I Have Proof the the Christian God Does Not and Cannot Eist

[Angrboda]

...Of course there being a potentially infinite number of descriptions for God makes it impossible in principle to disprove all of them.

The following is my opinion and not necessarily shared by more conservative Christians (like perhaps Drich and Godschild)...

There is no need to disprove all the gods that have ever been proposed. They could even still exist. That would make them either 1) minor beings of lesser power than the Lord God or 2) only a partial revelation of Supreme Being the worship of which leads to doctrinal errors.

For an examples of 1), the OT Prophets did not go around disproving Baal and Ashura. They only preached that the Lord God was the Highest and/or calling their idols dead wood and stone. The Lord God set fire to the burnt offering for Elijah whereas all the pleas of the priests of Baal went unanswered. Saint Paul did not try to disprove the existence of the Greek pantheon; but rather, preached that the unknown god (Acts 17:23) was in fact the Lord God. The notion of 'false' gods is not that they doesn't exist; but rather, that they are not 'true' in the sense of being the highest or worthy of worship. Maybe Zeus and company are out there somewhere, but it doesn't matter if they are.

For examples of 2), the major religions besides Christianity have only partial or distorted revelation. Hindus and Buddhists revere only aspects of the Lord God and as such they are not so much wrong as misguided. Jews do indeed worship the same Lord God as Christians, but their nonacceptance of the full revelation in Jesus Christ, leads them to doctrinal errors like legalism. Islam is a little different, Saint Paul actually prophesied against the false Prophet of Mohammed (2 Corinthians 11:14). The teachings of Mohammed led his followers severely astray with respect to God's nature and sound doctrine (sorry MysticKnight, I love you to death but I have to be honest)

And the advocates of other gods would say the same thing. Assertions are cheap.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And the advocates of other gods would say the same thing.

Your objection does not apply when a skeptic says something to the effect that all the gods are so different that they cannot all exist. I'm saying that it does not matter whether they do or don't. Theists are arguing amongst themselves about either which out of all the gods is the highest or who has the better understanding of the highest God.

[Godscreated]

---

...Of course there being a potentially infinite number of descriptions for God makes it impossible in principle to disprove all of them.

---

The following is my opinion and not necessarily shared by more conservative Christians (like perhaps Drich and Godschild)...

There is no need to disprove all the gods that have ever been proposed. They could even still exist. That would make them either 1) minor beings of lesser power than the Lord God or 2) only a partial revelation of Supreme Being the worship of which leads to doctrinal errors.

For an examples of 1), the OT Prophets did not go around disproving Baal and Ashura. They only preached that the Lord God was the Highest and/or calling their idols dead wood and stone. The Lord God set fire to the burnt offering for Elijah whereas all the pleas of the priests of Baal went unanswered. Saint Paul did not try to disprove the existence of the Greek pantheon; but rather, preached that the unknown god (Acts 17:23) was in fact the Lord God. The notion of 'false' gods is not that they doesn't exist; but rather, that they are not 'true' in the sense of being the highest or worthy of worship. Maybe Zeus and company are out there somewhere, but it doesn't matter if they are.

For examples of 2), the major religions besides Christianity have only partial or distorted revelation. Hindus and Buddhists revere only aspects of the Lord God and as such they are not so much wrong as misguided. Jews do indeed worship the same Lord God as Christians, but their nonacceptance of the full revelation in Jesus Christ, leads them to doctrinal errors like legalism. Islam is a little different, Saint Paul actually prophesied against the false Prophet of Mohammed (2 Corinthians 11:14). The teachings of Mohammed led his followers severely astray with respect to God's nature and sound doctrine (sorry MysticKnight, I love you to death but I have to be honest)

 Chadwooters, I have no real problem with what you have stated because God himself refers to other gods and it seems as you say minor gods, not worthy of worship or even consideration. They are mostly referred to as wood and stone but, there must be a reason behind those gods and in my belief they come from the influence of Satan and his minions.

