| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Richard" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2004 07:25:34 AM |
| Object: |
Does God Exist? |
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
So a person can be unsure as to whether God exists, but never sure He
doesn't exist.
Atheism defined as the belief that God does not exist is nothing more than
that - a belief system. There is no evidence to prove that He does not
exist, and even if there was no evidence to prove that He does exist, that
would still leave a person at number 2 - unsure.
So to profess oneself as an atheist is nothing more than a belief system of
people who feel the need to discredit the existence of a person they claim
does not exist.
Richard
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 09:00:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:25:34 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Richard
("Richard" <nospam@nospam.none>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
I'd be interested to see the evidence, as I imagine most in aa would.
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Not so, as we'll see in a moment.
4) The whole idea of "God" is incoherent or meaningless.
5) Knowledge about the existence or no of God is impossible.
So a person can be unsure as to whether God exists, but never sure He
doesn't exist.
Well, depends what you're defining "God" as, doesn't it? As far as I
can see there is a tremendous amount of equivocation associated with
the term. It is after all difficult for me to know what I think about
the "God" you're thinking of unless you're a bit more precise about
what you mean by the term.
Personally I think "pure" atheists are rare. I, for example, flatly
deny some God concepts, don't think there's sufficient evidence to
justify belief in others, think some are by definition incoherent,
others meaningless, and so on and so forth.
Atheism defined as the belief that God does not exist
Most atheists here wouldn't define it like that. Neither would most
mainstream philosophers. Personally, I think of atheism as "not
holding a belief in God or Gods," while bearing in mind atheism is a,
erm, very broad church.
is nothing more than that - a belief system.
Really? So presumably your "belief" that there are no square circles
is merely that, a belief that may be overturned at any moment? Which
is interesting. Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
There is no evidence to prove that He does not
exist, and even if there was no evidence to prove that He does exist, that
would still leave a person at number 2 - unsure.
Again, it depends on what you mean by the term "God". At this point
for all I know what you regard as God is incoherent, meaningless, not
provable in principle, or whatever. On the other hand, if you have a
coherent definition of what you refer to as "God," then there may
perhaps be something to your supposition.
So to profess oneself as an atheist is nothing more than a belief system of
people who feel the need to discredit the existence of a person they claim
does not exist.
Well, there's so many problems with your original set of propositions
that hardly seems to be a warranted conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 04:36:23 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:5to5s0dueu41bgupl9llke4jsos2gp1217@4ax.com...
......
Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
Interesting. Does a religious outlook incorporate a subroutine wherein rival
gods are actively believed to be false? I would think so.
Still, that is different from atheism.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 11:56:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:36:23 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Tron ("Tron"
<tronfuru@frisurf.no>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:5to5s0dueu41bgupl9llke4jsos2gp1217@4ax.com...
.....
Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
Interesting. Does a religious outlook incorporate a subroutine wherein rival
gods are actively believed to be false? I would think so.
Still, that is different from atheism.
By a measure of one God, presumably.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 09:07:56 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:36:23 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Tron ("Tron"
<tronfuru@frisurf.no>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:5to5s0dueu41bgupl9llke4jsos2gp1217@4ax.com...
.....
Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
Interesting. Does a religious outlook incorporate a subroutine wherein rival
gods are actively believed to be false? I would think so.
Still, that is different from atheism.
By a measure of one God, presumably.
Exactly. Polytheism has room for many gods.
So where did the usenet atheists develop the One God expectation?
It is interesting how Christ-haunted they are. Perhaps they need to
mentally leave Christendom, think like an pagan, so they can come home
again.
By the way you made a good point about pure/impure atheism, and how so
much depends on definitions. It can be approached from the definition of
God, or from the definition of universe.
Definitions limit, and both parties are loath to constrain their First
Thing by a definition. For example every agnostic who believes God is
unknowable I've talked with, defines his term "universe" is a way that
begs the question of God. Some say the universe is everything that is.
