• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

At present we seem not to even have proof of the existence of the OP.

They promise so much but deliver so little....
 
Just because Theists need no proof at all for God, they have to convince themselves that no amount of proof will be enough for Atheists - which, of course, is pure BS.
If the Rapture happened tomorrow, that would work as very strong evidence.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Just because Theists need no proof at all for God, they have to convince themselves that no amount of proof will be enough for Atheists - which, of course, is pure BS.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have trouble imagining what could be enough proof. The idea of god is so implausible to me that I feel I would always have a more plausible theory at hand.

For example, I find the idea that we're all in a computer simulation to be completely absurd. I think it's a dumb idea with no chance of being true... and yet I find it more likely than god. That means that even if I was sure I wasn't hallucinating or something I would still prefer "those aren't miracles, they're cheat codes" as an explanation. If neither can be conclusively proved, the Matrix wins by virtue of still being a naturalistic explanation.

If there was some logical proof that might convince me, but I don't think physical evidence would.
 
It seems to me that it must in principle be possible to prove the existence of an omnipotent god should one exist; the principle is inherent in the definition of the word "omnipotent," because a god who could not prove his existence to me would not be omnipotent. However, in practical terms that's simply a worthless tautology. The fact that a proof may exist in principle has no bearing on the claim that a proof actually exists.

Dave
 
Buddha said:
This thread has been split to its own topic.
Posted By: Loss Leader




It is possible in principle to provide an empirical proof that God exists. However, not everyone will accept it, everything depends on individual's personal preferences.

This is a tale of two atheists, a smart one and a mediocre one, who met God. "Give us a proof that you are the Creator, " said one of them. "All right. I will snap my fingers and a new universe will come to be, " said God. " So God snapped his fingers and a new universe appeared. "This is a hallucination. You either spiked my drink with LSD or something else, or hypnotized me without my consent, " said the mediocre atheist. "God turned to the smart atheist and said, "What do you think?" "Everything is real here, there is no hallucination. You snapped your fingers and the universe appeared, as you predicted. But this was just a coincidence, the new universe would have came out of nothing even if we have not had this conversation. I know, the chance of such coincidence is minimal, but it is still not zero, " said the smart atheist. "I must give you a credit for saying this. Logically speaking, you are right," said God.

I can do better that giving an empirical proof that the Creator exists -- I can use the methods of deductive logic to prove that the Creator exists. To me existence of God is not a matter of faith but of logical necessity.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz!

You sure have failed.

First, you assume that there is only one Creator. After all, if there actually one Creator of some sort, then there may well be two such Creators. Or three, or four, or millions, or billions of other Creators as well.

Second, even if there actually is such a Creator as you describe, then one needs to ask what did this Creator come from. Your fairy tale does not provide any such data.

Third, your Creator must have a rather poor intellect because it cannot provide conclusive evidence of his own powers to us mere mortals. I (and I expect that many others here on the Forum and elsewhere) would expect better of a Creator of the universe.

So if and when, you actually can provide this "logical necessigy" of yours, then please share it with the rest of us.

Thanks much.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
At present we seem not to even have proof of the existence of the OP.

They promise so much but deliver so little....
Click to expand...


To be fair, the "OP" didn't start this thread... Loss Leader did

"This thread has been split to its own topic."

Although I should also point out that the "OP" hasn't responded in the original thread this one was split from either.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Why ever did he make creeping things, i.e. insects, AFTER humans? What's that about?
Click to expand...
He didn't. The misarrangement of Day 6 was mine.

Folks, it takes about two minutes to read Genesis 1. It's literally the first thing in the whole bible. I mean, you should certainly read as much of the Bible as you can stand, especially if you want to argue against it, but the first chapter is such a small effort. There are many copies online.
 
arthwollipot said:
He didn't. The misarrangement of Day 6 was mine.

Folks, it takes about two minutes to read Genesis 1. It's literally the first thing in the whole bible. I mean, you should certainly read as much of the Bible as you can stand, especially if you want to argue against it, but the first chapter is such a small effort. There are many copies online.
Click to expand...

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
smartcooky said:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Click to expand...
Sure, but personally I would hesitate to refer to Christians as "the enemy".
 
