prof god doesnt exist

Post Reply New Topic

if he made rainbows as a reminder to never flood the earth again were there rainbows before it flooded? dont they always exist around water i just saw one that a tire on a car made. (it rained today)

Well, the issue is that it can be argued that rainbows didn't exist before the flood and that this God merely prevented natural rainbow formation before the flood(or created the property afterwards). Neither of which would be impossible for a being defined as omnipotent, and absolute historical proof of rainbows before a worldwide flood that killed everyone except for Noah and his family would be difficult. Heck, you'd be better off disproving the flood. Finally, this is only an argument against a very literalist interpretation of scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition rather than disproof of all gods, or of a less literalist interpretation of the Judeo-Christian scriptures in question.

Your gramatically bankrupt post merely questions the Judeo-Christian God and even so doesn't disprove him.

And, as AG pointed out, even if Judeo-Christian teachings could be proven false, that certainly does not disprove God entirely.

Olive leaves would have existed before the Flood too. It's not a Biblical teaching that they represent peace, but it has been derived from there. Anyway, it's just attaching a new significance to something pre-existent.

well why dont you cry about it. i dont care about my grammer or spelling

The trouble with theology is that you can never prove or disprove the existance of god, however you can through understanding of nature and science get an idea of the probability of the existance of god and I have to say its looking pretty improbable. Trouble with Theists it seems to be ok for them to put forward Hypothosis as teory with absolutely no evidence, if a scientist tried this to show the improbability of god they would be burnt at the stake. Its time to stop using the bible as proof and find some real evidence

Well, I don't see why you'd want to do that to yourself when grammar is generally intrinsic in written word to help what you say to be more credible. Anyway, excellent ad hominem (if that was meant to truly own me); I shall look forward to more!

am i a idiot magnet? maybe you should stop looking to cause an argument because i offended your puny god. answer the question or else leave

. . . You caused the argument? I mean, let me show you how this goes.
- You post a thread.
- The post is an argument against God.
- You have caused an argument against God (if weaker than the emotional impact of a Garth Brooks song).

And though it's not much of my place to fully judge you now m'lad, it seems thus far that yes, you are an idiot magnet.

To add to the comedy gold of your posts, it is in fact that I am an Atheist. I just don't support poor arguments against the existence of God and will put effort into eliminating them as tosh, purely in support of reason.

so get off of me then. do you think you can do that?

Well, I remember I used to wonder about the rainbow thing in the flood story, it occured to me, that at the time, they didn't have an explanation, scientific explanation of how rainbows work and how we can see them, this making it sound in the Bible, as a sign from God to remind people of the flood story.

As any natural event which did not have a scientific explanation back then, in ancient jewish society, was thought to be a supernatural thing, something that came from God, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example, if a culture which were totally different than they were, with different religion and practices, let's say more sexually open practices, and then, a natural disaster occurs, immediately the connection to be a punishment from God would be made.

The flood story would have to be the same, a natural disaster, which could have been locally or globally, and because of the lack of an explanation for this event at the time, the assumption would have to be because of supernatural events, anger from God or a deity, something which was written by the Sumerians first.

That doesn't disproof the existence of God at all, what it does is to question the validity of the literal interpretation of the Bible, even the legitimacy of the Bible.

Haha. Excuse me, but I'm quite sure you're the one who got onto me? I argue back and you go on an illiterate tirade. This seems very cowardly of you after these obviously well-picked words of yours:

Prof. God doesn't exist? Well of course Prof. God doesn't exist! Who the hell would have the last name God?

Oh, you meant proof. The second 'o' makes a difference, little one.

No, little Timmy, there is an interesting thing about proving God doesn't exist. See, the thing is, Timmy that you can't prove or disprove God. See the only way to do that would to be an omniscient, omnipresent being. And then you're 2/3rds of the way to being God anyway.

I'm sorry richard, that was too much fun to pass up. Please forgive me for that. But seriously, the way that post was written asked for it.

Anyway, whose to say that noone noticed a rainbow before the flood? I rarely notice them.

How can any of you say Prof. God doesn't exist? There may very well be someone by that name- probably is, since many professors believe themselves to be gods. Prof. God is probably at Harvard- he applied to MIT but wasn't up to their standards.

Maybe god can change science, so his changes are infact part of science that comes. When a change happends it is like that change becomes part of law aswell as the process it is created by. This means that god could change things so anything that contradicts his creation is aultered.