Others, that it is everything that interacts. In each case, no room for
God, for the universe was Deified. As a Rabbi said "we don't ask that
they believe in God, only that they stop believing in idols".
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 05:33:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Alan
Wostenberg (Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:36:23 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Tron ("Tron"
<tronfuru@frisurf.no>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:5to5s0dueu41bgupl9llke4jsos2gp1217@4ax.com...
.....
Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
Interesting. Does a religious outlook incorporate a subroutine wherein rival
gods are actively believed to be false? I would think so.
Still, that is different from atheism.
By a measure of one God, presumably.
Exactly. Polytheism has room for many gods.
So where did the usenet atheists develop the One God expectation?
It is interesting how Christ-haunted they are. Perhaps they need to
mentally leave Christendom, think like an pagan, so they can come home
again.
Really? I think you're reading too much into a cultural artifact.
By the way you made a good point about pure/impure atheism, and how so
much depends on definitions. It can be approached from the definition of
God, or from the definition of universe.
Definitions limit, and both parties are loath to constrain their First
Thing by a definition. For example every agnostic who believes God is
unknowable I've talked with, defines his term "universe" is a way that
begs the question of God. Some say the universe is everything that is.
Others, that it is everything that interacts. In each case, no room for
God, for the universe was Deified. As a Rabbi said "we don't ask that
they believe in God, only that they stop believing in idols".
Perhaps, on the day the Rabbi could tell the difference between a
spinozian pantheist, an animist, and an atheist, that would be a
request that may be heard!
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
Oh I think we know enough of it to speculate that it doesn't. After
all, to posit a cause of the universe is to assume that causality was
in some way pre-existent to the universe, and if causality, why God?
And if no causality, no cause is necessary.
Which, I think, is rather neat for this time of night (23:50 here).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 08:41:18 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:b4g9s053clne0m7nc37gh9528pnsnrnpp9@4ax.com...
.......
Oh I think we know enough of it to speculate that it doesn't. After
all, to posit a cause of the universe is to assume that causality was
in some way pre-existent to the universe, and if causality, why God?
And if no causality, no cause is necessary.
Which, I think, is rather neat for this time of night (23:50 here).
<Roaring applause>
T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 12:22:42 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Alan
Wostenberg (Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
Oh I think we know enough of it to speculate that it doesn't. After
all, to posit a cause of the universe is to assume that causality was
in some way pre-existent to the universe, and if causality, why God?
And if no causality, no cause is necessary.
Which, I think, is rather neat for this time of night (23:50 here).
Whatever does not have to be is made to be by another which already is.
The physical universe didn't have to be. Therefore it depends on
another, unable not to be, called God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 12:48:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:22:42 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Alan
Wostenberg (Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
Therion Ware wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Alan
Wostenberg (Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
Oh I think we know enough of it to speculate that it doesn't. After
all, to posit a cause of the universe is to assume that causality was
in some way pre-existent to the universe, and if causality, why God?
And if no causality, no cause is necessary.
Which, I think, is rather neat for this time of night (23:50 here).
Whatever does not have to be is made to be by another which already is.
Why?
The physical universe didn't have to be. Therefore it depends on
another, unable not to be, called God.
Well, it's a nice aphorism, but I don't see any particularly
compelling reason why it must be so, particularly since you're once
again appealing to causality and thus assuming your conclusion.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 01:45:48 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Alan
Wostenberg (Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
Oh I think we know enough of it to speculate that it doesn't. After
all, to posit a cause of the universe is to assume that causality was
in some way pre-existent to the universe, and if causality, why God?
And if no causality, no cause is necessary.
Which, I think, is rather neat for this time of night (23:50 here).
Whatever does not have to be is made to be by another which already is.
The physical universe didn't have to be. Therefore it depends on
another, unable not to be, called God.
Objection. Logically inconsistent (special pleading for God).
