The arguments of God's nonexistence

The main arguments that give philosophers and theologies the evidence that there is no God is mainly because of the many, many, many, many logical contradictions that support such claims.

For instance, we can say that an object can be red all over, but that same object can't be red and black all over. This would contradict the logic and sense of what the object actually is.

This gives birth to the Argument from Evil that reveals an evil God totally opposed to what a lot of people think:

for example, an innocent little girl (about six years old) is trapped in a room engulfed in fire.

The little girl desperately gets on her knees, closes her eyes and begins to ask God to save her. The girl dies consumed by the fire. Why didn't God save her? If God could not hear her, he's not omnipresent.

If God could hear her but didn't want to save her, He's not all good.

This means that if God exists He's all three, which means He doesn't exist.

Another example is the Book of Job (if you have read it) that reveals a sadistic, selfish God who makes a wager with the devil trying to prove Job's faithfulness by inflicting leprosy, killing all his children, and making him a vagabond, and rewards him later by giving him more than he ever had.

God's actions give a bad moral example to humanity, which tells us that we must do "good" not because we have to, but because of what he can give us in return;

that we must do the things that please him, not because they're the right things to do, but because we desperately want the salvation of our souls.

And why do we have to believe in Him anyway?

Why can't we just do the right things without believing in him?

Why is it very important to Him?

Why is it that if we don't believe in Him, we most likely end up in Hell for all eternity?

Other arguments among others that prove God's nonexistence are the Allegory of the Cave, The Invisible Gardener, and Socrate's The Apology.

But why do we need to pay the price because "we're not perfect"? Well, this argument has to be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve, since God did not succeed in granting them perfection.

But why God condemned them to a life of misery and denied them paradise?

What kind of God would do this to His children?

Adam and Eve were given the choice of free will.

They were given each other a partner, abundance of food and beauty, but they were also given a limitation or a rule. God asked them to eat from the fruits of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they should die. They ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and they were banned from Paradise and were punished, even the serpent that seduced them into eating the fruit was punished. For the first time Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. But don't you think small children do that? Don't you think small children disobey their parents? The whole Adam and Eve story seems like a metaphor, children who disobey their parents and get punished about it.

Nevertheless, why did God lie to them about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, telling them that they would die if they ate from it? Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't die, but they were thrown out of Paradise.

The story depicts God as a selfish parent who didn't want to see His children grow up; He wanted them to remain children forever, innocent. It seems like they were part of some sort of celestial experimentation, in which God failed to obtain a much desired result.

But you might say that we shouldn't take the words of the Bible literally. But how should we interpret the words of the bible if not literally?

Wasn't Jesus son to Mary? Didn't Moses free his people? Didn't Satan betray God? Didn't Kane kill Abel?

But don't you think that if God had the ability to create good in this world also created evil, since He created every thing in the physical world?

About the example I gave previously about the little girl who died in the fire, if she is an innocent girl and is free of sin (she's is innocent because the Bible says that a child under seven years of age is innocent. It's at seven when he or she begins to know what's good and evil) why God allowed her to die such a brutal death?

If the fire was an accident or product of someone's evilness, it was a high price to pay, don't you think?

If God lives outside time, differently than we live here in the physical world, then He would be wise enough to make us understand what he truly wants- articulate his purpose which includes us, without any contradictions:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

About the Ten Commandments, how can it be that if a man lusted for a woman (thought about having her) is the same as raping her, which leads to burning in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think that's too extreme? Just by thinking about wanting a woman carnally, the punishment is the same as if he raped her.

Don't you think that logically a man would choose the second one if he had nothing to lose, if he couldn't stop thinking about a woman in such way? If he's going to Hell and burn for all eternity anyways, he might as well take the second choice. But what would stop him from doing so? But just having such sinful thought will guarantee him a spot in Hell? But he can always repent himself and he would be saved. But what if he dies before he repented himself? He would go to Hell as the Bible states it. And what stop a lot of atheists from taking the second choice? (That's a question for another topic).

Since there is no tangible, clear evidence for God's existence, atheists don't accept the accounts of the Bible as convincing proof.

There is quite a dilemma concerning the credibility of God's existence using the Bible as the only source to prove that God truly exists. Since philosophers and theologies need concrete confirmation (more than one source) to prove that certain historical statements are true, they have to rely on comparison of evidence between distinctive sources.

For example: how do we know that Christopher Columbus made an expedition to the Americas? Better yet, how do we know that Columbus really existed? It's simple; we don't know.

However, there is evidence that supports Columbus really existed: Christopher Columbus kept with him log books that were used to record his entire voyage to the new world. The entries from those log books were compared with letters Columbus wrote to Queen Isabella (which were confirmed to be his handwriting), and many other documents found in Spain that state Columbus's accounts are true, and therefore, proving the great possibility of his existence.

On the other hand, how do we confirm the existence of Jesus Christ (or any other account of the Bible for that matter)? What are the physical indications that prove Jesus existed? Again, we don't know. The only physical evidence that can prove that Jesus Christ was real is through the Bible.

Since the Bible doesn't have any other documentation that supports its historical accounts, its content fails as a reliable source.

And how do we know that dinosaurs existed? Or better yet, how do we know evolution exists?