JayUtah said:
First he assumes that God and Creator are the same thing, or mean the same thing. It goes back to the first inevitable stumble: define "God" non-axiomatically.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I can't imagine a proof of the existence of God because I've never heard a self-consistent definition of the word. So that's step one of that.
 
arthwollipot said:
He didn't. The misarrangement of Day 6 was mine.

Folks, it takes about two minutes to read Genesis 1. It's literally the first thing in the whole bible. I mean, you should certainly read as much of the Bible as you can stand, especially if you want to argue against it, but the first chapter is such a small effort. There are many copies online.
Click to expand...
And when you've read Genesis 1 there's a different account of the creation in Genesis 2, which contradicts the account in Genesis 1.
 
Craig B said:
And when you've read Genesis 1 there's a different account of the creation in Genesis 2, which contradicts the account in Genesis 1.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.

Genesis 1 is about how God created all the stuff. Genesis 2 goes into detail about one particular act of creation - that of people - man and woman. Only someone with a vested interest in promoting the worst possible interpretation could suggest otherwise.

There's plenty of ************ in the Bible without inventing more of it.
 
arthwollipot said:
No it doesn't.

Genesis 1 is about how God created all the stuff. Genesis 2 goes into detail about one particular act of creation - that of people - man and woman. Only someone with a vested interest in promoting the worst possible interpretation could suggest otherwise.

There's plenty of ************ in the Bible without inventing more of it.
Click to expand...

I venture to disagree. The timelines are quite different.
http://www.godofevolution.com/as-different-as-morning-and-evening-genesis-1-and-2-contradictions/
 
Buddha said:
It is possible in principle to provide an empirical proof that God exists. <gibber snip>.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.
If you have such a "proof" go ahead and show it. Otherwise you just spouting god-bothering nonsense.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I venture to disagree. The timelines are quite different.
http://www.godofevolution.com/as-different-as-morning-and-evening-genesis-1-and-2-contradictions/
Click to expand...
The person in the link is doing theology. Who is to say who is right? But if he is taking a literal view of the text, Gen 1 and Gen 2 don't actually contradict.

For example, from the link:

This is the first major contradiction in the literalist view. Genesis 2:9 says, “The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground — trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food,” after he made man (we haven’t even gotten to woman yet). But Genesis 1:24-31 provides no hint that additional plants or trees were made on the sixth day; all that had already been said and done, as it were.

Except that Gen 2 talks about "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew".

The word "field" has the sense of "cultivated land", which is implied in the Garden that God creates in Gen 2. There were no fields mentioned in Gen 1. Gen 2 takes place after Gen 1.

The author could argue that he understands the TRUE meaning of the Bible, but who is to say who is right? The Bible gives a lot of wriggle room on a whole lot of topics.

Also:

Skipping down to Genesis 2:18-19, God remarks that it’s not good for man to be alone, and so he then, at that point, proceeds to form “every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens,” even though these also were supposed to have already been made, and on different days — not at the same time.

Not "beasts of the field", though. Gen 1 describes them as "beasts of the earth". Different? Same? Who can say who is correct? The author might argue that God made the birds of the heavens twice, but so what? A special creation for the Garden -- who is to say God didn't do that? The Bible?

Also:

But in Batten’s effort to “take God at his word,” he has to omit part of it. He fails to note the more important reason Genesis 2:5 gives for why plants hadn’t yet appeared: because “the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land.” Cultivated plants may need someone to work the ground, but all plants need water, Dr. Batten. With your Ph.D., I would have guessed you already knew that.

Nope again. Though no rain before then, "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Gen 2:6)

That's not to say there aren't contradictions in the Bible -- there are, but far far fewer than most people think. To make the case in most cases requires the person to do theology, since they are providing their own interpretation of the ancient texts. And when it comes to theology, who is to say who is correct? If taken literally, there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 creation accounts.

What I think happened is that Gen 1 creation myth was made a long time before Judaism existed, and was a story showing how the ancient minor gods in the area each created men in their image. One of those minor gods was the Jewish god. Gen 2 was the specific story of the Jewish god's creation. Later, when that god became The God, the stories were harmonized and collected into the Bible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom