prof god doesnt exist

Post Reply New Topic

In any event, proving an inaccuracy in the Torah (and by extension the Old Testament of the Christian Bible) hardly disproves the existence of any Deity or Deities, just as proof of accuracy in one or more statements therein does not prove said Being's (or Beings') existence. That would be rather like attempting to prove that Aristotle did not exist because some of the knowledge of the world attributed to him was wrong.

If that is what qualifies as "proof" in the addled peanut that somehow manages to pass as a "brain" in your head, let me sell you this New York bridge I own.

All of the cruelties in the world, aside from natural disasters, are the result of human actions, not god, so what does it matter if he does or does not exist? What we understand of the world is the result of natural forces which are basically necessary to maintain the working of the universe. God is irrelevant.

Oh! I forgot about him. He wrote that thesis on why he is God, too, didn't he? richard, it appears you lose on all accounts.

you think your plans belittle me but they dont. ive had much practice with your kind in schools, so whos the one who loses now? not me

so go ahead be a snobby snob snob. *snores uncontrollably*

one less distraction from what really matters. one less excuse for people to hide behind.

If God existed why did he make water?

Because he was thirsty.

to give us his sign of course. the rainbow!

Yes, but also, it was used as a weapon of mass destruction to commit genocide, killing all the infidels (99%? of humanity) including their children.

Guys, enough of the comments about richardbenson's 'grammar' - these only serve to divert the main point of the thread into mindless squabbling. Is it really necessary to pop a hernia about another person's lack of capitalisation and punctuation? It's not as if you can't understand what he's saying. Anyway, the original question is a perfectly valid one, if not slightly misguided.

If there were rainbows before God told Noah that he created the rainbow as a reminder that he would never flood the earth again, it would force Christians to abandon a totally literal interpretation of Genesis. Fundamentalist Christians believe that everything in Genesis is a word-by-word true historical account of the early days of the Earth. They must therefore accept that God either changed the laws of science, or somehow made sure that a rainbow could not form before that time.

Some young-earth creationists (who take Genesis literally) believe that there was a canopy of water suspended above the earth, until the Great Flood. According to them, no rain fell before that time, so voila, no rainbows. How people survived before the Flood at a time when no rain ever fell is another issue, but nothing will deter young-earth creationists from believing what they do. So your observation is not proof that God doesn't exist, it's merely evidence against some literal interpretations of Genesis.

I don't think you're thinking about God but are merely thinking about a phrase in an oldish book written by people who (at the time) mostly couldn't read or write.

So, in that context, if we decide to accept the phrase as canon - or, if you like "Gospel" - excuse the pun, then any being capable of creating a planet covered in life from scratch would probably also have the ability to alter the molecular structure of substances, such as water, to produce pretty colours.

thank you for your reply and everyone else that took the question seriously. i guess you answerd my question highlighted in bold, what this means is i cant trust or take the bible seriously at all

How can god be omnipotent?

If he was omnipotent couldn't he create a mountain so large that he couldn't move it? If he can do this, then he's not omnipotent. If he can't do it, then he is also not omnipotent.

There are many excellent arguments against the existence of god, including basic plausibility. If there is no evidence to believe in something, then why believe in it?

If I say that I believe that there are millions of invisible pink elephants everywhere that can't be seen or touched or heard or smelled, I couldn't be disproved. But this does not mean that the elephants exist until such time as their existence can be disproved.

I'm guessing that you'd probably decided that long before posting this thread anyway.

You shouldn't take *ANY* book that purports to be factual at face value anyway - and particularly not a religious text. There are so many religion books (and religions), each of which claims to have the one truth, that they can't possibly all be right. Instead, it's best to have an open mind and accept lots of different stories and pick ones that you prefer.

Your conscience is probably the best dictator of religion.

If you feel that something is wrong and you choose "good" then don't do it. If you choose "bad" then do the wrong things. The same applies in reverse if you think something (like say, giving some money to a poor person) is a good deed. In that sense, Jedi is as good a religion as any of the others.

My personal view has always been that;
a. There is some sort of super-being
b. I don't really know for certain if it's friendly or even if it's aware of us.
c. There are several famous historical figures, who may or may not be factual but who form the basis of religion. They may or may not be connected to the super-being.
d. If the super-being wanted to communicate with us, we'd know about it unless it wanted us to only know when we reached a certain state/level.
e. If there was a message for us to read at a certain state or level, it would be written everywhere - eg: in the DNA of plants, in people's subconscious thoughts, in Stephen King novels (planted as suggestions or motivations). It wouldn't be restricted to a single book which is only being read by people who are already converts.
f. There is no need to kill people just because their thoughts differ. (unless you've chosen "bad/devil/dark-side" or whatever the evil component to your religion is.

Anyway, that's just my view and everyone is allowed to differ - in fact, I insist they differ (except on the killing bit) - otherwise the world would be very boring.

Mu.