How do we know that everything is in constant change, that everything that we see here won't stay the same forever? (See the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which explains how everything is changing). The bones and fossils of ancient animals have been discovered through out the world, within sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks provide us with successive layers of changes in the environment that tell the account of life being originated in water, from simple organisms that resemble fish, to complex organism that walk on land, like dinosaurs. And how religion takes the physical evidence of dinosaurs into account? What do religious people say about the existence of dinosaurs?

And while natural phenomena can easily be explained through science, religion doesn't explain them but associates them to God's work.

Science has proven (and still proves) the mysteries of the world through scientific experimentations. To make God more relevant to the Biblical accounts, religious people deem scientific discoveries applicable to the existence of God, which seems more irrelevant than logical. The majority of people don't associate bad weather and diseases to curses, mental disease to possession by devils, earthquakes, storms, and eclipses to angry gods. Atheists believe that the same principle that has discovered those inconsistencies in the majority of the world's ancient religions must continually be implemented today to prove that the existence of God is irrelevant. It must be proven the same way, through science.

Atheists think that religious miracles, just like the majority of events in the Bible, are the product of empirical knowledge. Scientists think that levitation is not possible because it would be a violation of the physical laws of the universe. Since the physical laws of nature are the basic rules about how thins happen, it had led scientist to experiment upon religious events that are regarded as impossible, such as walking on water, levitation, and resurrection.

Religions believe that life here on Earth originated approximately five thousand years ago, but scientists have proven that opposite, that life has been here for millions and millions of years.

This brings us to Darwin's theory of evolution. As many of us know Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more logical than the hypothesis stated by many religions that suggest that the intervention of God was what started life on this planet.

To illustrate Darwin's theory of evolution, first it most be understood properly.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution suggests that life originated here on Earth thanks to the chemical compounds that were very abundant: Carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, and Methane. These elements fused with other elements and formed new compounds. This process, according to Darwin, took a very long time to happen (millions of years). Since the chemical elements motioned above were very common, very distinct forms of amino acids were formed, and therefore, Hemoglobin, the building block for simple cell organisms came into existence.

But many religious people argue that the process of life on Earth is very unlikely, that it must have been made by a more intelligent, wiser, artistic mind: God. They also believe that the chances for life to be abundant here on Earth must have not taken place all by random events of the cosmos, but the work of God was involved. It is said that the probability for life to thrive on this planet is one in a trillion. If Earth was a little bit closer to the sun, life here could've not taken place. If Earth were a little farther from the sun, life could've never existed. This planet is just in the right place for life to exist. Since probability is pretty much involved in all this, a hypothetical scenario of probability must be taken in consideration:

The probability scenario is this: a person is placed in a room (lets assume that this person has been granted immortality. He can't die for all we know). The room is filled with one hundred billion dollars in pennies (that would amount to a trillion pennies). The name of this person is written on the back of one penny. The penny (with the name of the person written on the back) is thrown with the rest of the pennies (The objective of this person is to find the penny that has his name written on it, using the probability application. Since the chance to find the coin is one in one trillion, that person must take one coin from the pile, one at the time, must take a look at it, and then put back in the bunch.). How long do you think will take that person to pick from the pile of coins the only coin with his name written on it? This process could take a pretty long, long time, perhaps millions of years, perhaps more. But the only thing is that he has all the time in the world to find that coin. The same probability principle of this hypothetical example applies to the random event that created this planet in its actual shape and distance from the sun, the water that happened to form our seas, and the elements necessary for life to thrive.

And what is the probability of me existing here today? Since DNA is what makes me (us) who I am (we are), then the chances of me existing here today is pretty slim. What if my mother didn't marry my father? Do you think I would still exist here to day if DNA is what makes me the person I am, my hair, the color of my eyes and skin? Even if my mom still conceived a child before I was born, that doesn't mean I would still exist. I have a brother and a sister, and I'm neither one of them. The right sperm and egg had to be fertilized form my exact DNA, which made me the person who I am today. I don't think that if my sister didn't marry her husband, my niece could still exist in the body of another person with different DNA. How could it be the other way? How could she be someone else, with different DNA? And how could I be someone else if my mom didn't marry my dad, the right sperm and the right egg didn't fertilize to form my DNA? Even if I died and part of me was taken to clone an exact duplicate of me, that new being wouldn't be me, either.

The argument about the existence of God is a major debate between religious institutions and atheists. But while future new events in this universe continue to be explained through science, the credibility surrounding today's religions will most likely shrivel like ancient Romans' religious principles.

Yet, that prediction is far too distant in the future. In order for such predictions to occur, we must first lose the reigns that attach us to the absurdity of historical events that make us believe in mythological accounts filled with contradictions. When we are freed from those beliefs and acquired *a priori knowledge*, we will see the world from different perspectives.

Understanding the world in which we live in and teaching our own children the natural laws of the universe, the propagation of ignorance in our society would diminish, or probably will be eradicated. And understanding the entities that created us will assist future generations to understand who we are, where we came from and where we going, and we would not worry about doing the right thing just to please an invisible God for the salvation of our souls, but we will do the right thing because we will have reach another state in our human evolution, the state of total awareness.

if there is God, he wont care if we worship Him or not, coz we are so insignificant to Him

anyway a god who punishes those who doesnt worship HIm is no different from a mere human being '

... we live in the physical world, don't you agree?

