Proof there is no God

There is nothing to win. We are not ready to accept the fact that there is no problem. Actually, there is no problem, but we have only solutions offered to us, and we accept the solutions offered to us by those whom we consider to be in possession of the truth, in possession of the wisdom. And those solutions do not help us to solve the problems at all, you see. So we replace one solution with another solution. The problem is the solution, and the solution has not helped us to solve the non-existent problem. So actually, it is the solution that has created the problem, and we are not ready to throw the solution out of the window, because we have tremendous confidence in those who have offered these solutions as the things that will free us from the problems that the solution has created for us.
 
spidergoat said:
There is nothing to win. We are not ready to accept the fact that there is no problem. Actually, there is no problem, but we have only solutions offered to us, and we accept the solutions offered to us by those whom we consider to be in possession of the truth, in possession of the wisdom. And those solutions do not help us to solve the problems at all, you see. So we replace one solution with another solution. The problem is the solution, and the solution has not helped us to solve the non-existent problem. So actually, it is the solution that has created the problem, and we are not ready to throw the solution out of the window, because we have tremendous confidence in those who have offered these solutions as the things that will free us from the problems that the solution has created for us.
Click to expand...

Sit on your hands then if you believe we are what we are and there is nothing to win. After all, that is what is best so as to not get in the way of progress.
 
When we know there is nothing to win, nothing original, then we are free to live as our nature tells us. Anything else is a con game.
 
lightgigantic said:
you still fall short of proving he doesn't exist - plenty of theistic commentaries on issues surrounding the old and new testaments
:shrug:
Click to expand...

You are correct. There is no evidence either way aside from personal experience, which goes both ways.
 
You all obviously know very little about the Bible, the world was not mostly water until the Noahic flood. THe vast majority of the water was in the atmosphere, blocking UV rays.

The assumption of Abrahamic religions is that the Earth was made for mankind. But the Ocean is far too big and too deep. It's not as if there is a lot of life in the very deep ocean so that people could eat them. There should be more shoreline, and more continental shelf. I mean 2/3 of the planet? Is that really necessary?

Spidergoat, in Abrahamic religions the water is a ctually a punishment upon wicked man, if you're going to make such a controversial coment at least back it up with research before hand.
 
Yes, the old religious truism:
Man is naturally wicked, and believers should not feel guilty doing wicked things to non-believers.
You can be late on your bills with a non-believer, it's okay.
You can sexually molest the children of non-believers...it's cool.
You can butcher them with impunity. They're just non-believers.

The only reason one needs to feel important is to control.

Spider has made his point by showing the Earth is not equipped to convey the presence of a god, however caring or perverse that figure would be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vronsurd said:
You all obviously know very little about the Bible, the world was not mostly water until the Noahic flood. THe vast majority of the water was in the atmosphere, blocking UV rays.

The assumption of Abrahamic religions is that the Earth was made for mankind. But the Ocean is far too big and too deep. It's not as if there is a lot of life in the very deep ocean so that people could eat them. There should be more shoreline, and more continental shelf. I mean 2/3 of the planet? Is that really necessary?

Spidergoat, in Abrahamic religions the water is a ctually a punishment upon wicked man, if you're going to make such a controversial coment at least back it up with research before hand.
Click to expand...

I avoided talk of Noah, because it's an obvious fabrication. But the existence of such large and deep oceans and so few islands seems to prove that the Earth was not made just for people.
 
Vronsurd said:
You all obviously know very little about the Bible, the world was not mostly water until the Noahic flood. THe vast majority of the water was in the atmosphere, blocking UV rays.

The assumption of Abrahamic religions is that the Earth was made for mankind. But the Ocean is far too big and too deep. It's not as if there is a lot of life in the very deep ocean so that people could eat them. There should be more shoreline, and more continental shelf. I mean 2/3 of the planet? Is that really necessary?

Spidergoat, in Abrahamic religions the water is a ctually a punishment upon wicked man, if you're going to make such a controversial coment at least back it up with research before hand.
Click to expand...

Even though you posted in Religion, this is a science forum. I regard the bible as a work of fiction rather than a credible source and I think I have lots of company.
 
