Prove to Me That God Doesn't Exist...

[Major. Rudiger]

Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 04:26 AM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
It's not particularly possible to prove the absence of something, except to say that we see absolutely no evidence to affirm its' existence.

The onus is on those who assert that god exists to prove that he/she/it exists. I can't "prove" that fairies exist except to say that there is a complete lack of evidence that they do.

Also, doesn't this belong in religion?

[violencia.Proletariat]

as mujer libre says, there is no credible evidence that suggests god exists

and if you are religious, prove to me that god does exist

how did god come about? did it just appear out of nowhere?

[quincunx5]

how did god come about? did it just appear out of nowhere?


God exists only in the mind. It was created as an explantion for what we primitive humans didn't understand (the great big world around us with many dangers).

Those who believe in god give IT human-like attributes.

In the off-chance that I am wrong and there is a god, IT will most certainly not be human, nor would IT be anything that is understood by us humans. IT will have to be called by another name.

Creationism is still bullshit though.

[KC]

So do you believe in god quincun?

[quincunx5]

So do you believe in god quincun?


Please, call me quincunx, it's the 5 that's redundant.

No I do not believe in god. But I do not the deny the existence of that thing that will need another name. So if and when, we discover the true laws of nature, I will be prepared with a crappy name.

The simple answer is still no.

The important thing is that I do not deny another person's basic right to believe in whatever the fuck they want.

[KC]

The simple answer is still no.

We agree on something!



The important thing is that I do not deny another person's basic right to believe in whatever the fuck they want.

We agree on something else!

[Individual]

http://itw.sewanee.edu/philosophy/Resources/Arg_Recon_Files/image020.jpg

voul'a

[quincunx5]

Let A = God exists.

A, Proof #:
1) A
2) ~~A
3) ~~~~A
4) ~~~~~~A
.
n) ~~~...(2n-2)...~~~ A
.
infinity) ~~~...(infinity)...~~~ A


~A, Proof #:
1) ~A
2) ~~~A
3) ~~~~~A
.
n) ~~~...(2n-1)...~~~ A
.
infinity) ~~~...(infinity)...~~~ A

There is infinite proofs that god does exist.
There is infinite proofs that god doesn't exist.

infinity / infinity = indeterminate form.

So I guess we'll never know.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 04:26 AM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
The question is rigged from the beginning... If you believe God exists then truely God does exists because "you" believe in a God. But to a person who has rejected the idea of "God" then "God" does not exist.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. So much of GOD-based religions are primarily used to control the masses and keeps the people drugged and in FEAR. Fuck it! Get off the damn drug and take your future into your own hands! See the world for what it is...not what some dumb ass retranslated piece of shit of a Bible has to say about life. FUCKIT...

[Xvall]

No I do not believe in god. But I do not the deny the existence of that thing that will need another name. So if and when, we discover the true laws of nature, I will be prepared with a crappy name.

I'm with you on that.

[Ian]

http://www.txvr.com/jn/images/JN0011SUINGA.jpg

What more do you need?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 11 2005, 11:26 PM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
Why?

It's not as if the superstitious placed any significance in rational argument...indeed, they are vigorously opposed to human rationality as a matter of principle.

Appeal to rational argument, evidence, etc. is considered an aspect of "the sin of pride" -- the idea that mere humans could "know better" than "God" is outrageous to them.

When the superstitious demand "proof" that "God doesn't exist", they are acting in bad faith. It would not matter to them if science could explain "everything" without recourse to the "God hypothesis" -- they would still declare science to be "the work of the devil".

The real proof that "God doesn't exist" will be evident at such time that superstitions of all kinds have utterly vanished from the face of the earth.

"Gods" without worshipers don't exist.

That's why there's no "Temple of Zeus" in your neighborhood...or mine. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 05:26 AM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
As I've said before, It's not up to me or anyone else to prove that god doesn't exist. First of all it is you who is asserting that god exists, the burden of prove lays on you. Secondly, how can you logically disprove something that is illogical? There's no basis to collect evidence. There's no quantifiable process to follow in order to disprove him.

All we have to go on is faith. How can anyone build a factual argument against the premise of an idea with only the idea as the basis? You believe that something without evidence to support its existence, exists? What then can be done?

If you believe it exists without evidence to prove its existence, then you have defied logic in the very first instance; that now negates any further process of logic and logic is the process in which you prove something - That's why god doesn't exist.

[Publius]

Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...

He told me he doesn't exist.

How's that for a source?

