Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly you do care about whether or not you can admit that you are wrong. Your example was badly chosen, did not illustrate your point and was intended to be deceptive. But you cant seem to simply admit that and move on.

You have also totally failed to provide any convincing argument to back up your ridiculous claim that all scientific knowledge is es ...[text shortened]... gods that would be rather different from the God you refer to. So once again you are wrong.

Clearly you do care about whether or not you can admit that you are wrong.
Of course I care. Only a person without integrity wouldn't. And, being a person with the same, I can admit when I am wrong. In this case, I am not, despite your best efforts of putting words in my mouth and then lambasting me for the same.

Your example was badly chosen, did not illustrate your point and was intended to be deceptive.
Three claims, three strikes.

You have also totally failed to provide any convincing argument to back up your ridiculous claim that all scientific knowledge is essentially false due to its incompleteness.
Either I am really, really bad at making my point as clear as necessary, or you are really, really bad at getting the same. In re-reading all of my posts herein, I am going with the latter over the former.

As has been stated in every manner possible--- save smoke signals--- man's knowledge in general is faulty. While he may know some things within certain fields, he is constantly having to correct his perspective on the things he thinks he knows. Does that make all of his knowledge false by a matter of course? If that's the way you wish to read it--- and it appears that you do--- then I guess it does.

The fact remains (and this isn't open to interpretation) that man discovers daily how wrong he was just the day before, as the examples I offered attest.

Experts tell us to stay away from wine. Experts tell us to drink wine in order to remain healthy. Experts tell us to drink eight glasses of water a day. Experts tell us we don't need eight glasses a day, we can get our water from all other sources of food and drink. Experts tell us the solar system has nine planets. Experts tell us the solar system really only has eight. Experts tell us that diseases are demons. Experts tell us...

Either your have complete knowledge of Gods word, or your knowledge is "--- emphatically--- incorrect by virtue of its incompleteness." See how silly it is now?
I do have complete knowledge of God's word. You may have a copy of it in your possession, even. It is called the Bible. Everything we need to know about Him and the spiritual life is found therein.

I am absolutely sure that there are plenty of conscious people on this planet who have never heard of nor thought of the concept of a God...
And now who is making ridicuous statements that are totally at odds with reality?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The fact remains (and this isn't open to interpretation) that man discovers daily how wrong he was just the day before, as the examples I offered attest.

The example you offered made that claim, but as has been shown to you already, the example did not fit the claim. If I can recite the alphabet from a up to m today and tomorrow I can recite it up to z, my knowledge has increased. You are making the claim that my previous knowledge was incorrect due to its incompleteness. I disagree. I do not believe that my knowledge of the alphabet from a to m is rendered wrong simply by my learning n to z. I also think that it is a far better example to illustrate your point than the one you chose which did not illustrate your point but instead was an attempt to make the claim that scientists were previously wrong about some information about Pluto - either a deliberate attempt at deception, or simply a mistake on your part due to your ignorance of the facts surrounding the case. It is your refusal to accept the former that makes me suspect the latter.

Experts tell us the solar system has nine planets. Experts tell us the solar system really only has eight.
And experts tell us that this has nothing to do with any changes to the solar system but is nothing more than a change in the English language. You however are attempting to characterize it as a change in the amount of knowledge held about the solar system. The change was made as a result of increase knowledge of the solar system, but the specific change did not directly reflect a change in such knowledge.
If geographers decide to demote Australia to Island status will you feel equally slighted and pretend that mans knowledge of the Continents was wrong all these years?
The most important point that you trying very hard to miss, is that no scientist worth his salt ever thought that they had discovered every single satellite of the Sun nor claimed to have done so.

I do have complete knowledge of God's word. You may have a copy of it in your possession, even. It is called the Bible. Everything we need to know about Him and the spiritual life is found therein.
But I have a King James version and a New Internationalist. Clearly even Biblical scholars not only change the English they use but also their understanding of the underlying facts (the original Hebrew). And by your argument I should discard the King James version as clearly faulty and assume that the New Internationalist version will soon be shown to be faulty too.
Also, if an angel of the Lord comes down to earth and tells me one more fact about God or the spiritual life that is not currently in the Bible it will render the Bible as unreliable as science.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And now who is making ridicuous statements that are totally at odds with reality?

Since it is really a matter of opinion anyway I rather doubt it is worth arguing that particular point further. I would be the only one who could prove my point beyond doubt (by producing one specimen) whereas you would have to interview every human on the planet to prove yours.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
When I hold an astronomy lecture, I usually ask to my students "How many planets are there in our planetary system?" Any answer will do if they only motivate their answer well.

Correct answers are: 9 planets, 8 planets, 12 planets, hundred of planets, and certainly many more answers as well, depending of what the definition of 'planet' you use.

So i or not.

Since this is the Spiritual Forum - what does the bible say about the issue? 😉

===========================================
Since this is the Spiritual Forum - what does the bible say about the issue?
====================================


What does the Bible say about how many planets are in the solar system?