Keith1, your message had absolutely nothing to do with my point, "believers" weren't said to have flooded the earth during Noah's flood, God did. ANd it stands to reason that if God made something out of nothing then he doesn't have to be particularly nice to it, he can do whatever he wants. I don't like the idea, you don't like the idea, but in reality, that is how it works, when I make something, it's mine, and if I decide to break it, it's my business. As it is, I'm sure everyone can relate to making something, not being satisfied, then redoing it, are you a terrible, unloving person because of that? And you say you avoided Noah because its an obvious fabrication but you can't do that, you can't try to address a religion (the abrahamic one) but then ignore certian sections of it to try to make your point valid. You said:


The assumption of Abrahamic religions is that the Earth was made for mankind. But the Ocean is far too big and too deep. It's not as if there is a lot of life in the very deep ocean so that people could eat them. There should be more shoreline, and more continental shelf. I mean 2/3 of the planet?

In reality Abrahamic religions do address that, whether your willing to believe them or not is your own personal choice, discounting them from having any validity is a mistake.

ANd the world wide flood in and of itself is almost undeniable, because of the thousands of documents from different cultures all claiming it's existence and all detailing the facts close to identically, (THe babylonian flood, the Noahic flood, THe Chinese flood, and a number of other ancient cultures renditions of the tale, all including the same pivotal facts, only changing names and exact measurements of the ark.
 
At the time, those people had no technology to determine if whatever floods they experienced were truly worldwide. Also, there is no evidence of any worldwide terrestrial debris layers on the ocean's floors, which would have to be there if there were a worldwide flood. So, that didn't happen.
 
What a concise way you were able to explain something that did or didn't happen 7000 years ago. All of the stories start in different places scattered along the world, they all end up on the same mountain in Russia. If the flood story were true then a boat would've had to have traveled hundreds of miles over a land locked area then been deposited thousands of feet above sea level. To those people who expierienced it, it would've been fairly obvious that the flood had been world wide. And actually one doesn't have to assume that there would be any world wide terrestial debris because at the water pressure of anywhere to four to five miles in depth in debris would've been reduced to highly compact material or sand, which I would say we do have plenty of sand in the oceans.
 
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Romans 1:18-20

I went and hunted this down just for you, spidergoat, because I remember reading it many years ago. I'm not a Christian myself, but this is the Bibles response in any case. Just gloss over all of the nonsense about how wicked you are and you'll see that there is actually an interesting point there. One could argue that the world was indeed made for us but that God decided to show off his almighty skillz while he was at it. And I think he's done a pretty good job too. I mean, look at the universe. There's not an agnostic person on the planet who doesn't start thinking of God while they are pondering the monumental vastness and seemingly infinite complexity of what is laid out before us. Even some of the greatest physicists of our age have talked about it in a religious way.

So I guess that on the day of judgment when we're all standing before God a little bitter about the fact that he didn't give us a heads-up, he'll say something like "The universe, duh! Billions of galaxies, billions of lights years apart, each with billions of stars and billions of planets, all of which have existed for billions of years. Where did you idiots think it all came from? Nowhere? Does my arse look fat in this man suit? You never appreciated me. All I wanted was some affection but you were always too busy hanging out with your stupid "friends". You have no idea of the kind of shit I have to deal with around here. It wasn't supposed to be this way. I want a divorce. Go burn in hell!"
 
Last edited:
Vronsurd said:
What a concise way you were able to explain something that did or didn't happen 7000 years ago. All of the stories start in different places scattered along the world, they all end up on the same mountain in Russia. If the flood story were true then a boat would've had to have traveled hundreds of miles over a land locked area then been deposited thousands of feet above sea level. To those people who expierienced it, it would've been fairly obvious that the flood had been world wide. And actually one doesn't have to assume that there would be any world wide terrestial debris because at the water pressure of anywhere to four to five miles in depth in debris would've been reduced to highly compact material or sand, which I would say we do have plenty of sand in the oceans.
Click to expand...
It only takes 2 seconds to debunk utter bunk. The pressure of the depths is not enough to eliminate flood debris. Even if compacted, it would still be there. And in any case, who wrote those stories if only Noah (and his family) survived?
 