To be logically consistent, if there can be anything unable not to be
(in other words necessary), it might as well be the universe as your
hypothetical Creator thingy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
20 Dec 2004 12:45:30 PM |
|
|
In article <a0Fxd.3269$ql2.2762@okepread04>,
Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Alan
Wostenberg (Alan Wostenberg <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com>) said,
directing the reply to alt.atheism
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
Oh I think we know enough of it to speculate that it doesn't. After
all, to posit a cause of the universe is to assume that causality was
in some way pre-existent to the universe, and if causality, why God?
And if no causality, no cause is necessary.
Which, I think, is rather neat for this time of night (23:50 here).
Whatever does not have to be is made to be by another which already is.
The physical universe didn't have to be. Therefore it depends on
another, unable not to be, called God.
How can you possibly know that the physical universe didn't have to be?
- Felix
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
02 Jan 2005 09:14:20 PM |
|
|
(some trouble posting through google beta... disregard duplicates)
How can we know the physical universe did not have to be? Two reasons.
First, it is thought to be the result of chance fluctuation of the
quantum vacuum -- "chance" being the very opposite of necessity. It
didn't have to happen. Had it not happened, the universe would not be.
Second, it's scientifically intelligible. How do the natural sciences
work? By separating *what* a thing is from *that* it is. For example,
cosmologists concieve of big bang, steady state, and oscillating
universes independent of the question of existence. This they could not
do if the physical universe were unable not to be, for then it's
existence would be inseparable from essence. But scientists do separate
existence form essence, everytime they formulate a testable theory.
Consequently the physical universe did not have to be. Now whatever is
able not to be is dependent on another which already is to make it be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
03 Jan 2005 03:49:42 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2005 19:14:20 -0800, "Alan Wostenberg"
<awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
(some trouble posting through google beta... disregard duplicates)
How can we know the physical universe did not have to be? Two reasons.
First, it is thought to be the result of chance fluctuation of the
quantum vacuum -- "chance" being the very opposite of necessity. It
didn't have to happen. Had it not happened, the universe would not be.
Second, it's scientifically intelligible. How do the natural sciences
work? By separating *what* a thing is from *that* it is. For example,
cosmologists concieve of big bang, steady state, and oscillating
universes independent of the question of existence. This they could not
do if the physical universe were unable not to be, for then it's
existence would be inseparable from essence. But scientists do separate
existence form essence, everytime they formulate a testable theory.
Consequently the physical universe did not have to be. Now whatever is
able not to be is dependent on another which already is to make it be.
What a load of medieval garbage.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrD" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
05 Jan 2005 05:21:21 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Flew is Not the World's MOST Famous Atheist
From: "MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message
news:cqpj95$3os$1@news.netins.net...
"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message
news:cqhluv$bel$1@news.netins.net...
resubmitted to keep active.
"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message
news:cq9ur4$hac$1@news.netins.net...
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:f8Xxd.3601$ql2.589@okepread04...
MrD wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
message news:8Y_wd.634$ql2.275@okepread04...
Assuming I misunderstood you, and we agree one *can* know by
reason God exists, we could look at those other objections you
raised:
Now that sounds reasonable, we're defining our first
assumption between us.
Regarding argument from universal human consensus:
Objection 1: assumes conclusion to survey the race "what of
this God business" Objection 2. the consensus is not universal
because there are dissenters
You've also forgotten to define this God business before you
survey the race. You can't have a survey of belief in an
object if that object is variable. That would be like
surveying that apples exist because people have seen oranges.
We need to make sure we are all discussing the same roughly
spherical fruit. True. I mean the one in whom atheists lack
belief: that being to whom reverence and worship are due.
Atheists lack belief in all gods so you haven't helped define any
particular belief there.
Your second part of that betrays an unproven assumption, that
there is a being to whom reverence and worship are due, the very
thing in question. You've added nothing here that is helpful.
Every theist you ask is going to say their god is the one that
deserves reverence and worship even though their god may be
completely ludicrous to the next person you ask. The burden is on
the theist who says there is a consensus to show that the
consensus is real, not simply claim concensus while people believe
diverse things.