And humans require logic to understand the things in the physical world.

And the explanations that I provided to this forum are not made up by me;

the question about Gods originated way before Jesus Christ. To shed light on the subject, one of the reasons I don't believe in God is because that the concept of "god" or "gods" was created in the pre-milesian era by a poet name Hesiod (750-700BC), who wrote "works and Days" and gave accounts of religion myths (derived from human imagination). Theogony: myth of creation. Hesiod gave anthropomorphic (human-like) gods:

Apollo: Sun-god
Poseidon: ruler of the seas
Dionysius: god of wine, partying
Aphrodite: god of love
Zeus: Main god
etc.
This Homeric character was the one who provided the foundation for modern religions

for the religions that has claimed so many lives through out history.

I believe that if you were raised believing that any of JRR Tolkien's stories occurred, then you would most likely believe that Frodo was an unselfish Hobbit, and would ask yourself, "what happened to the elves and Hobbits?"

It is in our nature to believe in something, since we are the only animals who have self-awareness. Take for example aborigines, people who had no knowledge of Jehovah (God) or the Bible; they created their own gods, and sacrifices taken place in their names. The majority of people need to believe that they won't die, that they will last forever if they pleased invisible gods.

I believe you are familiar with the mythological gods of ancient Rome, Implicator. If you want me to answer you regarding the comments you made to my arguments, I'll do it so I can clarify some obscured points. However, I can't do it at this moment; it will require time. I need to get back to a paper I'm doing for a class, and begin working on another one before Wednesday. After Wednesday, I will take these arguments a little bit further. Thank you, Implicator and all of you who have attribute something to this forum.

Jason - Welcome to the board. I don't post here much myself, but when I read your opening post (as well as some of the follow-up), I thought I would step in and make some comments.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The main arguments that give philosophers and theologies the evidence that there is no God is mainly because of the many, many, many, many logical contradictions that support such claims.

Let me pick on this a bit. It is important to distinguish between logical contradictions that you find within your perception of what God is like, and logical contradictions that you find within other people's perception of what God is like. For instance, if you perceive that the Bible says that God can do anything at all, but then you perceive that the Bible says that God cannot lie, then there is most definintely a contradiction within your perception of what the Bible says about God. You could, in fact, conclude that no such God could logically exist as you perceive the Bible to be explaining him.


Jason Proudmoore: Reason and logic aren't just my way to try to understand the world that surrounds me; it also applies to everyone. Since reason and logic are what we humans depend on to understand the intricacies of this physical universe, to the world that surrounds us, and then they must also be applied to the concept of God, His words, His motives, and the logic of His own existence.
The comments that I provide to this forum aren't just my opinions, but also the opinions of a great significant number of atheists.



But realize that other people (taking this example further) would not agree with you that the Bible says that God can do anything at all. They might, for instance, claim that their perception of the Bible is that it speaks of a God who can do anything that he desires to do, but that there are many things he cannot do (because they are not consistent with his nature). There is no objective logical contradiction within this type of person's perception of God. In other words, this person could believe that such a God exists, and s/he would not be irrational to do so.

Jason Proudmoore: are not consistent with his nature"? Is this your opinion about God's existence? Or is this a fact?

The point I am making is this (and I think this is why someone else mentions the term "straw man" a little further down): understand that people have their own perceptions of what the Bible says about God, and for you to present your perception as if it is someone elses is to create a straw man. All you can really do is listen to what other people say their perception is, and see if you can find contradictions within their perception. (You might also try to show some objective contradictions, but I would think that would be much more difficult to do.)

Jason Proudmoore: But why doesn't the Bible articulate this and address it properly?
Isn't my logical evidence relevant to debunk your opinions about God's existence?

Jason Proudmoore: You already know why this concept seems wrong; you can't just ask people about their own individual concept of God. If the Bible tells you about what God is, why would the need of different people's perception of God needed? I know that I can find more contradictions from asking them than what I have posted here so far.

Quote:

For instance, we can say that an object can be red all over, but that same object can't be red and black all over. This would contradict the logic and sense of what the object actually is.

More specifically it would be a contradiction to state that "it is the case that the object is black all over" and "it is not the case that the object is black all over", with the added caveat of "at the same time and in the same sense." I suspect this is what you were saying, but I felt a more exact definition of a contradiction was important, considering the example we now turn to ...

Jason Proudmoore: The same object that is black all over can't be any other color but black. Is this difficult to understand?

Quote:

This gives birth to the Argument from Evil that reveals an evil God totally opposed to what a lot of people think:

I am quite familiar with Hume's "Problem of Evil" argument, which is why your post captured my attention. Hume attempts to posit that a God described as all-good and all-powerful cannot exist in universe where evil exists. Hume's problem is that he assumes an all-good God is a God whose every action must be perceived by every person as good. I see you doing the same thing below.

Jason Proudmoore: You are familiar with Hume's "Problem of Evil", but you seem to not understand it.

Quote:

for example, an innocent little girl (about six years old) is trapped in a room engulfed in fire.