This question may arise from a false concept about the Bible. As if it is a book from God giving us information about everything to satisfy our curiosity for its own sake.

The Bible is given to us to make us wise unto salvation. It does tell us many things. I think these thing are mentioned because of some relation they have to the matter of our salvation.

The Bible didn't devote a chapter to discribe what is on the dark side of the moon simply because we are so curious to know that. What is on the dark side of the moon must be deemed by God at this time not to be very related to man's salvation.

We might also ask why Jesus, if He knew, didn't spend all his time discribing to his disciples the speed of light or the properties of atoms. If He had then maybe instead of the sermon on the mount we would have or curiosity tickled by sentence after sence discribing the nature of atoms.

The revelation of the Bible is mostly about making man wise unto salvation. The things that are told us are somehow related to that central theme.

Now let me ask this question: In a state of existence filled with divine love for God and for one another where there is no shortage and where there is justice and righteousness, how much do you think people will be preoccupied with the questions asked by science?

That is a real question and not a statement. I wonder how much in a paradise situation we will CARE about technology. I mean most of our technology and scienctific advance is geared towards improving our lot in life on earth anyway.

Its a real question. I must be curious.

Originally posted by jaywill
The Bible is given to us to make us wise unto salvation. It does tell us many things. I think these thing are mentioned because of some relation they have to the matter of our salvation.

I cant for the life of me figure out what the long and boring history of the Jews would have to to with my salvation. I guess the conflicting lists of Jesus' step fathers ancestors could be a riddle of some kind, but the age that Arphaxed died at? I just don't get it.

That is a real question and not a statement. I wonder how much in a paradise situation we will [b]CARE about technology. I mean most of our technology and scienctific advance is geared towards improving our lot in life on earth anyway.[/b]
Probably very little. Though it is conceivable that if you went to hell because you died too young because there was no technology to save you then you might be rather concerned.

I for one however do not buy the argument that all suffering or happiness in our human life is meaningless in light of an eternal afterlife. Clearly Jesus disagreed with such an argument and so does the God of the Bible. So much time and effort is spent by both of them trying to get people to minimize suffering here on earth and maximize happiness.

I rather doubt that you buy the argument either and have not given up all your worldly goods in the pursuit of salvation.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================================
Since this is the Spiritual Forum - what does the bible say about the issue?
====================================


What does the Bible say about how many planets are in the solar system?

This question may arise from a false concept about the Bible. As if it is a book from God giving us inform ...[text shortened]... owards improving our lot in life on earth anyway.

Its a real question. I must be curious.[/b]

if you agree that science is not related to our salvation, why for the love of Grod do some people still hold genesis to be true? like twhite said, why is it important for my salvation to believe the world was made in 6 days or that noah had t-rexes on board and they were all vegetarians(someone on this forum actually believes that is true). wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume the jews placed some myths in the holy book of theirs and that they are not important and certainly not to be taken literally?

job is a good example. who cares if he lived or not? who cares if he was a real person or a figment of someones imagination? maybe even god's, who i believe CAN lie, him being the freakin creator of the universe? what matters is the message, the teachings that the conversations between job and his friends convey. jonah is another example: is the whale really necessary in this story? or the fact that if you believe in god you will no longer fear death and you will be able to accomplish anything?

jesus had few years in which to make the message hear by the savage brutes of those times. very few( from the moment of his baptism to his death), no TV and no cars. just walking and talking to people. so at times he had to trick the small children that mankind was made off and had to tell them stories, to make them understand that the word of god is just and kind. in the OT god simply said "don't do that man because i will really hurt you". Jesus also explains "dude don't do that because it is not nice and this is why it is not nice".

To end this rather long post, i will ask why do christians hold the old testament in such high regard since, as Lewis Black said, "it wasn't good enough for you christians"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
jesus had few years in which to make the message hear by the savage brutes of those times. very few( from the moment of his baptism to his death), no TV and no cars. just walking and talking to people. so at times he had to trick the small children that mankind was made off and had to tell them stories, to make them understand that the word of god is just a ...[text shortened]... also explains "dude don't do that because it is not nice and this is why it is not nice".

Makes you wonder if his message was really intended for all us people 2000 years later or just the people of that time. I cant fathom why he didn't write down his teachings - it would have save us all a whole lot of bother. Instead God decided to inspire other people to write it all down at a later date and just to confuse matters gave them each a different set of instructions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Makes you wonder if his message was really intended for all us people 2000 years later or just the people of that time. I cant fathom why he didn't write down his teachings - it would have save us all a whole lot of bother. Instead God decided to inspire other people to write it all down at a later date and just to confuse matters gave them each a different set of instructions.

i believe jesus message was mainly for the people of that time to build a base on. if they accept jesus and his message, they have a "base of love" on which to build on. and when new challenges arise, challenges that jesus in his short time couldn't have possibly warned them about or given hints, they would remember the message and act accordingly. Sadly we all know the way people dealt with the challenge of Islam, of the Feudal system, with witches and heretics, with protestants, with native americans, etc. But then again, the message endured and sometimes was respected. This is the legacy that christ gave us, not the book of genesis and the horror stories that parts of the OT are.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since it is really a matter of opinion anyway I rather doubt it is worth arguing that particular point further. I would be the only one who could prove my point beyond doubt (by producing one specimen) whereas you would have to interview every human on the planet to prove yours.