Regarding argument from innate desire for everlasting life
Objection 1: assumes conclusion to say "no innate desire is
implanted in vain" because implanted implies implanter.
Right, you've assumed an implanter and then assumed nothing it
does is in vain. Neither evidenced nor defined assumptions.
OK. So let's take out the verb.
1) No innate desire is in vain. To the innate desire for hunger
there is food; for knowledge, truth. This is not conclusive at
all, nor does it address the actual point, that an
innate desire is implanted.
The argument was with the assumption that desires are implanted
rather than simply are.
You've missed the point.
2) The desire for everlasting life ("instinctual drive to
survive" I think you said) is innate. Innate= instinctual I can
agree with. The desire for everlasting life, though, I think is
learned, thus not innate.Everlasting is a concept thus learned.
The desire to live is innate, to live everlasting I'm not too sure
about, I think that it is not innate, but a learned desire. There
is a difference, though subtle.
3) Therefore there is something satisfying that natural desire,
which everybody calls God
Sorry, your logic is flawed. Your use of vain is suspect,
ungrounded. You second assumption is unsupported.
Your conclusion is false. The satisfaction for the innate desire
for life, (everlasting or not) is life, not god. Your leap here is
completely unfounded. You are saying that God = life. Since there
are no atheists saying that life doesn't exist, I don't think that
definition will work for your concensus and have any meaning.
He who would deny the conclusion must deny one or both of the
premises, if he is reasonable. Some natural desires can never be
satisfied. Or the desire for everlating life is not innate but
aquired.
I think I've easily shown why you are completely incorrect.
Well I'm off for Christmas for awhile. Take care.
You too! Have a great Solstice, Yule, Hannukah, Kwanza,
Christmas, and New Year!
Remember, the reason for the season is the Solstice!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 03:32:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC), Alan Wostenberg
<awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:36:23 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Tron ("Tron"
<tronfuru@frisurf.no>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:5to5s0dueu41bgupl9llke4jsos2gp1217@4ax.com...
.....
Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
Interesting. Does a religious outlook incorporate a subroutine wherein rival
gods are actively believed to be false? I would think so.
Still, that is different from atheism.
By a measure of one God, presumably.
Exactly. Polytheism has room for many gods.
So where did the usenet atheists develop the One God expectation?
It is interesting how Christ-haunted they are.
That is because we are under a constant barrage of hate and
spite from them constantly twisting our views. We are Christ haunted
because they haunt us with their stupid religion.
? Perhaps they need to
mentally leave Christendom,
we would dearly love Christendom to go away and stop bothering
us.
Care to take the hint?
think like an pagan, so they can come home
again.
Paganism requires belief in gods.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 04:53:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC), Alan Wostenberg
<awostenberg@psalmweaver.com> wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:36:23 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Tron ("Tron"
<tronfuru@frisurf.no>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> skrev i melding
news:5to5s0dueu41bgupl9llke4jsos2gp1217@4ax.com...
.....
Or would it be more accurate to say that your lack of
belief in Zeus constitutes a "belief system"?
Interesting. Does a religious outlook incorporate a subroutine wherein rival
gods are actively believed to be false? I would think so.
Still, that is different from atheism.
By a measure of one God, presumably.
Exactly. Polytheism has room for many gods.
So where did the usenet atheists develop the One God expectation?
It is interesting how Christ-haunted they are. Perhaps they need to
mentally leave Christendom, think like an pagan, so they can come home
again.
Perhaps you should stop constructing such ridiculous strawmen, but you
don't seem capable of it.
By the way you made a good point about pure/impure atheism, and how so
much depends on definitions. It can be approached from the definition of
God, or from the definition of universe.
Definitions limit, and both parties are loath to constrain their First
Thing by a definition. For example every agnostic who believes God is
unknowable I've talked with, defines his term "universe" is a way that
begs the question of God. Some say the universe is everything that is.
Others, that it is everything that interacts. In each case, no room for
God, for the universe was Deified. As a Rabbi said "we don't ask that
they believe in God, only that they stop believing in idols".