First of all, please realize that not everyone would agree with you that this girl is innocent, specifically because many people feel that the Bible presents the "truth" that there are no innocent people at all. This doesn't address the main point of your argument below, but it is a good example of how the assumptions we might make will impact the conclusions we come to. (In other words, rethink your example with a 30-year old serial killer in the room instead of the little girl, and see whether your perception of the situation changes. If it doesn't, then ask yourself why you used the example of an "innocent" little girl.)

Jason Proudmoore: But the Bible says that all children are innocent. Why would I possibly include the example you give me about the 30-year old serial killer if I'm using mine (the example of the innocent little girl) to present a contradiction between God's words that fall into logical conflict?

Quote:

The little girl desperately gets on her knees, closes her eyes and begins to ask God to save her. The girl dies consumed by the fire. Why didn't God save her? If God could not hear her, he's not omnipresent.

In essence, yes. But specifically, if God did not "know" her situation, then he is not omnipresent (all-knowing).

Jason Proudmoore: Why the repetition of my own words? Do you agree or not?

Quote:

If God could hear her but didn't want to save her, He's not all good.

Let's stop right here. Specifically *why* is God not all-good if he does not want to spare her life? Is it because she is "innocent"? Is it because she is a little girl? Is it because she prayed to God to save her? I don't want to assume that I know your reason for stating that God is not good for not saving her, so that is why I am asking you to tell me exactly why he isn't good if he doesn't want to save her.

Jason Proudmoore: God isn't all good, all powerful, or all knowing because of those traits that define Him, which contradict the logic of His own existence. And the answer to your question regarding God's refusal to save the innocent little girl is: (d) all of the above.




If God could hear her, wanted to help her but couldn't, He's not all powerful.

Agreed. If God could not do something he wanted to do, then he is not all powerful (according to the definition of a being who can do everything he wants to do.)

TJason Proudmoore: hen if you agree to this, it means that you contradicting yourself.

Quote:

This means that if God exists He's all three, which means He doesn't exist.

Or (and this is important), it might be the case that one of more of your premises above are incorrect. In other words, if you misapply the example you have given to the attributes of God, then the conclusion is not necessarily that this God does not exist.

Jason Proudmoore: How did I misapply my example? I'd like to know, please.

You can probably see where I am going with this, from what I said above. I think you need to support your contention that God is not all-loving if he decides he does not want to save this girl.

Jason Proudmoore: I don't seem to understand where you are going.

Quote:

Another example is the Book of Job (if you have read it) that reveals a sadistic, selfish God who makes a wager with the devil trying to prove Job's faithfulness by inflicting leprosy, killing all his children, and making him a vagabond, and rewards him later by giving him more than he ever had.

Well first of all, the Bible does present God as selfish - I agree with you on that. Whether or not such selfishness is morally "bad" for this God is another topic for discussion. But I am interested to hear why you think the example of Job makes God out to be "sadistic" (i.e. deriving pleasure specifically from inflicting pain on others.) Does the book of Job state anywhere that God's "pleasure" in his dealing with Job was derived entirely (or even in part) from inflicting pain? If you can't show that, then please realize you have interjected some personal feelings you have about this God - you haven't provided any objective proof that he is sadistic.

Jason Proudmoore: If God allowed the Devil to inflict pain on Job, then God should also be held accountable for this action (doesn't God suppose to protect us from evil?). He allowed the Devil to torture Job to convice the Devil he would still be faithful to Him. And why would God want to convince the Devil that Job would be faithful to Him? Isn't this wager below God's standards, nature?

There are other disagreements I would have about your characterization of the book of Job, but I won't go into them here. All I will do is point out the fact that since I *do* disagree with your perception of what the Bible says about God's actions in the book of Job, that your conclusions as it pertains to your perception of God are not necessarily binding on me, as I have different perceptions of him than you do.

Jason Proudmoore: Enlight me. I have the hunger for knowledge.

If this is the characteristic behavior of a good God, then there is a contradiction of what the Bible tries to depict Him as the all-good, moral God.

Well what does it mean for God to be good? Does it mean he must do things in accordance of what you think it means to be good? The mere fact that there is more than one definition of good floating around out there should lead you to question just what standard of good you should use when judging God, right?

Jason Proudmoore: What is the definition of "good" (not your own definition, but general definition, in accordance to the definition of "good" that applies to humanity).

Quote:

God's actions give a bad moral example to humanity, which tells us that we must do "good" not because we have to, but because of what he can give us in return;

But why would it be any better for us to do good because we "have to". Did you mean "because we should", or did you really mean "have to" (in the sense of having no choice in the matter)?

Jason Proudmoore: "Must"(To be obliged or required by morality), "Should"(Used to express obligation or duty. Used to express probability or expectation), Have (To cause to do something, as by persuasion or compulsion.To cause to be in a specified place or state).

Quote:

that we must do the things that please him, not because they're the right things to do, but because we desperately want the salvation of our souls.

Do you think Job did what he did because he was trying to save his skin, or because he wanted to please God?

Jason Proudmoore: But why do you think Job would want to please God? Didn't Job desire a place in Heaven next to God? I don't think Job wanted to go to Hell.

Quote:

And why do we have to believe in Him anyway?