[Nordic Rebel]

@ quincunx:
Notice how you can put any claim as A and get the same results?

lets take an example:
Let A= (b=>d) or (c=>d) => (b and c)=>d. We notice that A is a tautology so it is true in all possible models. But using your method we can get same amount of "evidence" for both A and ~A.

Because you can add even number of ~'s on any claim your method doesnt bring any new information to the case so your method shuold be disregarded as unnessery and pointless.

[Donnie]

Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
Well seen as this world is made up of material things and the whole of the universe is then god being not there means that he is immaterial thus how can something be immaterial and still live? It defies logic.

The bible says something like "God is everywhere?" How can that be possible it's illogical? How can someone believe such twoddle?


God exists only in the mind. It was created as an explantion for what we primitive humans didn't understand (the great big world around us with many dangers).
Agreed, a very good point indeed. In Emma Goldman’s essay she says that people who could not understand the way the world worked created the idea of an external force acting on the environment. Throught the history of humanity the god idea has been strong and weak when humans cannot comprehend things.

Life started when chemical matter evolved until an albuminous substance was formed, and from this substance life emerged. As you can't have matter without motion therefore you cannot have albumin without life. Out of life intelligence grew but the god idea was introduced because at the start humans could not understand things. The god idea defies human reason.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 04:26 AM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
Ok you grown up... Prove that Santa Claus dosent (sic) Exist...

[comradesteele]

imo god is either lazy, evil, weak or uncaring or jsut simply doesen't exist.

if god is good why is there bad things?? he is either to lazy tio deal with it, he planned it (evil), he can not stop it(weak), or just simply doesen't care.

what would make more sense is multiply gods each with a differetn outlook some hatful soem caring etc that to me woudl make more sense.



another thing is why people think of old pagan religons has silly, roman gods etc. but not the christian god. maybe in a few hundred years there will be a new religon and the god we have now is only shown in the myths and legends and disney films.

[quincunx5]

Because you can add even number of ~'s on any claim your method doesnt bring any new information to the case so your method shuold be disregarded as unnessery and pointless.


The point was that proving god does/doesn't exist is pointless. you dig?

[Clarksist]

The important thing is that I do not deny another person's basic right to believe in whatever the fuck they want.


Why the fuck?

The Bible just plain out says that the sun rotates around the earth, that the earth is 6,000 years old, and other such nonsense.

Its ignorance to believe the Bible. When a little kid talks about bullshit don't you correct them? Why not correct a grown adult?

Because you have "respect" for them?

If you have respect for them, you might not want them walking around saying complete bullshit statements. :lol:


Well seen as this world is made up of material things and the whole of the universe is then god being not there means that he is immaterial thus how can something be immaterial and still live? It defies logic.


God can do anything dude... it's like... you know... plausible... or something...

[Seeker]

Ian's got it.

Even if there is some being or force, sentient or otherwise, for wich it would be accurate to give the label "God", it is certainly not benevolent.

[quincunx5]

Its ignorance to believe the Bible. When a little kid talks about bullshit don't you correct them? Why not correct a grown adult?


Ofcourse I will correct them, and ofcourse I will argue with them, But I can't make them believe. They are free to walk away from me whenever they choose.

There is an obvious distinction between adults and children, hence the two different words. Age is not the determining factor.



Because you have "respect" for them?


I do not have "respect" for them, I just can't control people. Is it desirable to control people?

You know even some scientists disagree with each other on fundemental issues. Scientists have made mistakes too: Einstein, Hawking, Newton, Bohr, ...



If you have respect for them, you might not want them walking around saying complete bullshit statements


The best way to defeat "them", is to just have better arguments. Should they all be gagged?

Are people so one-dimensional that if they believe in god you can't agree with them on anything else?

[Individual]

No, Ian's wrong.

God hates Africans, so that is out of the question.

[OleMarxco]

It's pretty simple. Not because of some "evidence"-lack proves shit, for or against, unless you GOT'sum. As'for'at, I base my argument's more on, uh...shall-we-say, rational logic. And it says; "If God was all-powerful, could he create somethin' bigger than him, and not be able to lift it? If so, then he aren't a God, and if he can, then there's something more powerful than him. Thus he could exist, but he could not be the creator of the universe, if he exist's at all ;)

[Postteen]

"Gods" without worshipers don't exist

Exactly.Unfortunately god exists for billions of people.Faith keeps god(s) alive.

