Prove to me God doesn't exist.

Lots of things are "disconnected" from any reasonable understanding of REALITY. That does not make them useless...and it certainly does not mean we ought not to take them seriously.

Our Constitution begins with the notion of god given unalienable rights, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do you honestly think that because it has that statement...it ought not to be taken seriously?

 

God is everlasting, invisible, can read your mind, uses magic, and can tell if you are naughty or nice. Sound familiar?

 

I suppose if one is inclined to believe the imaginary really exists, then neither logic or reason would help.

 

Our DoI, you mean.

There is no reason to take seriously anything that is '"disconnected" from any reasonable understanding of REALITY' - or, for that matter, to say it in the first place. Happily, that is not a concern WRT anything in the DoI.

 

Its like asking "Prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist?"

 

If you are going to arbitrarily declare unknown things to be imaginary...you ought really to stay away from discussions that involve reason and logic.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no idea of what "Dol" or "WRT" are.

 

Declaration of Independence & With Respect To

 

Thanks, yguy.

And you are correct...I was completely wrong when I put those words in the Constitution rather than in the Declaration of Independence.

My bad. Sorry.

 

I simply, hearsay and soothsay, that we got abandoned in Nexus 6, with Zardoz.

 

What would be a more appropriate question would be to prove whether an intelligent being, which created the universe, exists.

In science, hypotheses can be confirmed via a demonstration. For example, let's say our flashlight won't turn on. We can hypothesize it's not turning on because the batteries are dead. Dead must be defined. Dead meaning the batteries do not carry the necessary capacity to provide a voltage and current capable of illuminating the bulb. How do we prove they're dead? Let's assume we know exactly how many volts and amps must be provided to the light bulb in order to achieve illumination. We could test the hypothesis by measuring the voltage and current with a meter of the batteries. If the current and voltage is below the necessary power to illuminate the bulb, we could state they are in fact "dead". To further test this, one could use batteries that are fresh, testing the voltage and current output of course, to see if it illuminates. If it does, then we now have a scientific theory that the reason the flashlight is not working is because the batteries are dead as we defined being dead, this becomes a scientific law by testing thousands of different flashlights with dead batteries and fresh batteries and confirming the results. If it still doesn't work, then it's back to the drawing board to formulate another hypothesis.

The problem with demonstrating the existence of an intelligent creator, is that everyone's idea of what that is is different. If we say God exists because he answered my prayer, that can't be a scientific conclusion, because thousands of prayers go unanswered. If we say he exists as a creator because the universe exists, that hypothesis falls apart, because we can already demonstrate the universe is pretty much an accident that worked out great in the end.

We must formulate a testable hypothesis, and test it. As of yet, no one of any religion has done that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a christian myself, but I have no proof that God exists.

 

The fact that you refute this shows your ignorance to reality.

 

The DOI isn't telling slaves they should obey their masters or that ET is a just punishment. While humans have denounced slavery many still believe the torture of humans for eternity is just. They also believe a bunch nonsense that defies the laws of nature, reason and logic. Sure, you can find some fuzzy scriptures, but look at the cost in reason and logic.

 

Maat...give it up.

You are so far out from reasonable...that my guess is you cannot even see it.

 

What else would you call something lacking factual reality?

 

Uh, actually, the Bible DOES have talking animals.....the Snake in the Garden and Balaam's donkey.

 

There will never be a testable hypothesis that can answer the question of whether God exists, because science by definition is limited to the natural world. Philosophy has no such limitation though and can easily address the question through logic and reasoning.

 

If what you are talking about is: Do gods exist or not?"...I would call it the unknown.

That is what anyone with any sense of logic and reason would call it.

Only someone with a closed mind would call it "something lacking factual reality."

 

If gods exist...THEY ARE PART OF THE NATURAL WORLD.

For some reason, you seem dedicated to the notion that humans, the dominant life form on this small planet, are the final arbiters of what constitutes "the natural world."

You ought to try moving past that.

We humans may know almost nothing about what the true nature of the REALITY is.