You don't have to believe in Him. In fact, you don't personally believe in him, do you, even though you choose to capitalize the "H" in "Him"?

Jason Proudmoore: I choose to capitalize the "H" in "Him" because is a gramma rule; it is used to address that fact that I am talking about God (Jehovah), not god Zeus, Mars, nor Aphrodyte (I think you would know about this rule).

Quote:

Why can't we just do the right things without believing in him?

Good question. But a more basic question, I think would be "how do we know what the right things are?"

Jason Proudmoore: I'll tell you a little bit later.

Quote:

Why is it very important to Him?

Do you think the Bible might tell us why that is?


Jason Proudmoore: If the Bible points out why we have to depend on Him, then that would contradict the logics mentioned above.

Quote:

Why is it that if we don't believe in Him, we most likely end up in Hell for all eternity?

Maybe the Bible tells us that as well.

Jason Proudmoore: Again

Quote:

Other arguments among others that prove God's nonexistence are the Allegory of the Cave, The Invisible Gardener, and Socrate's The Apology.

You might want to provide some specifics here, if you are hoping to convince anyone that these arguments actually do what you claim they do.I

Hey Jason, I saw another post of yours and felt the need to reply. So here goes ...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But why do we need to pay the price because "we're not perfect"? Well, this argument has to be traced back to the story of Adam and Eve, since God did not succeed in granting them perfection.

Why do you think it was God's "plan" to grant them perfection? Specifically (which I think you imply) why do you think that God's plan was for them to stay perfect? Many people would say that this was not God's plan at all, and they would say this based on other parts of the Bible."


Jason Proudmoore wrote: Give me proof of your claims. But why wasn't "perfection" in God's plan? He wanted us to be perfect, didn't He?

Quote:

But why God condemned them to a life of misery and denied them paradise?

Because they sinned, no?


Jason Proudmoore wrote: But why a just God condemned Adam and Eve to a life of despair for one mistake? Why didn't He give them a second chance? Isn't God forgiving? This seems to be another contradiction of His nature.

Quote:

What kind of God would do this to His children?

Wouldn't a "just" God exact judgment when someone did something wrong?

Jason Proudmoore wrote: Define Just (I will come to this definition later. Just hold on).

Quote:

Adam and Eve were given the choice of free will.

This is a far reaching statement, depending on what you mean by the phrase "free will". I will assume you are using the most commonly used definition, and because of that I will ask you why you think God granted Adam and Eve (or any of us) free will?"

Jason Proudmoore wrote: What other "commonly used definition" of the concept of "free will" is out there?

Quote:

They were given each other a partner, abundance of food and beauty, but they were also given a limitation or a rule. God asked them to eat from the fruits of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they should die. They ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and they were banned from Paradise and were punished, even the serpent that seduced them into eating the fruit was punished. For the first time Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. But don't you think small children do that? Don't you think small children disobey their parents? The whole Adam and Eve story seems like a metaphor, children who disobey their parents and get punished about it.

Some people perceive it as an analogy, others perceive it to be descriptive of literal events that provide the reason as to why small children (and big adults for that matter) do the wrong thing.


Jason Proudmoore wrote: But why does God talk in riddles? Why not deliver His message plane and simple? Don't you think He has the power over logic? Isn't He the God who can do it all?

Quote:

Nevertheless, why did God lie to them about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, telling them that they would die if they ate from it? Adam and Eve ate from the tree and didn't die, but they were thrown out of Paradise.

Are you telling me Adam and Eve are still alive today, Jason?

But more to the point, isn't there more than one way to perceive the term "die"? Do you realize many believe this refers to a spiritual death, and not an (immediate) physical one? And if this *is* what it refers to, then you have not shown that God lied?


Jason Proudmoore wrote: God specifically said that they (Adam and Eve) ""should die if they ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree; He never said anything about taking away their immortality. Don't you think if He meant that He would take away their immortality, He should've said it and not "you should die"? That's a lie, to me.

Quote:

The story depicts God as a selfish parent who didn't want to see His children grow up; He wanted them to remain children forever, innocent. It seems like they were part of some sort of celestial experimentation, in which God failed to obtain a much desired result.

Once again, realize that though the Bible "seems" to present something a certain way to you, it won't seem the same to someone else.

Jason Proudmoore wrote: But the experimentation observation seems logical if you know what the definition of experimentation" is.

Quote:

But you might say that we shouldn't take the words of the Bible literally. But how should we interpret the words of the bible if not literally?

How does one go about determining whether to take any book literally? Or better yet, what parts of any book should be taken literally? Do we not look at the claims in the book, the context provided, the history of the writers, who it was written to, etc? Don't you think we can use these same tools in evaluating the Bible?"

Jason Proudmoore wrote: Don't you think laws are supposed to be taken literally? If the Bible is the book of all the laws that we must follow in order to live our lives in total rejoice (in accordance to God), then these laws are not clearly written.

Quote:

Wasn't Jesus son to Mary? Didn't Moses free his people? Didn't Satan betray God? Didn't Kane kill Abel?

The Bible certainly seems to say all of these things, yes.

Jason Proudmoore wrote: Do you give me credit here? These ideas are literally articulated.

Quote:

But don't you think that if God had the ability to create good in this world also created evil, since He created every thing in the physical world?

