Assertion: The existence of God is PROVABLE.

Originally posted by buffalobill
All hail the Church of Bob!
Look, you can't prove the non-existence of something. It is up to the claimant to prove or at least show the probability of its existence.

I disagree. Although what it means to prove something in the real world may be disputed, I personally believe that a sufficiently thorough search of my refrigerator constitutes proof that there are no pink unicorns hiding in it.
I similarly think that the existence of a significant amount of suffering constitutes proof that a benevolent and omnipontent God does not exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I similarly think that the existence of a significant amount of suffering constitutes proof that a benevolent and omnipontent God does not exist.

Hmm, surely this disproves the benevolence but not the God?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
You are looking at the situation from "damage control" point of view. God created humans, who he found to be naughty later. He then went to such an extent of telling them to be good; but failing this went on to kill them off. He event went to the extent of sending his own son to save us all (according to the bible).

But this makes no sense. God is suppo ...[text shortened]... ou are saying that god wants to show off his powers, then that's a different story.......

You assume that God did not create "good" people from the beginning. The assumption is that because God allowed his creation to sin when he knew they would sin that he was, in fact, creating sin. Could it be though that with the complexity of free will that the accountability lies soley with his creation rather than God himself? If God exists, are any of us accountable for our actions or can we all blame God for creating me this way?

Originally posted by whodey
You assume that God did not create "good" people from the beginning. The assumption is that because God allowed his creation to sin when he knew they would sin that he was, in fact, creating sin. Could it be though that with the complexity of free will that the accountability lies soley with his creation rather than God himself? If God exists, are any of us accountable for our actions or can we all blame God for creating me this way?

If god is omniscient, unless you attribute amorality to him, the accountability is his. Talk of the complexities of free will are diversionary and insubstantial.

Originally posted by Starrman
If god is omniscient, unless you attribute amorality to him, the accountability is his. Talk of the complexities of free will are diversionary and insubstantial.

No, talk of the complexities of free will are the key.

I have talked about this before and I guess I will do it again. One of the keys is the subject of love. God is said to be a God of love and love demands free will. If God is in direct control of such free will via creating them that way, then, in fact, free will does not exist. You might also say that love does not exist as well. He simply made people to love him or reject him much in the same way I might be able to force someone I love to love me back if I had the power to do so. If God be a God of love and is capable of doing anything surely God is able to create in us free will in which we alone are accountable.

Originally posted by buffalobill
Hmm, surely this disproves the benevolence but not the God?

It disproves the benevolent God. If you allow the definition of God to be infinitely flexible then yes, no-one can disprove it as it is a meaningless word anyway.
Christians for example define God as having certain attributes. If I can show that a being does not exist with just one or a subset of those attributes then God as defined by them, does not exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It disproves the benevolent God. If you allow the definition of God to be infinitely flexible then yes, no-one can disprove it as it is a meaningless word anyway.
Christians for example define God as having certain attributes. If I can show that a being does not exist with just one or a subset of those attributes then God as defined by them, does not exist.

It might be the word 'God' that's flexible. However, it might also be the word 'benevolent'. You interpret the word 'benevolent' as meaning that a benevolent God would not allow certain things to happen. Another person might not take 'benevolent' to mean any such thing.

Consider the word 'benevolent' applied to an ordinary human being, and consider what you would require that person to achieve. I think your interpretation of a 'benevolent God' is also linked to ideas of God's omnipotence - that he is in a position to prevent things.

All of which is to say that there are so many things open to interpretation in any language that we might choose to use, it's a battle to even get as far as establishing what we are trying to prove or disprove.

Originally posted by amannion
Of course it's a coincidence.

Consider studies purporting to show psychic abilities in humans. People recount thinking about a friend of theirs, only to have that friend actually call them on the phone at that instant. Wow, freaky, right?
Wrong.
That's a result of our ability to filter out positive results and dimiss negatives in our never ending effor ...[text shortened]... e ignore them and focus on the positives.

Likewise for prophesies like the one you mention.

Other coincidences to ignore include the Biblical God having one of the oldest recorded religions on record aside from Hinduism in regards to current religions of today. The earliest recorded mention of Hinduism was in 1500 BCE as where Abraham lived in 1800 BCE and Moses made the religion official via the Torah in 1400 BCE.

Also ignore the fact that the Bible is the only religious text to have a scientific discipline associated with it which is Biblical archeology.

Also ignore the fact that three major religions of today are based upon the God of Abraham which are Judiasm, Chrisitanity, and Islam. This is not to mention the other lesser branches such as JW's, Mormons, etc.

Also ignore the fact that a myriad of Biblical prophesies about the Messiah have come about including Daniel 9:24-27 which is a timetable during Daniels day hundreds of years prior of the life of Christ that points directly to the exact time Christ walked the earth. Granted the timetable is obscure when read today, however, rabbis wrote in the Tulmud hundreds of years after Christ walked the earth that the Messiah should have come during the time of Jesus lived but decided the Messiah did not come because of the "sinfulness" of Israel because they rejected Christ as their Messiah. If anyone can interpret the prophesy time table in Daniel correctly it stands to reason that they would be the scholars to ask.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm

Also ignore the fact that the current situation in the Middle East lends itself to fulfilling a myriad of prophesies concerning end times in and around the Holy Land.

Yes, I would have to say that believing in the God of the Bible is akin to believing in the speghetti Monster and is nothing more than pure coincidence. 😛

Originally posted by orfeo
It might be the word 'God' that's flexible. However, it might also be the word 'benevolent'. You interpret the word 'benevolent' as meaning that a benevolent God would not allow certain things to happen. Another person might not take 'benevolent' to mean any such thing.

Consider the word 'benevolent' applied to an ordinary human being, and consider what ...[text shortened]... attle to even get as far as establishing what we are trying to prove or disprove.