He,she,it doesn't exist.I could say that you can't prove the non-existence of something.The first thing that came to my mind was prove to me that god exists.But you can't!(via a logical way)[Well, I could tell you prove to me that souls and spirits exist.If those exist,then I'll believe in god.]So if science can prove that the world was made by another way than the "creation story",then that's what I'm gonna believe.But then, I don't need to believe in something say superior than me!People are more powerful than gods!But they're stupid cos they haven't understood it!Their creation(of god)is useless and catastrophic. Man has all the power to stand on his own without a god.When people created "him",they didn't have the means to explaine some things, that NOW can be explained!Are we going to believe in things(such things!)that people believed many thousands of years ago?I'm not.

[Nordic Rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:28 PM


Because you can add even number of ~'s on any claim your method doesnt bring any new information to the case so your method shuold be disregarded as unnessery and pointless.


The point was that proving god does/doesn't exist is pointless. you dig?
Well you could have sed it plainly in the first place and not cloak it in some pseudoscientific garbage. Becos it irks me a lot when people use pseudoscience to back up bullshit claims (theism, chauvinism, etc). It's a sad truth that many people are scienficly illiterate and to them pseudoscience can seem like real science and give authority to ideas that deserve none.

[Free Palestine]

There's no proof Unicorns don't exist either but you don't see me worshipping them.

[dietrite]

But then, I don't need to believe in something say superior than me!People are more powerful than gods!But they're stupid cos they haven't understood it!

Calm down, little Sasha.


Man has all the power to stand on his own without a god.

I'm not so sure this applies to 80%+ of humanity.

[deathpasser]

As a Theist, I find it somewhat ridiculous that ANY Theist can ask a secular atheist to prove God exists. For one thing, the Atheist can argue to not know what a God is, and if a Christian tells me the trinity is unexplainable, I sure as Hell wouldn't ask him to explain what a God is. In fact, a number of people give responses like "God is the creator"...and just that. That isn't an explanation of what God is.

Then you have to take into consideration that US, the Theists, would be the ones claiming there is a God. We're the ones saying that God exists. If anyone should prove that God exists, it should be US not THEM. If a person told me that a sun exists, I would demand proof and Haulilluah he points up and whaddyaknow, theres a sun up there. And THEN if I were to deny it, I would either require proof or I would require an ability to belittle his proof.

Have you ever seen in any court cases where the defendant has to prove their innocence with no proof of their guilt from the plaintiff? (unless the black) That would be...retarded...

EDIT:

Comradeesteele:


if god is good why is there bad things??

That reminds me of a story with this very simple analogy:


A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."

"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving a God who would allow all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"

"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."

"Ah, but barbers DO exist! " answered the barber. " What happens, is, people do not come to me. "

"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by deathpasser
"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Nice try...but no cigar. :lol:

In medieval Europe, worship of "God" was universal and compulsory. "God" rewarded this piety with...the black plagues.

In fact, the last 60 centuries or so have been characterized everywhere by worship of one sort or another. All of it evidently unpleasing to the "divinity"...as pain and suffering is and has been ubiquitous.

Only in the past couple of centuries have humans begun the process of substituting science for religion...and, curiously enough, the amount of pain and suffering has begun to decline, at least a little.

Granted, there is much more to do...the job is barely begun.

But we already know that there's nothing to be accomplished by "going to Him". Either "He" doesn't care or "He" doesn't exist.

Doesn't exist seems like the reasonable choice.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Clarksist]

Are people so one-dimensional that if they believe in god you can't agree with them on anything else?


Wow, I never said that.

If someone believes in god, however, I will automatically think less of them, and tremendously so.

If someone actually believes in god with all seriousness they are either crazy, gullible, ignorant, or just dumb. All four of those traits, I dislike in a person.


I'm not so sure this applies to 80%+ of humanity.


It applies to 100% of humanity. The only problem is that they don't try.

BTW, I saw Passion of the Christ today. The whole time I was cheering on Jesus getting the spikes whipped into. Wicked funny movie.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:50 PM


Have you ever seen in any court cases where the defendant has to prove their innocence with no proof of their guilt from the plaintiff? (unless the black) That would be...retarded...


actually yes, this happened a lot througout american history. many trials including the haymarket bombing, and lots of convictions against iww members with no proof that they committed the crime, actually most of these cases it was proven the said offenders were at different places the crime took place, yet they were still punished.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:50 AM
Have you ever seen in any court cases where the defendant has to prove their innocence with no proof of their guilt from the plaintiff? (unless the black) That would be...retarded...