I think the Bible presents a God who is ultimately responsible (not necessarily morally, but certainly creatively) for everything that exists. So yes, it is fair to say that evil only exists because God (in some sense) desires that it exist.

Quote:

About the example I gave previously about the little girl who died in the fire, if she is an innocent girl and is free of sin (she's is innocent because the Bible says that a child under seven years of age is innocent. It's at seven when he or she begins to know what's good and evil) why God allowed her to die such a brutal death?

Where does the Bible say this again - the part about being seven, that is?

Jason Proudmoore wrote: I thought you knew this all alone.

Quote:

If the fire was an accident or product of someone's evilness, it was a high price to pay, don't you think?

Quote:

If God lives outside time, differently than we live here in the physical world, then He would be wise enough to make us understand what he truly wants- articulate his purpose which includes us, without any contradictions:

Wise enough, or certainly powerful enough, no? So if we posit a God that is powerful enough to make us understand what he wants, and yet we do not all understand what he wants, then maybe this God's ultimate desire is not that everyone truly understand (i.e. and accept) what he wants.

Jason Proudmoore wrote: "Wise enough," since the word of the Bible (His words) contradict the premises which they all stand for, of His objectives toward humanity.

Quote:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

More to the point ... therefore, it is logically contradictory for a God to exist who fits your definition and understanding of the attributes being discussed. Don't sell other definitions/understandings short.


Jason Proudmoore wrote: Again, this isn't my definition; it's logic. How am I suppose to determine the existence of God and understand it? Just by feeling Him in me?

Quote:

About the Ten Commandments, how can it be that if a man lusted for a woman (thought about having her) is the same as raping her, which leads to burning in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think that's too extreme? Just by thinking about wanting a woman carnally, the punishment is the same as if he raped her.

My perception is that the Bible is saying that such an act as this makes one "worthy" of spending an eternity in Hell, but that it doesn't necessitate that you do.

Jason Proudmoore wrote: "Your perception"? Why does it have to be your perception? Weren't the Ten Commandments intended for all humanity?

Quote:

Don't you think that logically a man would choose the second one if he had nothing to lose, if he couldn't stop thinking about a woman in such way? If he's going to Hell and burn for all eternity anyways, he might as well take the second choice. But what would stop him from doing so? But just having such sinful thought will guarantee him a spot in Hell? But he can always repent himself and he would be saved. But what if he dies before he repented himself? He would go to Hell as the Bible states it. And what stop a lot of atheists from taking the second choice? (That's a question for another topic).

OK, let's leave that one for another topic, then I

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Since there is no tangible, clear evidence for God's existence, atheists don't accept the accounts of the Bible as convincing proof.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. That's like saying "since there is no clear evidence of Jason's existence, I won't believe any claims by a person who says they have a letter from him." By making the claim you have above, you are dismissing any evidence that a person might try to present to you as a claim for the existence of God. In short, you are being closed minded.


Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I can't know that certain people exist because of letters they wrote. But I can always assume that they wrote those letters, and therefore, believe that they exist. But why is it a big problem to assume something that you're not quite sure about?

Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to consider the Bible first, and then conclude whether or not you feel God exists?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
"Feel that God exists"? Feel? How can we prove something by feeling alone?

Quote:

There is quite a dilemma concerning the credibility of God's existence using the Bible as the only source to prove that God truly exists. Since philosophers and theologies need concrete confirmation (more than one source) to prove that certain historical statements are true, they have to rely on comparison of evidence between distinctive sources.

You do realize that the Bible is a collection of books, coming from different sources, right? Regardless, I think you are touching on a much larger issue here - what exactly would convince a person that God exists, and does that vary from person to person?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
We can prove the existence of God through logical, physical evidence.

Quote:

For example: how do we know that Christopher Columbus made an expedition to the Americas? Better yet, how do we know that Columbus really existed? It's simple; we don't know.

We don't know? Why not? What is "missing" that you think would be required in order for us to know

Quote:

However, there is evidence that supports Columbus really existed: Christopher Columbus kept with him log books that were used to record his entire voyage to the new world. The entries from those log books were compared with letters Columbus wrote to Queen Isabella (which were confirmed to be his handwriting), and many other documents found in Spain that state Columbus's accounts are true, and therefore, proving the great possibility of his existence.

So what you are saying, it seems, is that we can have some level of confidence that Columbus existed because of:

A) Some documents (logs and letters) which are signed by a person claiming to be Columbus (can't assume it really *is* Columbus though, as that would beg the question), the signatures and writing style which are consistent

B) Other documents which state that these documents which are signed by the person in question were actually written by him, implying that he really exised

Quote:

On the other hand, how do we confirm the existence of Jesus Christ (or any other account of the Bible for that matter)? What are the physical indications that prove Jesus existed? Again, we don't know. The only physical evidence that can prove that Jesus Christ was real is through the Bible.

But if you use the criteria above and accept that it is most likely the case that Columbus existed, why don't you accept the existence of God and Jesus? Is it because there are no letters written in the hand of God or Jesus? And if that is the case, how could you ever have confidence that a person existed if they themselves never wrote anything (or if we never found anything they wrote)?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I can't accept the existence of Jesus Christ because there isn't any physical evidence that prove he ever existed. The credibility of his existence is in question.

