Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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).

Yes you did, or there would be no argument. You asserted that mans previous knowledge of the solar system was wrong because it was incomplete. Instead of putting it in simple straightforward words as I have done here you chose to try to make it look like scientists had made a mistake about Pluto, ie that their information about Pluto was incorrect.

You have rejected my example of continents. Does this mean that you accept that mans knowledge of continents is therefore complete and unchanging and therefore as reliable as the Bible? Or do you think that there is an outside chance that more continents are yet to be discovered?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes you did, or there would be no argument. You asserted that mans previous knowledge of the solar system was wrong because it was incomplete. Instead of putting it in simple straightforward words as I have done here you chose to try to make it look like scientists had made a mistake about Pluto, ie that their information about Pluto was incorrect.

You ...[text shortened]... ? Or do you think that there is an outside chance that more continents are yet to be discovered?

Again, for the record: it wasn't man's increased/decreased knowledge of Pluto which led to its demotion. The demotion came as a result of man's increased knowledge about the solar system itself, namely, the bodies within.

An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.

Does this mean that you accept that mans knowledge of continents is therefore complete and unchanging and therefore as reliable as the Bible?
Man's knowledge about anything is, at its best, corrupt.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.

So now you have finally put your claim in straight forward language.

Do you agree that your knowledge of God is a part of your knowledge of reality?
Does it therefore follow that any knowledge of reality that you gain be it large or small, renders all your previous knowledge reality including your knowledge of God "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."
Or is your claim simply ridiculous?

Further, if the knowledge contained in the Bible is missing the smallest fact on any topic then adding that one fact to the Bible renders the whole Bible "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."

So is the Bible an encyclopedia of the Universe or is it "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, for the record: it wasn't man's increased/decreased knowledge of Pluto which led to its demotion. The demotion came as a result of man's increased knowledge about the solar system itself, namely, the bodies within.

An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.

[b]Does this mean that y ...[text shortened]... reliable as the Bible?
Man's knowledge about anything is, at its best, corrupt.[/b]

….An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
..…

That is an absurd assertion! I don’t know why you keep suggesting it for I fail to see how you can believe that is always true! Or even that is ‘generally’ true because it just depends on whether or not the new knowledge logically contradicts the old knowledge.

If the new knowledge doesn’t logically contradict the old knowledge then how would that new knowledge “renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false” ?

Example:

1, ’John’ learns that his father is older than his mother.

2, Later John learns that his father is more than twenty years older than John himself.

3, therefore, from (1) and (2), we must conclude that John’s increase in knowledge ( about his father ) “renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false” and thus the fact that John’s father is more than twenty years older than John himself means that John’s father CANNOT be is older than his mother!? 😛

-this would be especially absurd if the old knowledge is logically deducible from the new knowledge!
Example:

1, ’John’ learns that his father is older than his mother.

2, Later John learns that his father is more than two years older than his mother.

3, therefore, from (1) and (2), we must conclude that John’s increase in knowledge “renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false” and thus John’s father IS BOTH more than two years older than John’s mother AND John’s father is NOT older than John’s mother!!!? 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
So now you have finally put your claim in straight forward language.

Do you agree that your knowledge of God is a part of your knowledge of reality?
Does it therefore follow that any knowledge of reality that you gain be it large or small, renders all your previous knowledge reality including your knowledge of God "obsolete, outdated and--- most impor ...[text shortened]... yclopedia of the Universe or is it "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."?

So now you have finally put your claim in straight forward language.

Either that, or you are finally listening.

Do you agree that your knowledge of God is a part of your knowledge of reality?
In part. That's really kind of a skewed question, as our perspective of reality is totally at odds. You are calling the physical world reality, whereas I call God Himself reality.

Or is your claim simply ridiculous?
Applied to your standards and values, I would say yes.
However, applied to reality, my claim is right in line. Which of the two do you think I ought to align my thinking with?

Further, if the knowledge contained in the Bible is missing the smallest fact...
Pump the brakes. That 'if' is not only perposterous, it's arrogant. You cannot hope to consider the thinking of man anywhere near the level of the word of God, and this is exactly what you suggest when throwing around your 'if.'

So is the Bible an encyclopedia of the Universe or is it "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."?
As stated previously, the Bible contains anything and everything relative to the salvation of man and the spiritual life. Everything.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
..…

That is an absurd assertion! I don’t know why you keep suggesting it for I fail to see how you can believe that is always true! Or even that is ‘generally’ true because it just depends on whether or not the new knowledge logicall ...[text shortened]... than two years older than John’s mother AND John’s father is NOT older than John’s mother!!!? 😛[/b]

Your grasp of logic is amazing. Now apply the same to the discussion.

The crux of the issue is whether or not man can (should) rely on his advances in the scientific realm, given the plethora of changes made in the field--- without even mentioning the multitude of times he has been flat-out wrong.

By 'rely,' we mean: can man place his faith in his ability to both gather the right information and analyze the same.

A further issue is: assuming man were able to gather the right (complete, whole and necessary) information as well as correctly analyze the same, would the results of his work have any impact on the real issues of his existence?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your grasp of logic is amazing. Now apply the same to the discussion.

The crux of the issue is whether or not man can (should) rely on his advances in the scientific realm, given the plethora of changes made in the field--- without even mentioning the multitude of times he has been flat-out wrong.

By 'rely,' we mean: can man place his faith in his ...[text shortened]... e the same, would the results of his work have any impact on the real issues of his existence?

….Your grasp of logic is amazing. Now apply the same to the discussion.
..…

In what way is your assertion not part of “the discussion”?