You just never stop your babble.
So, since we all presumably agree the universe exists, maybe we should
ask "what is it?", before moving onto the weightier question of wether
it needs a Cause.
Nope, the only relevant question is do you or do you not have
objective evidence for the existence of a god?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jbm2004" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 05:51:55 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> schreef:
Does God Exist?
I am a lurker to this NG and I read 32 reactions to the above
question. I noticed that ALL reactions were anti. Most atheïstic or at
least agnostic.
I live in Holland and read in the papers that say, 80 % of all
Americans believe in God. I am not sure but I got the impression that
most of the reactions came from Americans. So there is a discrepancy.
Are only the 20 % of disbelievers in the USA reading this NG ? Or are
the nonresponding Americans overwhelmed by the arguments of the
nonbelievers? I hope so, but I doubt it.
Oh, I am in favour of the disbelievers. I 'believe' that God did not
created man but man created God.
Hans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
23 Dec 2004 03:54:57 PM |
|
|
"jbm2004" <skippy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97s6s0dpij7ip5odq0arh6rpt3isfkin1h@4ax.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> schreef:
Does God Exist?
I am a lurker to this NG and I read 32 reactions to the above
question. I noticed that ALL reactions were anti. Most atheïstic or at
least agnostic.
I live in Holland and read in the papers that say, 80 % of all
Americans believe in God. I am not sure but I got the impression that
most of the reactions came from Americans. So there is a discrepancy.
Are only the 20 % of disbelievers in the USA reading this NG ? Or are
the nonresponding Americans overwhelmed by the arguments of the
nonbelievers? I hope so, but I doubt it.
Oh, I am in favour of the disbelievers. I 'believe' that God did not
created man but man created God.
Hans
I am not from the States myself so am not too familiar with the demographics
of people who debate such things.
Thank you for your honesty though. Because you are not overly emotional
about the issue and are looking upon is in a fair way, you can see that
thinking there is no God is a belief. I didn't venture so far as to say
whether that was good or bad, but it is a fact.
Richard
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
19 Dec 2004 08:51:02 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <97s6s0dpij7ip5odq0arh6rpt3isfkin1h@4ax.com>, jbm2004
lept out of the bushes shouting:
I live in Holland and read in the papers that say, 80 % of all Americans
believe in God.
Nah. It's more than USers believe in believing in god. For the bulk of the
population, it doesn't actually mean anything other than nodding your head
in approval of Jesus...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 08:55:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:51:55 +0000 (UTC), jbm2004 <skippy@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> schreef:
Does God Exist?
I am a lurker to this NG and I read 32 reactions to the above
question. I noticed that ALL reactions were anti. Most atheïstic or at
least agnostic.
I live in Holland and read in the papers that say, 80 % of all
Americans believe in God.
A trick question, it assumes god exists then ask whether you
believe IN some unstated aspect of this god. Before asking
this question they aught to have asked first, "Do you believe
god exists".
I am not sure but I got the impression that
most of the reactions came from Americans. So there is a discrepancy.
Are only the 20 % of disbelievers in the USA reading this NG ? Or are
the nonresponding Americans overwhelmed by the arguments of the
nonbelievers? I hope so, but I doubt it.
Oh, I am in favour of the disbelievers. I 'believe' that God did not
created man but man created God.
Hans
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 01:58:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:51:55 +0000 (UTC), jbm2004 <skippy@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> schreef:
Does God Exist?
I am a lurker to this NG and I read 32 reactions to the above
question. I noticed that ALL reactions were anti. Most atheïstic or at
least agnostic.
I live in Holland and read in the papers that say, 80 % of all
Americans believe in God. I am not sure but I got the impression that
most of the reactions came from Americans.
Yes, most reactions came from Americans.
So there is a discrepancy.
Are only the 20 % of disbelievers in the USA reading this NG ? Or are
the nonresponding Americans overwhelmed by the arguments of the
nonbelievers? I hope so, but I doubt it.