Quote:

Since the Bible doesn't have any other documentation that supports its historical accounts, its content fails as a reliable source.

Would it make a difference if someone gave you the individual books of the Bible (written by different people at different times in different lanauges) as individually bound documents, rather than all bound together into one? Conversely, what if someone took all of the documents about Columbus you refer to above and bound them into one "Bible" about Columbus? Would that change your mind about his existence?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
your evidence would only prove that the words of the Bible were written by ancient people, not prove the existence of God.

Quote:

And how do we know that dinosaurs existed? Or better yet, how do we know evolution exists?

Well, according to you, we don't know dinosaurs exist or that evolution "exists" (is a true theory), right? Maybe I missed something above, but it seems like you would claim that we can't really know anything at all, right?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Don't we have physical evidence of very old bones that resemble the likeness of monsters (wait, the word dinosaur "means "monstruousr")?

Quote:

How do we know that everything is in constant change, that everything that we see here won't stay the same forever? (See the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which explains how everything is changing). The bones and fossils of ancient animals have been discovered through out the world, within sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks provide us with successive layers of changes in the environment that tell the account of life being originated in water, from simple organisms that resemble fish, to complex organism that walk on land, like dinosaurs. And how religion takes the physical evidence of dinosaurs into account? What do religious people say about the existence of dinosaurs?

I'm at a loss here as to what point you are making, sorry.


Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I am giving you the logical theory about why there is not God; I'm explaining them by providing examples, logical ones

Quote:

And while natural phenomena can easily be explained through science, religion doesn't explain them but associates them to God's work.

I think many would say religion "explains" them by appealing to God. That is, some would appeal to natural causes as the ultimate explanation behind phenomena, while others would appeal to a supernatural cause as the ultimate explanation behind that same phenomena.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
What?!!
Can you elaborate more? I don't quite get it.

Quote:

Science has proven (and still proves) the mysteries of the world through scientific experimentations. To make God more relevant to the Biblical accounts, religious people deem scientific discoveries applicable to the existence of God, which seems more irrelevant than logical. The majority of people don't associate bad weather and diseases to curses, mental disease to possession by devils, earthquakes, storms, and eclipses to angry gods. Atheists believe that the same principle that has discovered those inconsistencies in the majority of the world's ancient religions must continually be implemented today to prove that the existence of God is irrelevant. It must be proven the same way, through science.

Why? Why must everything (which is what you seem to be implying) be proven through science? Can you prove that science gives us true results in all questions that are asked of it? Can you prove that science is even theoretically able to accurately answer all the questions we can ask?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Ok, let me explain this to you: don't you think that science has explain a great number of entities that was still obscured before the Enlightenment Era? For example, beofe the Enlightenment Era, people didn't know that microbes can invade our bodies and make us sick (they attribute to the supernatural); they didn't know about genetics, how this concept is used now to benefit humanity; and how the concept of insanity opposes the concept of possession of devils (you can even find numerous examples than these).

Quote:

Atheists think that religious miracles, just like the majority of events in the Bible, are the product of empirical knowledge. Scientists think that levitation is not possible because it would be a violation of the physical laws of the universe. Since the physical laws of nature are the basic rules about how thins happen, it had led scientist to experiment upon religious events that are regarded as impossible, such as walking on water, levitation, and resurrection.

But how could science ever determine whether the ultimate cause of an event was natural or supernatural, since science doesn't consider the supernatural? In other words, should we assume that since there may be a scientific explanation for an event, that that explanation is neccesarily true (or better stated, complete)?


Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Don't misinterpret what I say here. Don't get me wrong. Science isn't always right. In the process of scientific experimentations, there are things that can go wrong. But, scientists call a theory "probable" when there is logical poof of its probability.

Quote:

Religions believe that life here on Earth originated approximately five thousand years ago, but scientists have proven that opposite, that life has been here for millions and millions of years.

You are guilty of a bit of broadbrushing here, Jason. There are groups of people even within the same religion who don't agree on how long ago life appeared here. And when you claim that science has proven life has been here much longer than (certain groups of people within certain) religions claim, does that mean that we "know" that the conclusion science has reached is actually true?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Yes, I'm guilty. I agree with you. I should've said that the Biblical history presents us that life originated here about 5,000 years ago.

Quote:

This brings us to Darwin's theory of evolution. As many of us know Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more logical than the hypothesis stated by many religions that suggest that the intervention of God was what started life on this planet.

But many other people "know" that certain religious explanations are more logical than Darwin's theory.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Tell me a couple of "logical" explanations from other people. This would seem interesting to me.


See the problem?

You implied above that we can't know something as simple as the existence of Columbus, but now you claim we know that evolution is much more logical than creation, for instance. Why do you feel one is more logical than the other?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The logical and reasonal proofs that don't contradict the theory of anything.

Quote:

To illustrate Darwin's theory of evolution, first it most be understood properly.

I'm all ears

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution must be understood properly, Implicator.

Quote:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution suggests that life originated here on Earth thanks to the chemical compounds that were very abundant: Carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, and Methane. These elements fused with other elements and formed new compounds. This process, according to Darwin, took a very long time to happen (millions of years). Since the chemical elements motioned above were very common, very distinct forms of amino acids were formed, and therefore, Hemoglobin, the building block for simple cell organisms came into existence.

I'm still listening ...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
You mean "reading." you're reading.

Quote:

But many religious people argue that the process of life on Earth is very unlikely, that it must have been made by a more intelligent, wiser, artistic mind: God. They also believe that the chances for life to be abundant here on Earth must have not taken place all by random events of the cosmos, but the work of God was involved. It is said that the probability for life to thrive on this planet is one in a trillion. If Earth was a little bit closer to the sun, life here could've not taken place. If Earth were a little farther from the sun, life could've never existed. This planet is just in the right place for life to exist. Since probability is pretty much involved in all this, a hypothetical scenario of probability must be taken in consideration:

still listening ...

Quote:

The probability scenario is this: a person is placed in a room (lets assume that this person has been granted immortality. He can't die for all we know). The room is filled with one hundred billion dollars in pennies (that would amount to a trillion pennies). The name of this person is written on the back of one penny. The penny (with the name of the person written on the back) is thrown with the rest of the pennies (The objective of this person is to find the penny that has his name written on it, using the probability application. Since the chance to find the coin is one in one trillion, that person must take one coin from the pile, one at the time, must take a look at it, and then put back in the bunch.). How long do you think will take that person to pick from the pile of coins the only coin with his name written on it? This process could take a pretty long, long time, perhaps millions of years, perhaps more. But the only thing is that he has all the time in the world to find that coin. The same probability principle of this hypothetical example applies to the random event that created this planet in its actual shape and distance from the sun, the water that happened to form our seas, and the elements necessary for life to thrive.

I think you underestimate the problem that the argument from statistical impossibility presents to you, based on the analogy you present. But rather than delve into why (this post is already extremely long) I would simply say that it is entirely possible that such a thing occur, but that the odds are extremely unlikely that it did occur given any amount of time. Furthermore, you still need to explain the existence of the room, the coins, the person, the laws governing his actions, etc. in order to explain the existence of the building blocks required for things to get going.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
How do I underestimate the problem" of this example?
The coin found wasn't attributed to any amount of time given to this possibility; the coin had all the time in the known physical universe to be found, not given an exact amount of time. And why would I have to explain the existence of eachproperty in my example if I said that it's just a probability scenario to explain my point?


This could be a thread in and of itself (and probably is, somewhere else on this board.)

Quote:

And what is the probability of me existing here today? Since DNA is what makes me (us) who I am (we are), then the chances of me existing here today is pretty slim. What if my mother didn't marry my father? Do you think I would still exist here to day if DNA is what makes me the person I am, my hair, the color of my eyes and skin? Even if my mom still conceived a child before I was born, that doesn't mean I would still exist. I have a brother and a sister, and I'm neither one of them. The right sperm and egg had to be fertilized form my exact DNA, which made me the person who I am today. I don't think that if my sister didn't marry her husband, my niece could still exist in the body of another person with different DNA. How could it be the other way? How could she be someone else, with different DNA? And how could I be someone else if my mom didn't marry my dad, the right sperm and the right egg didn't fertilize to form my DNA? Even if I died and part of me was taken to clone an exact duplicate of me, that new being wouldn't be me, either.

And yet you do exist (I assume). Maybe you could draw a conclusion for me here, because I don't see how this analogy helps your cause.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
The same analogy that presents that science can prove the existence of anything that falls into reason and logic. How many people [do you think] aren't born every day? A great amount. You and I are pretty lucky to be born, Implicator.

Quote:

The argument about the existence of God is a major debate between religious institutions and atheists. But while future new events in this universe continue to be explained through science, the credibility surrounding today's religions will most likely shrivel like ancient Romans' religious principles.

Unlikely. Religions had explained just about every past event, and yet that didn't stop science as a methodology from developing. The point is, the power to explain does not necessitate the power to know. There are many ways of explaining the events we see around us, but knowing which explanation is *right* is really what matters, no?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
You couldn't have said it better. Religion had explained many, many past events in its own way, through metaphors and riddles, but where are the logical explanations that this world depend upon to be understood by us?

Quote:

Yet, that prediction is far too distant in the future. In order for such predictions to occur, we must first lose the reigns that attach us to the absurdity of historical events that make us believe in mythological accounts filled with contradictions. When we are freed from those beliefs and acquired *a priori knowledge*, we will see the world from different perspectives.

So knowledge *is* possible, you think? And a priori (with no prior experience) knowledge is possible? How do you think this is an attainable goal?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Probably this goal would be met if you read the conclusion.

Quote:

Understanding the world in which we live in and teaching our own children the natural laws of the universe, the propagation of ignorance in our society would diminish, or probably will be eradicated. And understanding the entities that created us will assist future generations to understand who we are, where we came from and where we going, and we would not worry about doing the right thing just to please an invisible God for the salvation of our souls, but we will do the right thing because we will have reach another state in our human evolution, the state of total awareness.

How do you determine what is right and wrong, Jason? I

The title of this thread is absurd. You can't prove something's non-existance.
If you think that makes any sense you have been listening to too many apologists.
What next...an argument for the non-existance of flying pocket-hippos?

I've just seen one!