Nevertheless, my observation of the world constitutes proof that the God described by Christians and as understood by me does not exist.
What is interesting is that if words are as flexible as you say, then when a Christian says "God exists" then he is not saying anything meaningful until a significant amount of definitions are made and agreed upon.

Originally posted by whodey
No, talk of the complexities of free will are the key.

I have talked about this before and I guess I will do it again. One of the keys is the subject of love. God is said to be a God of love and love demands free will. If God is in direct control of such free will via creating them that way, then, in fact, free will does not exist. You might also say ...[text shortened]... f doing anything surely God is able to create in us free will in which we alone are accountable.

If god is omniscient then your argument crumbles. To know and not act is either negligent and amoral, or bordering on cruel, either way it cannot be reconciled with a 'god of love'. Your position is inconsistent with the nature of god you suggest.

Besides that, how does love necessarily require free will? You are falsely suggesting that love and free will are inextricable and to lose one is to lose the other, yet you have offered no reasoning for asssuming this claim.

Originally posted by whodey
You assume that God did not create "good" people from the beginning. The assumption is that because God allowed his creation to sin when he knew they would sin that he was, in fact, creating sin. Could it be though that with the complexity of free will that the accountability lies soley with his creation rather than God himself? If God exists, are any of us accountable for our actions or can we all blame God for creating me this way?

The god of the bible controls everything. He has knowledge of everything. He can do anything. He foresaw what would happen thousand of years before it happened. I'm saying that he being a know-it-all, and able to do all, could have done something from the very beginning before it all happened.

And again that famous two words "free will". Why do you keep saying that we have that? My very existence; what I'm going to do; how I'm going to do it; tomorrow; the day after; when I die, all this are already foreseen by god. He knows exactly what, how, where etc it's going to happen. How then do you still cling to the notion that we have free will? There is nothing I can do about it.

So to answer your question, yes, I do blame god for creating me this way. He could have done it differently. But then again, to blame god is ridiculous. That's why I'm saying that the god of the bible makes no sense. Even if there is a god, it is not the one found in the bible.

Originally posted by Starrman
If god is omniscient then your argument crumbles. To know and not act is either negligent and amoral, or bordering on cruel, either way it cannot be reconciled with a 'god of love'. Your position is inconsistent with the nature of god you suggest.

Besides that, how does love necessarily require free will? You are falsely suggesting that love and free ...[text shortened]... to lose one is to lose the other, yet you have offered no reasoning for asssuming this claim.

The claim the love demands free will is common sense. Have you ever had someone in your life who tried to make you love them? I have and I can tell you that the instincitve reaction is to push them away. The idea behind love is demonstrating your love for another in some way and hope that it is recipricated, not demanded.

You atheists, on the one hand, say God should be capable of anything, EXCEPT giving us free will, which would mean we alone are accountable for our actions, not God. You then further assume that being able to reject him, which brings death and suffering, is a sign of cruelty. Perhaps you would like being forced to serve him as your free will is extracted from you?

Originally posted by whodey
The claim the love demands free will is common sense. Have you ever had someone in your life who tried to make you love them? I have and I can tell you that the instincitve reaction is to push them away. The idea behind love is demonstrating your love for another in some way and hope that it is recipricated, not demanded.

You atheists, on the one hand, ...[text shortened]... elty. Perhaps you would like being forced to serve him as your free will is extracted from you?

Not really. God does indirectly force us to love him and worship him. How he does it is quite childish, really. He insists that the choice is ours. It's up to you to love me or not. It's up to you to worship me or not. But if you choose not to love me, then I won't welcome you into heaven.

If god really loves us, then that love should be unconditional. Only then you can claim that he really, really loves us. A sensible god should still welcome us, even if we don't worship him, if we have done good deeds during our lifetime. After all, isn't being good the first priority? Imagine a guy being very kind and always helping others throughout his life. He doesn't cheat others, earn an honest living etc. But he doesn't believe in god. So what you're saying, all those good deeds means nothing! The most important thing for god is that we MUST love him and worship him. What a conceited being he is. And you still maintain that we have free will; that we are free not to love him. The fact is we don't have such free will!

God should know that we are only humans, we are not perfect beings. We do good, we do bad. At the end of the day, if we have done more good than bad, then we deserve to be in heaven. Imagine that poor guy in the above example ending up in hell for eternity. You expect me to accept that as sensible?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Not really. God does indirectly force us to love him and worship him. How he does it is quite childish, really. He insists that the choice is ours. It's up to you to love me or not. It's up to you to worship me or not. But if you choose not to love me, then I won't welcome you into heaven.

If god really loves us, then that love should be unconditional. above example ending up in hell for eternity. You expect me to accept that as sensible?

That is one way of looking at things. Another way of looking at things is that God is the source of life and respects our free will. Therefore, when we push him aside what do we have left? Although man is a fallen race we are still faced with the same delimma Adam and Eve faced in the garden of Eden. Shall we be as gods unto ourselves or shall we serve our Creator and serve him as our God?

Originally posted by whodey
That is one way of looking at things. Another way of looking at things is that God is the source of life and respects our free will. Therefore, when we push him aside what do we have left? Although man is a fallen race we are still faced with the same delimma Adam and Eve faced in the garden of Eden. Shall we be as gods unto ourselves or shall we serve our Creator and serve him as our God?

Yes, you are beginning to get the idea. Indeed, that very disturbing question: shall we serve our Creator and serve him as our God? When you religious people ask that question, what you are really doing is not asking us what to do; you are actually telling us what to do. In fact, it is not even a question!

Ask yourself, that kind-hearted man who spent his entire life being kind and helping others. And he ends up in hell for eternity because he didn't believe in god. All those good deeds means nothing, zilch!