Are you serious? This happens all the time.

In relation to this topic: why believe in something that you cannot prove?

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:34 AM

Are people so one-dimensional that if they believe in god you can't agree with them on anything else?


Wow, I never said that.

If someone believes in god, however, I will automatically think less of them, and tremendously so.

If someone actually believes in god with all seriousness they are either crazy, gullible, ignorant, or just dumb. All four of those traits, I dislike in a person.


I'm not so sure this applies to 80%+ of humanity.


It applies to 100% of humanity. The only problem is that they don't try.

BTW, I saw Passion of the Christ today. The whole time I was cheering on Jesus getting the spikes whipped into. Wicked funny movie.
Darwin believed in god.

You are clearly an elitist, a prude, and in general an uptight prick.

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 04:44 AM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
I'm Luciferian. Thanks for the Generalization.

[STI]

Darwin believed in god.

So what? Atheism isn't "The Charles Darwin Personality Cult".

Appeals to authority won't get you too far 'round here.


You are clearly an elitist, a prude, and in general an uptight prick.

That's the best description of God I've ever heard. :lol:


Are you serious? This happens all the time.

But the point is that it shouldn't happen, because it's a stupid way of going about things.

[dietrite]

It applies to 100% of humanity. The only problem is that they don't try.

Well your two part argument proves that ideal position.

[Clarksist]

Darwin believed in god.


HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Stop the presses! Darwin believed in god!

Let's all freak out and care about someone's opinion on theology because they theorized the simple basics of evolution!

[/sarcasm]


You are clearly an elitist, a prude, and in general an uptight prick.


I'm not the one with the social democrat symbol as my avatar. :lol:

Seriously, you think I'm an elitist because I think less of people who believe in a big invisible man who is always watching you all the time, who is perfect and yet created the universe, etc.

Don't give me that bullshit. God doesn't exist. And people who believe it do so out of ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or gullibility. Why shouldn't I dislike them for that?

Oh wait, plus they use religion as a crutch... but mostly those people don't "truly" believe.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Crazy Moderate
Darwin believed in god.

Right up to shortly before his 14th birthday.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[deathpasser]

Bombseverything and Nate:

Yea, I know it happens a lot, it was my sad attempt at a joke about America's legal system in regards to non-white people. Excuse my futile attempt to be slightly funny, over time I'm beggining to realize it doesn't work.

The idea, as STI said, was that it SHOULDN'T happen, the plaintiff should prove something and have it debunked, not the defendant having to prove his innocence when there is no proof against him/her.

And, bombseverything, I don't beleive in things I can't prove in most cases and this isn't excluded.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 02:44 PM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
I will post a "proof" for either the existence or not once you post a definiton.

What is God? Who is God? Is God all knowing, all seeing, everywhere sort of thing. Or is God simply a thing that can do things that most things can't do.

I will post a definition and a proof. God is Cthenthar. Cthenthar exists. Therefor God exists. Cthenthar exists 'cause if he sees me doing something that I shouldn't be doing, I feel ashamed.

[bombeverything]

And, bombseverything, I don't beleive in things I can't prove in most cases and this isn't excluded.

Ok. Do it then. Prove that god exists.

Sorry I didn't get your joke.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 12 2005, 04:44 AM
Ok you atheist... Prove that God dosent Exist...
Prove to me that he/she does..

[Guest1]

Prove to me that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist.

[Umoja]

I think I'll be the first to step forward and say that "I can't prove god doesn't exist." It's completely unproveable.

Still, science works on theory, and based on the holes in logic in nearly every world religion and the lack of any material proof, I can say "I have no reason to acknowledge the existence of god."

[deathpasser]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Aug 17 2005, 04:06 AM--> (apathy maybe @ Aug 17 2005, 04:06 AM) What is God? Who is God? Is God all knowing, all seeing, everywhere sort of thing. Or is God simply a thing that can do things that most things can't do.
[/b]
God, A definition:

An everlasting, all-seeing creator of everything in the universe.

(I want to stress the fact that this is only A definiton, there's numerous possible definitions)

---------------------------------


bombeverything:
Ok. Do it then. Prove that god exists.

Sorry I didn't get your joke.

I don't like the odds of discussing proof of a religon in a mostly anti-religous crowd. But I'll give it a shot.

A definition of proof:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Now, for starters, lets assume proof to be relative in certain cases, think of a courtroom jury, some people will see something as proof beyond a doubt and others will view this same something as 'mere coincidence'. So let's agree that something which may be proof to me, may not be proof to you (may not compel you to believe such-and-such as true).

So, if we're on the same page, then we'll think of proof as something which compels certain people to beleive in such-and-such.

Forms of proof would include those like witness statements, but since witness statements are doubtable, I won't bring those up. Let's look for something for something more concrete, more establishable to modern man and something that can be given a better critical analysis then witness statements.

I'll try and present 1 debateable 'proof' regarding God.If you have a valid rebuttal to that or you are denying it based on coincidence, then I can go further.

Nay! if he desist not, We would certainly smite his forehead,A lying, sinful forehead. 96:15-16

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-d-img1.jpg

Now, to the average reader, that verse might allow one to notice "the lying, sinful forehead". The actual word used was nasiyyah, which is Arabic for the front part of the head. So a curious mind may wonder why the "front of the head" was used, ancient Arabic literature and modern literature, usually uses the adjectives 'lieing' and 'sinful' to describe a person or a mouth. Why on Earth would it be used to describe the front of the head?

To anyone aware of scientific claims about the front of the head, the cerebeum, this might prove shocking, or odd at the least. Why would this ancient text be able to describe something only recently discovered, 60-80 years back according to Professor Keith L. Moore.

“The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex...”

“In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression....”
-both quotes from Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology

http://ww2.heartandstroke.ca/images/english/english_brain.jpg]

One could argue this away as a conicidence, or maybe you can even come up with a valid rebuttal in regards to it. As soon as you can do one of those two, I'll try to present another proof.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by deathpasser+Aug 18 2005, 12:39 PM--> (deathpasser @ Aug 18 2005, 12:39 PM)
apathy [email protected] 17 2005, 04:06 AM
What is God? Who is God? Is God all knowing, all seeing, everywhere sort of thing. Or is God simply a thing that can do things that most things can't do.

God, A definition:

An everlasting, all-seeing creator of everything in the universe.

(I want to stress the fact that this is only A definiton, there's numerous possible definitions) [/b]
This leads to more questions, but I'll post my assumptions, then the proofs from them.

Assumption 1. This means that God is outside the universe. Thus is 'unseeable' (undetectable), thus no proof that God exists or does not.

Assumption 2. God exists inside the universe. The universe will end, therefore God can't exist.

Assumption 3. If God can't do anything except create the universe and look at it (i.e. no miracles) then it doesn't matter if God exists or not.


The reason I ask for a definition.
I could ask for proofs that gold does not exist. These would be hard to come by using the accepted definition of gold (shinny metal that some people value etc.). I could ask for proofs that sdafjlk does not exist. You would have no idea what I was talking about. I could define sdafjlk as anything I wanted (in this case it is my middle toe on my left foot's longest hair). This exists therefore no proof is required.

There are many definitions of God, some of them are just fantastical, others are unprovable.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by deathpasser+--> (deathpasser)Why would this ancient text be able to describe something only recently discovered, 60-80 years back according to Professor Keith L. Moore.[/b]

Try coincidence.

They do happen, you know. Now and then, some pre-scientific guy made a lucky guess.

If you think this represents "divine intervention", then you must perforce ask yourself why nearly all "ancient texts" are full to overflowing with total nonsense?


Qu'ran
27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode...

If Allah was going to inspire knowledge of the prefrontal lobe of the human brain, why didn't Allah bother to tell Muhammad about the Earth's rotation about its own axis or its rotation around the sun?

An oversight, perhaps? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[deathpasser]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Aug 19 2005, 03:47 AM--> (apathy maybe @ Aug 19 2005, 03:47 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:39 PM

apathy [email protected] 17 2005, 04:06 AM
What is God? Who is God? Is God all knowing, all seeing, everywhere sort of thing. Or is God simply a thing that can do things that most things can't do.

God, A definition:

An everlasting, all-seeing creator of everything in the universe.

(I want to stress the fact that this is only A definiton, there's numerous possible definitions)
This leads to more questions, but I'll post my assumptions, then the proofs from them.

Assumption 1. This means that God is outside the universe. Thus is 'unseeable' (undetectable), thus no proof that God exists or does not.

Assumption 2. God exists inside the universe. The universe will end, therefore God can't exist.

Assumption 3. If God can't do anything except create the universe and look at it (i.e. no miracles) then it doesn't matter if God exists or not.