The question itself is slanted.
The arguments of the nonbelievers overwhem the believers which is part
of why the silence on their part. The few which did respond did not
address the arguments made. Such, once again, demonstrates
Christianity is based on emotion not reason.
Oh, I am in favour of the disbelievers. I 'believe' that God did not
created man but man created God.
Thousands of gods and Christianity stole all their concepts.
Hans
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Spiro" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 09:20:41 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
So to profess oneself as an atheist is nothing more than a belief system
of
people who feel the need to discredit the existence of a person they claim
does not exist.
Richard
This has to be the biggest load of circular reasoning I have ever seen in my
life......................
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 04:03:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:20:41 +0000 (UTC), "David Spiro"
<djspiro@bluefrognet.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
So to profess oneself as an atheist is nothing more than a belief system of
people who feel the need to discredit the existence of a person they claim
does not exist.
This has to be the biggest load of circular reasoning I have ever seen in my
life......................
Reasoning? I must have missed it.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
18 Dec 2004 01:35:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:20:41 +0000 (UTC), "David Spiro"
<djspiro@bluefrognet.net> wrote:
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
So to profess oneself as an atheist is nothing more than a belief system
of
people who feel the need to discredit the existence of a person they claim
does not exist.
Richard
This has to be the biggest load of circular reasoning I have ever seen in my
life......................
Theism is one heftly load of *****. Sadly, so many so-called
'adults' consider it smorgasbord and eat heartily.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
17 Dec 2004 10:15:48 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison without ill
effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god does not
exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
23 Dec 2004 01:47:15 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g-SdnbSksKegl17cRVn-pw@io.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure
or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a
believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison without ill
effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god does not
exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
That should read prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm not Christian. What
proof is there that God doesn't exist?
Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
23 Dec 2004 10:39:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:47:15 +0000 (UTC), "Richard"
<nospam@nospam.none> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g-SdnbSksKegl17cRVn-pw@io.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure
or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a
believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison without ill
effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god does not
exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
That should read prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm not Christian. What
proof is there that God doesn't exist?
Richard
First you must define what you mean by god. Without that definition
your three points are meaningless. Which of the numerous gods defined
throughout history are you referring to? Can you see the problem
here. You use god as if it is defined, assuming a common definition,
yet there is no common definition.
I can prove a negative. Given enough time and resources. Let's use a
simple example. I state there is a $20.00 bill under the bed in the
master bedroom at the address in which I currently reside. I can
prove or disprove this simply by going and looking under the bed. If
it is there I was wrong, if it isn't I have proven the negative. Yes,
the item was defined by using the symbol $, and the number 20.00. I
could do the same for a pound note, etc......
So all that has to be done is for you to provide a definition of god,
then the entire universe has to be checked for the existence of this
thing you defined, if not found it doesn't exist.
Of course that is an impossible proposition at this point in time.
Now, I cannot speak for any other person but the way I define myself
as an atheist is that I do not believe in any proposition of being,
commonly called god, that has been presented to me or that I have
researched on my own.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
24 Dec 2004 05:02:07 AM |
|
|
Richard wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g-SdnbSksKegl17cRVn-pw@io.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being unsure
or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a
believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison without
ill effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god does
not exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
That should read prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm not Christian. What
proof is there that God doesn't exist?
God disproved.
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the
most powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator
of all. This god is defined as being intelligent,
having conciousness,and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically
to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the rules,
the laws, the logic of the Universe at large? And thus
can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so,god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. It should be noted, theologians have stated god himself
may not do evil, but that this does not mean god is not
omnipotent, because it is god's nature to be good.
Thus they do not account this inability to do evil
as limiting god's free will either. Thus the idea of
man being unable to do evil should likewise not be
allowed as an argument, if they refuse to apply the
same standards and reasoning to god, that would be
special pleading.