Rav said:
So I guess that on the day of judgment when we're all standing before God a little bitter about the fact that he didn't give us a heads-up, he'll say something like "The universe, duh! Billions of galaxies, billions of lights years apart, each with billions of stars and billions of planets, all of which have existed for billions of years. Where did you idiots think it all came from? Nowhere? Does my arse look fat in this man suit? You never appreciated me. All I wanted was some affection but you were always too busy hanging out with your stupid "friends". You have no idea of the kind of shit I have to deal with around here. It wasn't supposed to be this way. I want a divorce. Go burn in hell!"
Click to expand...

You just made God into an egotistical asshole, congratulations. What kind of being gets pissed that we didn't love it some when it was never around to love? That's like saying you have to love your biological father who was never there for you and whom you don't even really know...even if you had your mom telling you what a great guy he is. It doesn't matter. It takes effort on both sides to maintain a relationship.

The only relationships that work are ones where there is open communication.

And aside from a single relationship, what about our sisters and brothers that are living in dumpsters? How can we love God if he doesn't care enough to really be there? Postcards and flowers delivered by someone else only goes so far.
 
spidergoat said:
It only takes 2 seconds to debunk utter bunk. The pressure of the depths is not enough to eliminate flood debris. Even if compacted, it would still be there. And in any case, who wrote those stories if only Noah (and his family) survived?
Click to expand...

Apparently Moses. He probably just read it from the story of Gilgamesh and changed the names and called it the work of God.
 
jayleew said:
Apparently Moses. He probably just read it from the story of Gilgamesh and changed the names and called it the work of God.
Click to expand...

But the premise is that these stories are culturally universal, and that they all contain references to a boat and a mountain in Russia, where no actual boat has ever been found.
 
Ok, for an understanding read this quote or read it in the encyclopedia by searching in your serch engine "God", please capitalize the "G".

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God. Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, in contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.

The earliest written form of the Germanic word god comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * ǥuđan. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was based on the root * ǵhau(ə)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke". The Germanic words for god were originally neuter—applying to both genders—but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the word became a masculine syntactic form.

The capitalized form God was first used in Ulfilas's Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism. In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.

When used in English within a community with a common monotheistic background, "God" always refers to the deity they share. Those with a background in different Abrahamic religions will usually agree on the deity they share, while still differing on details of belief and doctrine—they will disagree about attributes of [the] God, rather than thinking in terms of "my God" and "your (different) God".

Conceptions of God can vary widely, but the word God in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate Deus, Greek Θεός, Slavic Bog, Sanskrit Ishvara or Deva, or Arabic Allah—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton (usually reconstructed as Yahweh or YHWH, or Jehovah), believed to be a mark of the religion's henotheistic origins. In many translations of the Bible, when the word "LORD" is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton. God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the personal nature of God, with early references to his name as Krishna-Vasudeva in Bhagavata or later Vishnu and Hari.[9] For aboriginal Guanches (Tenerife, Spain) God is called Achamán.
It is difficult to distinguish between proper names and epitheta of God, such as the names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, the names of God in the Qur'an, and the various lists of the thousand names of Hindu gods and List of titles and names of Krishna in Vaishnavism.

Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible there are many names for God that portray his (God is always characterised as male in Biblical sources, except Genesis 1:26-27[11]) nature and character. One of them is elohim, (which is actually a plural word). Another one is El Shaddai, meaning “God Almighty”. A third notable name is El Elyon, which means “The Most High God”.

In the Urantia Book, God is said to be best known throughout the universe by the names First Source and the Universe Center. The book also states that the names the creature assigns to God are much dependent on the creature's concept of God. The name Father grows out of the creatures' belief to be the children of the First Source and Center; although many other names may be given to God in accordance with one's experience and concept of God. Throughout the universe, God is known by many names including: First Creative Source, Divine Center, the Father of Universes, Infinite Upholder, Divine Controller, Father of Lights, the Gift of Life, and the All-powerful One, but God has never revealed himself by name, only by nature. The book further states that in a world such as the Earth, where the impulses of parental emotion are inherent, the term Father becomes an appropriate name for the eternal God.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top