The reason I ask for a definition.
I could ask for proofs that gold does not exist. These would be hard to come by using the accepted definition of gold (shinny metal that some people value etc.). I could ask for proofs that sdafjlk does not exist. You would have no idea what I was talking about. I could define sdafjlk as anything I wanted (in this case it is my middle toe on my left foot's longest hair). This exists therefore no proof is required.

There are many definitions of God, some of them are just fantastical, others are unprovable. [/b]
1) I never said God has to be unseeable, or even that God is outside of the universe. You're assuming God requires eyes to 'see', correct?

2) Why would the universe end?

3) Nobody says God can't do miracles, its just that Jesus' and Moses aren't around these days.


Also, I'm never going to ask an Atheist (hopefully) to prove God doesn't exist, its illogical in this case.



(will remember to reply to Redstar later hopefully)

[deathpasser]

Try coincidence.

They do happen, you know. Now and then, some pre-scientific guy made a lucky guess.



I did, at first. But then you see a number of similar proofs, and you would say coincidences. But as I said I would try to point out another one if you claimed "coincidence". I'm not saying coincidences don't happen, but who would write something that to the Arabs of the time would literally make no sense at all, to grab people by the lieing, sinful front part of their heads? Anyways, since this one is a 'coincidence' I'll point out more (on a public computer and have a lack of time)

As soon as I point out more, it'll be lucky guesses, right?

"If you think this represents "divine intervention", then you must perforce ask yourself why nearly all "ancient texts" are full to overflowing with total nonsense?"

matter of interpretation? A lot of Vedic scripture came under fire by certain people, but if you were to read it, it would make sense as symbolism rather then non-sense. Not every thing was meant literally, with the Bible its the Psalms which weren't neccessarily to be taken literally. With Quran their are ahadeeth which explain which verses are interpreted how (according to Muhemmed(saw) himself)


Originally posted by Qu'ran
27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode...

Did you read this in context or just grab it from Avjit Roy's article or the one by answerin-islam regarding this?

Firstly, this is obviously Pictkhall's translation, let's look at both Pictkhall's and how about Yusuf Ali's:

Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not! (pickthall's)

Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not. (Ali's)

So what was the Arabic term used for making Earth a 'fixed adobe', the actual term used was qarara, which is Arabic for 'solid'. The Quran says in this verse that the Earth was solid or 'compressed'. And then God made. Nowhere does it claim the Earth does not move, rather that the Earth is firm (according to the Arabic).


why didn't Allah bother to tell Muhammad about the Earth's rotation about its own axis or its rotation around the sun?

Apparently the planetary rotation in their own orbits was mentioned:

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. 21:33 (ali)

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.21:33 (pickthall)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by deathpasser+--> (deathpasser)matter of interpretation? A lot of Vedic scripture came under fire by certain people, but if you were to read it, it would make sense as symbolism rather then non-sense. Not every thing was meant literally, with the Bible its the Psalms which weren't necessarily to be taken literally. With Quran their are ahadeeth which explain which verses are interpreted how (according to Muhammad(saw) himself)[/b]

The all purpose escape clause; anything that's obviously wrong is "symbolic" and not meant to be "taken literally".

A lucky guess that turns out to be right, however, is meant to be taken as the "literal truth" and as "evidence" for "divine inspiration".

Pathetic.


Did you read this in context?

Skeptic's Annotated Qu'ran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html)


So what was the Arabic term used for making Earth a 'fixed adobe', the actual term used was qarara, which is Arabic for 'solid'. The Quran says in this verse that the Earth was solid or 'compressed'. And then God made. Nowhere does it claim the Earth does not move, rather that the Earth is firm (according to the Arabic).

Neat verbal footwork there. Not being a scholar of Arabic, I have no rejoinder.

But the earth is not "solid"...though it certainly is "compressed".

Here are some more you can play with...


Originally posted by Qu'ran+--> (Qu'ran)67:5 We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.[/b]


Qu'[email protected]
81:1 When the sun is overthrown,
81:2 And when the stars fall,


Qu'ran
12:4 When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon,

You might especially like the last one -- depending on what definition of the word "planet" you'd like to use, you could say at the moment that there are 11 "planets" in the solar system...until the next one is found.

"Planet" is from a Greek word meaning "wanderer" -- heavenly objects that do not stay in one position in the sky but "wander" all over the place. Greek cosmology counted the sun and the moon as planets, so there were 8 altogether.

