see God reflected in people and all of nature. 

Faith is blind because it's based on no evidence. How can you see god in people and nature? Isn't god omnibenevolent?  People can be good or bad, but never perfect, like you claim your god is. Nature can be pleasant and serene, but it is very harsh as we have just witnessed in Nepal. Unless you see god as vulnerable to 'sin' as humans then, I'm afraid I'm not understanding your argument.

[Lek]

Faith is blind because it's based on no evidence. How can you see god in people and nature? Isn't god omnibenevolent?  People can be good or bad, but never perfect, like you claim your god is. Nature can be pleasant and serene, but it is very harsh as we have just witnessed in Nepal. Unless you see god as vulnerable to 'sin' as humans then, I'm afraid I'm not understanding your argument.

First of all, the scriptures are evidence. A universe that exists despite of the fact that natural things cannot create something out of nothing is evidence for a creator. A universe that created itself, or is made of natural stuff that always existed is evidence of a supernatural existence. Knowing that our universe is expanding shows that something exists beyond our natural world, and heaven and hell could be out there. The bible testifies to the existence of a being who fits into these scenarios and prophesies about Jesus. Jesus is attested to by the writers of the new testament who lived during the lifetime of Jesus. People I trust tell of how God has worked in their lives in supernatural ways. I believe he's working in my life. This is all evidence for the truth of christianity and I choose to believe that evidence. Many people live and die only according to "hard" evidence, and I appreciate things proven that way myself. I even accept evolution which isn't totally proven, but I also like to keep my sights open to possibilities beyond that which science and math have the capacity to prove or disprove.

[Esquilax]

We don't follow our faith blindly.  I view a creator as very logical.  I also believe based on how I see God reflected in people and all of nature.  Your logic is based totally on a natural view of the view of the universe, therefore you have no  tolerance for any supernatural explanations.

I love it when theists are reduced to this solipsistic "it's all just opinions!" argumentation. It means I can basically replace whatever they say with "I have no reasonable argument for why I believe what I do, so please allow me to pretend that you don't either."

But your logic was all established by human beings and therefore has limits as set by humans and you're blind to anything else. 

And you're gonna pretend that your logic wasn't established by human beings? You are a human being, Lek, and you are the one performing your reasoning, not god; you can assert that god is the grounding for it, but without demonstrating the existence of that god first, your reasoning is circular. "My reasoning is superior because of god, and I believe in god because of god's superiority within my reasoning."

You can't skip the middle step there and just assume what you say is superior because of its conclusions.

[Esquilax]

First of all, the scriptures are evidence.

No, they're the claim, or else every other religion has the same amount of evidence as yours, which I'm sure you don't think is true.

A universe that exists despite of the fact that natural things cannot create something out of nothing is evidence for a creator.

No, that's an argument from ignorance.

  A universe that created itself, or is made of natural stuff that always existed is evidence of a supernatural existence.

No, that's an argument from ignorance.

  Knowing that our universe is expanding shows that something exists beyond our natural world, and heaven and hell could be out there.

No, that's an argument from ignorance.

  The bible testifies to the existence of a being who fits into these scenarios and prophesies about Jesus.  Jesus is attested to by the writers of the new testament who lived during the lifetime of Jesus.

Given that you don't know who the new testament authors are, you can hardly say when they lived, now can you?

People I trust tell of how God has worked in their lives in supernatural ways.

And it's impossible that they're wrong, right?

I believe he's working in my life.  This is all evidence for the truth of christianity and I choose to believe that evidence.  Many people live and die only according to "hard" evidence, and I appreciate things proven that way myself.  I even accept evolution which isn't totally proven, but I also like to keep my sights open to possibilities beyond that which science and math have the capacity to prove or disprove.

Then you believe for bad reasons. Sorry.

[Pyrrho]

Faith is blind because it's based on no evidence. How can you see god in people and nature? Isn't god omnibenevolent?  People can be good or bad, but never perfect, like you claim your god is. Nature can be pleasant and serene, but it is very harsh as we have just witnessed in Nepal. Unless you see god as vulnerable to 'sin' as humans then, I'm afraid I'm not understanding your argument.

First of all, the scriptures are evidence.

Sure, but so are the Iliad and the Odyssey, not to mention the Koran and the sacred books of Hindus, Buddhists, etc.  Only a fool, though, takes such books at face value.  Such books are a very low grade of evidence, so you are going to need something else to make your beliefs even close to reasonable.

 A universe that exists despite of the fact that natural things cannot create something out of nothing is evidence for a creator.