Reminder of which of your quote my post was discussing:

….….An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
..…

This is not only the assertion of yours that I questioned but also what twhitehead questioned, so I fail to see why it cannot be part of “the discussion” -after all, it was YOU who made this assertion!!! -so surely you must think it is relevant to “the discussion” -yes or no?

Your assertion of yours is an absurd one and I have shown why in my last post and you haven’t given any counter arguments so does this mean you STILL believe your above assertion or not?

You then, in the rest of your post, totally change the subject I raised and talked about subjects that are irrelevant to the one I raised -so does that mean you just trying to avoid addressing my points?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So now you have finally put your claim in straight forward language.

Either that, or you are finally listening.

Do you agree that your knowledge of God is a part of your knowledge of reality?
In part. That's really kind of a skewed question, as our perspective of reality is totally at odds. You are calling the physical world reality, ...[text shortened]... ing and everything relative to the salvation of man and the spiritual life. Everything.[/b]

I never told you what I was calling reality.
So answer the question. Is your knowledge of God false?

Applied to your standards and values, I would say yes.
However, applied to reality, my claim is right in line. Which of the two do you think I ought to align my thinking with?
Your starting to sound like knightmeister with his "my God is irrational"

As stated previously, the Bible contains anything and everything relative to the salvation of man and the spiritual life. Everything.
Answer the question. Is it an encyclopedia of the universe or is it "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."

Originally posted by josephw
There isn't any!

You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I can't prove that God does exist.

I can prove God exists to myself through experience though.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist through experience.


What do you think of that?

Jokers need not reply.

The truth is out there for those hearts that are truely seeking God :-)

Originally posted by markbluestone
The truth is out there for those hearts that are truely seeking God :-)

I am sure the truth is out there whatever your heart might be seeking. The subject of the thread was whether or not you can convince another person of what you believe to be the truth using logic and reasoning ie provide a proof.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Your grasp of logic is amazing. Now apply the same to the discussion.
..…

In what way is your assertion not part of “the discussion”?

Reminder of which of your quote my post was discussing:

….….An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
..…

This is not onl ...[text shortened]... irrelevant to the one I raised -so does that mean you just trying to avoid addressing my points?[/b]

No, I'm just saying you're off topic and that your examples aren't applicable to the same.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never told you what I was calling reality.
So answer the question. Is your knowledge of God false?

[b]Applied to your standards and values, I would say yes.
However, applied to reality, my claim is right in line. Which of the two do you think I ought to align my thinking with?
Your starting to sound like knightmeister with his "my God is irra ...[text shortened]... encyclopedia of the universe or is it "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."[/b]

So answer the question. Is your knowledge of God false?
Without question, it has been in the past. However, you are attempting to equate a growing knowledge with one that is subject to constant correction. What God wants known about Himself is clearly delineated within the confines of Scripture: there is no other source. He has defined the strict protocol required to mine that knowledge, and in so much as one stays within that protocol, one cannot go wrong.

As it is said, "item by item, line by line, here a little, there a little." Although this sounds like a description of our advancing knowledge of the physical world, history tells another story altogether. Science--- just like religion--- has long been subject to the whims and agendas of those in power, and the pronouncements from both systems of power have been repeatedly denounced by so-called further revelation.

Not so for the man of God who has submitted himself to doing things the right way. He never requires correction, because he does not proclaim that what is not made clear in Scripture.

Your starting to sound like knightmeister with his "my God is irrational"
There is a logic employed by man that is nonsense in that it has no moorings. To those weilding such logic, God appears irrational.

Answer the question. Is it an encyclopedia of the universe or is it "obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false."
It is an encyclopedia for all things spiritual, relevant, pertinent and absolutely essential in the pursuit of truth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I'm just saying you're off topic and that your examples aren't applicable to the same.

You say that I am “off topic” and yet my post and one of twhitehead’s posts
consists of questioning one of YOUR assertions about the topic!
-so, if I am “off topic” then so must you be. I think you are just avoiding the questions.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
You say that I am “off topic” and yet my post and one of twhitehead’s posts
consists of questioning one of YOUR assertions about the topic!
-so, if I am “off topic” then so must you be. I think you are just avoiding the questions.

If you were as bright as you consider yourself to be, this wouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp. I'll help you out.

Your example of John and the age of his parents is different from the topic at hand, as the topic at hand pertains to situations when new information makes the previously-held prespective obsolete by virtue of contradictory information.

For instance, in the case of Pluto, the celestial body was considered a planet until such time as further information (increased discovery of similar bodies) and further consideration led to a revision of Pluto's importance and/or dominance within the solar system.

Nothing within the body of increased knowledge in any way, shape, or form impacted the information known about Pluto. Rather, it was our discovery of other bodies which made us re-think and re-classify the once-considered planet.

Your example of John's parents, their ages and their ages related to his does not mirror the situation with Pluto.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If you were as bright as you consider yourself to be, this wouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp. I'll help you out.

Your example of John and the age of his parents is different from the topic at hand, as the topic at hand pertains to situations when new information makes the previously-held prespective obsolete by virtue of contradictory informatio ...[text shortened]... parents, their ages and their ages related to his does not mirror the situation with Pluto.

….Your example of John's parents, their ages and their ages related to his does not mirror the situation with Pluto.
..…

That is right. And that is because it logically demonstrates an example of when your assertion that:

….….….An increase in knowledge renders previous knowledge obsolete, outdated and--- most importantly--- false.
..…
..…

Can be wrong.

It is part of formal logic that only ONE such hypothetical example has to be shown of when a given proposition must logically be wrong to show that the given proposition is logically flawed ( and this is not to mention the fact that I can give an unlimited number of such examples ).