Uranus was discovered at the end of the 18th century and Neptune in the middle of the 19th century. At first, the asteroid Ceres was thought of as a planet...but then more asteroids were discovered so the name "planet" was dropped. Pluto was discovered in 1930...and it was then maintained that the solar system had 9 planets plus an asteroid belt. But Pluto is smaller than our own moon...and some astronomers maintained that it shouldn't really be considered a planet at all. Now, two more "Pluto-sized" objects have been discovered beyond Pluto's orbit (there's also a somewhat smaller one that orbits between Saturn and Uranus).

So the number of "planets" in the solar system depends on what you want to call a planet and what doesn't "measure up".

(Note that Uranus would have been visible in the dark and dry skies over Arabia...but there were no astronomers there in the time of Muhammad to notice that it was moving.)

It's been suggested that there may be quite a few more "Pluto objects" out there...small ice worldlets taking thousands of years to orbit the sun.

Perhaps Allah didn't want to confuse Joseph with the real picture. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[deathpasser]

The all purpose escape clause; anything that's obviously wrong is "symbolic" and not meant to be "taken literally".

A lucky guess that turns out to be right, however, is meant to be taken as the "literal truth" and as "evidence" for "divine inspiration".

Pathetic.


If said religous texts are read in context by the smartest person and the stupidest (in regards to literature and history), both would agree on which verses are meant literally and which are metaphoric symbolism.

In the Quran, it is clearly stated to cut off the hands of theives (further explained in ahadeeth). Nobody can make this out as something symbolic, its obivously literally meant to be done.

Now similarily if you were to compare the specific verses of the Vida's which I was talking about, you'd also see why they are meant as mere poetry and symbolism rather then literally chopping off some theive's hand.

And just to finish off this little subject, with the Quran there is very clear interpretation By the prophet(saw) himself. These ahadeeth are what is used to interpret certain verses in the Quran by those qualified for Ijtihad. So, no, if something seems absurd to a person who has limited knowledge of the religon and its writings and history, people can't simply change how its to be interpreted by their ideas, since the explanations of verses was clearly given by the prophet(saw) himself and EVEN Islamic scholars only years after his death have written lengthy Tafsir's. You haven't found anything "obivously wrong", you took a mistranslated (if you looked at the Arabic) verse and proposed it as scientificlly incorrect.



Skeptic's Annotated Qu'ran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.html)


Amazing annoted Quran translation. Let's look at 1 explample from it. Found under "Absurdity in Quran":

no.73 "When disbelievers hear the Quran, they roll their eyes and say "he [Muhammad] is indeed mad." 68:51"

How the Hell is this absurditity? Historical references show how the Quraish and other Bedouin tribes to which he didn't belong clearly viewed him as a nutjob trying to de-establish the idol-worship and pilgrimages from which they were getting rich. They offered him money, power and women to stop preaching this religon which was destroying their buisnessess and he said no, sounds preaty crazy to someone who doesn't believe in what he had to say.

Wow, that's obviously absurdity there in the Quran, absurdity recorded in VARIOUS narrations of historical claims at the time.

Another interesting "absurdity of the Quran" from your skeptical website:

no.77 "Allah dealt with the owners of the elephant by sending swarms of "flying creatures". 105:1-3"

Now the fact that the translator chose "flying creatures" rather then simply saying birds qualifies this as an absurdity? Or the fact that animals such as birds are too small to be wepons controlled by an all-powerful God? Or is it the proposterous idea that a bird's beak can penetrate an elephant's hide? The same verses by Ali and Shakir, respectively:

Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the Companions of the Elephant? Did He not make their treacherous plan go astray? And He sent against them Flights of Birds

Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant? Did He not cause their war to end in confusion, And send down (to prey) upon them birds in flocks,

By taking these three verses out of context and putting them on display, the "translator(s)" seem to want to send the impression that a thousands of birds were sent by God and they killed a bunch of elephants and their riders (or drove them off). But hey, whaddyaknow, its not just birds that fought off the invaders:

105:4-5 "Striking them with stones of baked clay. Then did He make them like an empty field of stalks and straw, (of which the corn) has been eaten up."

Consider your nail growing to 3 inche's, at 3 inches, even if you picked up a Burning wood with them, you shouldn't be able to feel the pain of this fire (so long as the fire is kept away from the skin areas and kept by the overly-large nails) Similarly, a bird can easily grip stones with its claws, even if it was hot (which is not the case here). The bird's could drop the stone from a high enough altitude that the stones would become heated on their way down and wouldn't leave these invaders alive. If a man dropped pennies from the top of --some big ass building-- and they hit people on the ground, they would die, or at least feel searing pain where they were hit. In this way, BIRDS themselves did not fight the elephants as it may be assumed, the birds droped small stones which started killing off invaders.