 

There are 90 foot tall unicorns that wear robes made out of diamonds that zip around the universe at 100 times the speed of light in their space ships. Would you like to meet them?

 

Frank
Fwiw, for many years maat was posting as an adamant christian
At some point he apparently decided to take a fresh look at the bible
And no longer is convinced of the bibles fundamental truth
I think that he reached this detirmination via reasonable consideration of what he found in the bible

the bible (and other religious texts) presents the appearance of a massive haystack
It it impossible to be sure there is no needle of truth hidden with in
But to me, the evidence and appearance of the bible is that of an ordinary haystack
i have grown weary of rooting around in the straw looking for the hidden needle
I have grown weary of those who insist this is a special haystack


If and when a needle is found, i will become interested
In the mean time
I am unimpressed by those who insist that even the straw should be venerated and examined for guidance

 

The question of whether gods exist in REALITY or not...is an unknown.

Foolish theists insist they know at least one god exists.

Even more foolish atheists mock the notion that it is an unknown.

No problem.

The world has always survived its fools.

 

ARDY...I think any reasonable person taking an unbiased look at the Bible would come away considering it something like Aesop's Fables or The Brothers Grimm tales. (Perhaps with some Stephen King and Quentin Trarantino thrown in.)

The book is an abomination.

But that is not the issue in dispute between Maat and me.

 

You're completely dismissing the general theme of the bible. It is not a history book or consistent on just about anything. It claims to be supernaturally inspired, it claims supernatural events and it promotes adherence and faith in the unreasonable. Perhaps you can provide what value it has.

 

I am NOT dismissing it in any way.

Here...allow me to make myself completely clear on this:

The Bible is NOT a history book...and it is, as you suggested, inconsistent on damn near everything it says. It does claim to be divinely (not supernaturally) inspired...and it claim unusual events and irrationally promotes adherence and faith in blather and nonsense.

I think the book is a piece of crap...and the notion that it is superior literature is bizarre in my estimation.

I have said all that earlier...so what is your problem?

I don't know for sure, but I figure you can pick one up on-line for less than $20.



Since I often debate theists...especially people devoted to the god of the Bible, I own 13 Bibles...some Catholic, some Protestant; and some Jewish.


Here is a bibliography of my collection:

St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible; Catholic book Publishing, NY; 1968 (Catholic)

The New American Bible; Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville; 1971 (Catholic)

The Holy Bible King James Version; Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 1984 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible New International Version; Zondervan Bible Pub. Grand Rapids; 1978 (Non-demoninational)

The Scofield Reference Holy Bible (King James Version); Oxford Univ. Press; NY; 1909 (Protestant)

The Holy Scriptures Masoretic Text; Jewish Publ Society; Philadelphia: 1955 (Jewish)

The Holy Bible, St.Joseph Textbook Edition, Confraternity Version; Catholic book Publ: NY; 1963; (Catholic)

The Holy Bible Revised Berkeley Version; The Gideons Intrl; 1984; (Non-denominational Protestant)

The New American Catholic Edition of The Holy Bible; Benziger Bros, Boston; 1950 (Catholic)

The Old Testament; Guild Press NY; 1965 (Catholic)

The Living Bible; Holman Illustrated Edition: A.J. Holman Co; Philadelphia; 1973 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible; King James Version; The World Publ Co: Cleveland; (no date); (Protestant)

The Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Co: NY; 1916 (English & Hebrew) (Jewish)

**** Also I use

The Common Catechism of the Christian Faith: Seabury Press;NY 1975 (Protestant)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Urbi et Orbi Comm; 1994 (Catholic)

The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism: Catholic Book Publish; NY; 1962 (Catholic)

*****Plus, I have (estimated) 40 - 50 other books dealing with the Bible, religion, and philosophy that I use when posting.

 

In post 786, you asserted that despite the bible being crap, you said it was not useless and should be taken seriously. I refute that statement. IMO, it does more harm than good that people find value in it and take it seriously. If it's only influence was historical information it would have no affect today, but it does affect issues today and dumb down many humans. It is not fair to compare it to the DOI.