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.

[LostLocke]

To answer honestly, I would say no, I technically can not disprove the god of the Bible.
Of course, I technically can not disprove the god of any other holy book either.

[downbeatplumb]

If something consistently fails to be where it is said to be you can start to piece together a convincing case for it's non-existence.

[FreeTony]

You just say it's metaphor.
Or that there is some greater truth in there that you don't understand.
Or that it's "spiritually" correct.

If it were as simple as pointing out all the incorrect things in the bible and then showing this to Christians, they'd almost all be non-Christians now. The majority are so busy trying to find ever more convoluted ways to convince themselves, they won't sit down for a minute and actually examine the evidence critically.

[robvalue]

If the bible is meant to accurately describe a being, then it is a contradictory account, so such a thing cannot exist as far as our logic will allow.

If you assume this is just a vague description of a god and not particularly accurate, then you can't disprove it I would say.

Taking each Christian's version of the God one at a time, you can probably find many/most to be logically inconsistent. Those that aren't will still be unfalisifiable/incoherent probably so the claims are worthless as well as unprovable/disprovable.

[Minimalist]

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

Like fucking god however there is no evidence for them.

[Darkstar]

You can't technically disprove the Christian god any more than you can technically disprove Russell's teapot... if it were intangible, and in another dimension, and only appeared on February 29th, and...


You get the idea.

[Jericho]

For the longest time, theists claimed that their holy texts were pure fact and should be taken literally.

Now that theories and facts have proven that it is impossible for the holy texts to be absolute truth, theists change their story. They will always change their story until we are able to change their minds.

[Minimalist]

Some are way too far gone to ever change.  Fortunately, they will die off.

[downbeatplumb]

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

Like fucking god however there is no evidence for them.

I don't believe in garages.