Originally posted by Qu'ran+--> (Qu'ran)67:5 We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.


Originally posted by Qu'[email protected]
81:1 When the sun is overthrown,
81:2 And when the stars fall,


Qu'ran
12:4 When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon,

You might especially like the last one -- depending on what definition of the word "planet" you'd like to use, you could say at the moment that there are 11 "planets" in the solar system...until the next one is found.


"Planet" is from a Greek word meaning "wanderer" -- heavenly objects that do not stay in one position in the sky but "wander" all over the place. Greek cosmology counted the sun and the moon as planets, so there were 8 altogether.

Uranus was discovered at the end of the 18th century and Neptune in the middle of the 19th century. At first, the asteroid Ceres was thought of as a planet...but then more asteroids were discovered so the name "planet" was dropped. Pluto was discovered in 1930...and it was then maintained that the solar system had 9 planets plus an asteroid belt. But Pluto is smaller than our own moon...and some astronomers maintained that it shouldn't really be considered a planet at all. Now, two more "Pluto-sized" objects have been discovered beyond Pluto's orbit (there's also a somewhat smaller one that orbits between Saturn and Uranus).

So the number of "planets" in the solar system depends on what you want to call a planet and what doesn't "measure up".

(Note that Uranus would have been visible in the dark and dry skies over Arabia...but there were no astronomers there in the time of Muhammad to notice that it was moving.)

It's been suggested that there may be quite a few more "Pluto objects" out there...small ice worldlets taking thousands of years to orbit the sun.

Perhaps Allah didn't want to confuse Joseph with the real picture. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
[/b]
I'm running out of time on this public PC, but inshaAllah I'll try to respond to them all by tomarrow.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by deathpasser
If said religious texts are read in context by the smartest person and the stupidest (in regards to literature and history), both would agree on which verses are meant literally and which are metaphoric symbolism.

This explains why books of commentaries about the meanings of various passages of "holy books" multiply like rabbits. :lol:

I might be willing to make a small wager that there's not a single passage in any "holy book" that does not have both literal and symbolic "interpretations"...that mutually contradict one another.

For the intellectually challenged, the next best thing to writing a "holy book" is interpreting one.


Nobody can make this out as something symbolic, it's obviously literally meant to be done.

Don't be too sure about that -- I'll bet someone has done so or will do so.


You haven't found anything "obviously wrong", you took a mistranslated (if you looked at the Arabic) verse and proposed it as scientifically incorrect.

I'll also bet that you intimidate a lot of westerners with that "mistranslation" bullshit (Christians sometimes use it too).

Fact is, no matter how hard you try to cover up the obvious scientific ignorance of Allah, it still comes through.


no.73 "When disbelievers hear the Quran, they roll their eyes and say "he [Muhammad] is indeed mad." 68:51"

How the Hell is this absurdity?

Here I must agree; there is a current hypothesis to the effect that "holy men" do indeed suffer from a brain disorder. The people in Arabia who thought Muhammad was "mad" were probably right.


Now [does] the fact that the translator chose "flying creatures" rather then simply saying birds qualifies this as an absurdity?

In nature, neither birds nor bats (the only "flying creatures" that exist) attack elephants.

To claim otherwise is to clearly utter an absurdity.

I think you better start looking for "symbolic meanings" for this one.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:57 PM

1) I never said God has to be unseeable, or even that God is outside of the universe. You're assuming God requires eyes to 'see', correct?

2) Why would the universe end?

3) Nobody says God can't do miracles, its just that Jesus' and Moses aren't around these days.


Also, I'm never going to ask an Atheist (hopefully) to prove God doesn't exist, its illogical in this case.



(will remember to reply to Redstar later hopefully)
You misunderstand me.
Firstly, these were three possible interpretations of your definiton.
Secondly, I meant that God is undectable by humans, not that God could not see.
Thirdly, according to current scientific theories, the universe will come to an end. Thus God will if God is inside the universe. (In the first assumption, it wouldn't matter, because God is outside the universe.)
Fourthly, it was an assumption. You didn't make it clear if God could or not. If God can't, then it doesn't matter anyway.


And lastly, why is it any more illogical to ask an atheist to disprove God then it is to ask a theist to prove the existance of God?

[Hiero]

Is it even important to disprove god?

Do we have to disprove Zeus as well?