GC

[Mister Agenda]

 Chadwooters, I have no real problem with what you have stated because God himself refers to other gods and it seems as you say minor gods, not worthy of worship or even consideration. They are mostly referred to as wood and stone but, there must be a reason behind those gods and in my belief they come from the influence of Satan and his minions.

GC

I wanted to give you a kudo, but you always say something towards the end to make me change my mind.

An example of what you're talking about is Chemosh, the national God of the Moabites. Unkind things are said about him, but there's no implication he's not real.

And the Psalms refer to multiple gods often.

[Yahweh] has taken his place in the divine council,
In the midst of the gods he passes judgment. . . .
And all of you, sons of Elyon [God Most High]
Instead like Adam you shall die,
And like one of the ‘Shining Ones’ you shall fall.”
“Arise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!
May you take possession of all the nations!”

[Minimalist]

There is no need to disprove all the gods that have ever been proposed. They could even still exist. That would make them either 1) minor beings of lesser power than the Lord God or 2) only a partial revelation of Supreme Being the worship of which leads to doctrinal errors.

Ah...but YOUR god is the real one, eh Chad.

Funny how all theists think exactly the same!

[Neo-Scholastic]

 Chadwooters, I have no real problem with what you have stated because God himself refers to other gods and it seems as you say minor gods, not worthy of worship or even consideration. They are mostly referred to as wood and stone but, there must be a reason behind those gods and in my belief they come from the influence of Satan and his minions.

GC

I was thinking more about my comments about the major religions. A lot of Evangelicals will tell you that they worship completely different gods. I'm saying not so fast. But I do agree Satan does actively seek to deceive by posing as the true God. Angels in the OT always look like normal people, whereas the 'angel' that appeared to Mohammed presented itself in a 'divine' form.

[Minimalist]

But I do agree Satan does actively seek to deceive by posing as the true God.

[Huggy Bear]

I wanted to give you a kudo, but you always say something towards the end to make me change my mind.

An example of what you're talking about is Chemosh, the national God of the Moabites. Unkind things are said about him, but there's no implication he's not real.

And the Psalms refer to multiple gods often.

[Yahweh] has taken his place in the divine council,
In the midst of the gods he passes judgment. . . .
And all of you, sons of Elyon [God Most High]
Instead like Adam you shall die,
And like one of the ‘Shining Ones’ you shall fall.”
“Arise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!
May you take possession of all the nations!”

There Is a distinction between "God" and "god".

If one is a child of God, then that makes him a "god".

One cannot be granted eternal life, one must have always existed in order to be eternal, therefore the "gods" are those that have always existed with God.

Currently we're in a fallen state as the scripture says.

John 10
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Job 38
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

 Chadwooters, I have no real problem with what you have stated because God himself refers to other gods and it seems as you say minor gods, not worthy of worship or even consideration. They are mostly referred to as wood and stone but, there must be a reason behind those gods and in my belief they come from the influence of Satan and his minions.

GC

I was thinking more about my comments about the major religions. A lot of Evangelicals will tell you that they worship completely different gods. I'm saying not so fast. But I do agree Satan does actively seek to deceive by posing as the true God. Angels in the OT always look like normal people, whereas the 'angel' that appeared to Mohammed presented itself in a 'divine' form.

What about those weird angels that have two, four, or six wings?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I was thinking more about my comments about the major religions. A lot of Evangelicals will tell you that they worship completely different gods. I'm saying not so fast. But I do agree Satan does actively seek to deceive by posing as the true God. Angels in the OT always look like normal people, whereas the 'angel' that appeared to Mohammed presented itself in a 'divine' form.

What about those weird angels that have two, four, or six wings?

There is some debate about whether these are a specific order of angelic beings or symbolic aspects of the Godhead. I would just say that if they are indeed angels they are not of the type that interact directly with humans. One possible exception to my statement is the angels who appeared to the shepherds in Luke. However the text did not refer to those angels as illuminated beings, but rather as having the glory of the Lord around them. That's a little ambiguous, but I think prior references to the appearance of angels should guide interpretation.