Get cracking. My point has already been accepted as fact.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Get cracking. My point has already been accepted as fact.

by whom?

all he has to do to disprove your point is to claim he doesn't care about god. his burning in hell set asside(wink😀), he just proved you wrong. how can you still not get that?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
by whom?

all he has to do to disprove your point is to claim he doesn't care about god. his burning in hell set asside(wink😀), he just proved you wrong. how can you still not get that?

'Not caring about God' wasn't his point. Try reading again to get the essence of his argument, and you'll realize how daunting a challenge he was made for himself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Get cracking. My point has already been accepted as fact.

Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
'Not caring about God' wasn't his point. Try reading again to get the essence of his argument, and you'll realize how daunting a challenge he was made for himself.

So you don’t think there are NO conscious people on this planet who have never heard of nor thought of the concept of a God?

What about all those primitive tribal people such as those who live in the tropical rainforest etc?
-I mean, how do you know that ALL of them have a concept of god?
-I mean, why should they? -after all, there are records of people that existed in the past that, although they had various superstitious, never heard of nor had a concept of a god: example:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/archive/2008_06_01_narchive.html

“The Religion of the Comanche
….
…
…They believed that many things in their surroundings had "powers" or "forces" that they might share in if they could just learn how to persuade the Sun, the Moon, the Buffalo or some other natural force to share a portion of their power. A totem or symbol of this power was then placed in their "Medicine pouch" around their neck and shared with nobody. But they did NOT believe that the sun was a god, nor the buffalo, nor the wolf….” (my emphasis)

In fact, although the Comanche had these superstitions, they didn’t have a concept of god and, before westerners met them, few ( if not none ) of them would have heard of 'god'.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
'Not caring about God' wasn't his point. Try reading again to get the essence of his argument, and you'll realize how daunting a challenge he was made for himself.

T: I am absolutely sure that there are plenty of conscious people on this planet who have never heard of nor thought of the concept of a God...
F: And now who is making ridicuous statements that are totally at odds with reality?

wow there is an essence to twhite's argument. it has depth, meaning. it is metaphorical and deeply philosophical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The example you offered made that claim, but as has been shown to you already, the example did not fit the claim. If I can recite the alphabet from a up to m today and tomorrow I can recite it up to z, my knowledge has increased. You are making the claim that my previous knowledge was incorrect due to its incompleteness. I disagree. I do not believe that ...[text shortened]... tual life that is not currently in the Bible it will render the Bible as unreliable as science.

And experts tell us that this has nothing to do with any changes to the solar system but is nothing more than a change in the English language.
Not for nothing, but what do you think prompted this “change in the English language,” if not a change of some kind elsewhere? You continue to suggest that my assertion is that there was somehow a change in the universe. Your suggestion is patently and obviously false, as is readily observed in these exchanges.
You however are attempting to characterize it as a change in the amount of knowledge held about the solar system. The change was made as a result of increase knowledge of the solar system, but the specific change did not directly reflect a change in such knowledge.
Does it get anymore obvious than this? In your first sentence--- according to you--- my supposedly wrong-headed position is that there was a change in the amount of knowledge. In your second sentence, you admit there was an increase in the amount of knowledge. With which one of these sentiments are you wishing to run--- because you can’t carry both. Unless, of course, you can somehow twist the normally accepted use of the term “change.” If there is some magic that you can think of which would allow something to both increase and not change, then your offense at my statement is warranted. If not, then your self-contradictory statements ought to be retracted.

At no time did I say anything other than: there was a change (Pluto’s demotion) based upon an increase in knowledge (related to the discovery of other members of the solar system).

If geographers decide to demote Australia to Island status will you feel equally slighted and pretend that mans knowledge of the Continents was wrong all these years?
In order for your example to be anywhere near the situation as has been discussed with Pluto, those same geographers would necessarily need to discover at least six or eight similar bodies of land, with one of those bodies characterized as having greater mass than Australia. Man’s understanding of the continents is based upon the continents that he knows. Man’s understanding of planets is based upon the celestial bodies that he knows. When the former was increased, Pluto was (eventually) demoted.

The most important point that you trying very hard to miss, is that no scientist worth his salt ever thought that they had discovered every single satellite of the Sun nor claimed to have done so.
Again, you attempt to put words in my mouth. I believe the term for what you are doing is “creating a strawman.”