I could take a philosophical approach, and ask you to prove that things cannot create something out of nothing, but I will set that bit aside for the moment.

In order for your argument to have any traction, you need to prove that the universe has not always existed.  If the universe has always existed, then not only does it not need a creator, it cannot have one.

If you mention the Big Bang in connection with this, that isn't going to get you what you need for this.  Right now, scientists tell us that the universe is expanding.  It is possible that the universe will continue to expand forever.  Another possibility, though, is that eventually gravity will slow everything down, and pull everything back together.  If that happens, then things will be going at tremendous speed when they eventually collide, causing a very big bang.  Perhaps that is what has happened in the past, and has been going on over and over again forever.  For you to make use of the Big Bang as evidence, you will have to prove that that is not the case, and I defy you to do that to the satisfaction of physicists who study such things.

 A universe that created itself, or is made of natural stuff that always existed is evidence of a supernatural existence.

No.  You need to say something more on that, and prove that somehow natural processes require supernatural ones in order for that to get you anywhere.  Frankly, the evidence is very much against you on this, as there is no evidence of divine intervention when natural things occur.

 Knowing that our universe is expanding shows that something exists beyond our natural world, and heaven and hell could be out there.

No, it shows no such thing.  There could easily be nothing outside the universe.  You will have to come up with actual evidence that something exists outside of the universe for your story to be reasonable to believe.

 The bible testifies to the existence of a being who fits into these scenarios and prophesies about Jesus.  Jesus is attested to by the writers of the new testament who lived during the lifetime of Jesus.  People I trust tell of how God has worked in their lives in supernatural ways.  I believe he's working in my life.  This is all evidence for the truth of christianity and I choose to believe that evidence.  Many people live and die only according to "hard" evidence, and I appreciate things proven that way myself.  I even accept evolution which isn't totally proven, but I also like to keep my sights open to possibilities beyond that which science and math have the capacity to prove or disprove.

Your feelings about Christianity are the same as many Muslims report about their feelings about Islam.  Your feelings are no better evidence than their feelings.  And since you both cannot be right, this means that your feelings prove absolutely nothing at all.

If you had been raised a Muslim, right now you would very likely be regarding your feelings as proof that Islam is true.  Or if you had been raised a Hindu, you would probably be regarding your feelings as proof that Hinduism is true.

Basically, what you are telling us is worthless as evidence.  You only feel it is valuable because you have largely ignored the fact that people of other religions feel precisely the same way about their religions.

[Lek]

Then you believe for bad reasons. Sorry.

Okay. You think I'm using bad reasoning. Do you believe that your wife, family or friends love you? If so, how do you determine whether they love you, or if they are just pretending to do so?

[Pyrrho]

Then you believe for bad reasons. Sorry.

Okay.  You think I'm using bad reasoning.  Do you believe that your wife, family or friends love you?  If so, how do you determine whether they love you, or if they are just pretending to do so?

That's easy.  It is by their actions, as well as the things they don't do.

Like when God does not stop little children from starving in Africa, or stop children from burning alive in house fires.  That tells us how God feels about us, or would, if there were such a thing as God.

When someone, who can feed you, lets you starve to death, that someone does not love you.  And when someone, who can save you, lets you burn alive in a house fire, that someone does not love you.

In all cases, it is actions that are used to judge whether someone loves you or not.


As for pretending, that is discovered by someone claiming to love you, but their actions are those of someone who does not love you.  It is actions that tell you whether someone loves you or not, and if their claims do not fit their actions, that is when you know they are pretending.

[Jericho]

Okay. You think I'm using bad reasoning. Do you believe that your wife, family or friends love you? If so, how do you determine whether they love you, or if they are just pretending to do so?

I suppose you are right. There is no way to be 100% positive that my family loves me. But the chances are better than knowing for sure that there is a giant fairy man in the clouds that can prevent evil but doesn't. See the logic yet?

[Esquilax]

Then you believe for bad reasons. Sorry.

Okay.  You think I'm using bad reasoning.  Do you believe that your wife, family or friends love you?  If so, how do you determine whether they love you, or if they are just pretending to do so?

Why do you think that a tu coque fallacy presents a cogent response to what I said? Even if you're right and you manage to herd me down the garden path you're trying to set up, why do you think the fact that I believe something completely unrelated based on bad reasons in any way improves your reasons for believing in god?

By the way, even your completely irrelevant response is a bad example, as we can provide physical evidence of brain states consistent with the emotion of love. I don't need faith to believe that, and two wrongs do not make a right, for the eighty thousandth time.