RE: Show me your proof
April 14, 2013 at 9:54 am
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2013 at 10:23 am by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(April 7, 2013 at 4:48 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: 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.
(April 7, 2013 at 5:48 am)Godschild Wrote:(April 7, 2013 at 5:04 am)Darwinian Wrote: 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.
(April 7, 2013 at 6:00 am)Mr_Dew7 Wrote: ...
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.
(April 13, 2013 at 12:50 am)radorth Wrote:(April 7, 2013 at 5:15 am)missluckie26 Wrote: 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.