11. Free will in man is insisted upon as a dodge by
theology the absolve god of the charge of allowing
evil,evil is necessary to allow for free will,
but that dodge is not acceptale in a world where
man explicitly has free will and a nature where doing
moral evil is impossible. It can't be used here.
12. God is said to be the most pwerful thing that can
be imagined,the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make teh laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
13. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these are all
thus falsified.
14. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
15. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
16. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient,superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Uinverse tht contained evil only because
he chose to crteate a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
17. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. he either camnnot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent.
18. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
19. Thus not only is god as so defined impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
20. Being failed, attempts to patch up the problems
pointed out here cannot be allowed to continue
using a failed methodology, making empty assertions,
special pleading, double standards and failing to
adequately test assertions rigorously, accepting
assertions not proven one way or another and in
the final anaylsis, often avoiding reason all
together with rhetorical questions "How can limited
man hope to understand an infinte god?". These
sorts of statments are simply indications that the
person in question is not going to be rational or
reasonable or change his or her mind faced with
facts.
21. By doing so, one loses the argument and all
expectations of respect for one's claims, that
person has abandoned reason and intellectual
honesty for obscurantism and superstition.
22. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
23. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws ofthe Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycsm chemisty, astronomy and other
sciences.
24. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for dissembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
25. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
Much less the Grand God of theological tradition.
26. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing so, since
as demonstrated above, that is a failure as a
methodology.
27. At early times, man had no notion of a supernatural
versus a natural worl, but as the idea of a natural
world has evolved, the idea of a supernatual world
has faded away. All is seen to be a natural world
of matter, energy, physics, no sign of supernatural
worlds or entities can be found.
28. All claims thus based on the idea a supernatural
world or entities might exist are unproven, and
it is the burden of anyone making such a claim
to prove such a thing does in fact exist, before
attempting to use claims of the existance of a
supernatural realm as a theoretical bassis for
existance of god. And by prove, I mean to produce
good, hard evidencefor such a supernatural world,
not assertions that may or may not be true.
This is the failed theological methodology and is
no longer acceptable.
24. There is a difference between making theoretical
claims a god may exist, and actually showing hard
evidence a god exists. Claiming god exists based
on deeper unproven assertions, existance of a
supernatural world, is not acceptable as evidence.
One may not stack up mere assertions and claim it
is hard evidence. Arranging assertions in a manner
that proof or disproof is impossible because it
involves a general disproof of a negative is not
acceptable as a methodology for providing hard
evidence of a god.
25. Since to save god's omni-benevolence, one must
admit that god did not create the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe, we know that these things
are beyond and outside god. But theology cannot
tell us we what these things are,and where they come
from. Since these things must limit god, failure to
be able to tell us anything about these laws and rules
in the setting of theological claims about god, this
means until theology handles this honestly and
adequately, theology cannot tell us anything about
god, even theoretically.
26. Theology must do this if it is to make further
claims about god in an attempt to save the concept
of god by making further assertions or claims.
One cannot describe god apart from a world in which
god must operate and exist with existing features
preceeding and outside and limiting or constraining
any possible god.
27. Possible alternative gods.
A believer might criticize this as it does not
disprove all types of gods, but, as this does
disprovethe dogmatic god of major religous systems,
that claim does not saves this god. And indeed it
is possible to disprove other god concepts.
28. Example, older Roman and Greek religions and
numerous other older polytheistic ancient religions
were basically built on the idea of nature gods,
that these gods are responsible for features
of the world, for rainfall, fertility of wives,
cattle and fields, for important activities like
growing wheat. But today, science explains these
things without any signs of a god or any other
supernatural entities or phenomenon being found,
and technology has solved many of the problems
that prompted creation of such gods that were
created in hopes offinding some force to propitiate
to assure success in agriculture, producing offspring
and avoiding or curing sickness and ill health.
These gods are thus failed and disprovable and
were so disproven and abandoned by most mankind
some 2000 years ago.
29. Other basic ideas about gods were explored long
ago by Greek thinkers and the basic claims are
similar to the Judeo-Christian theological god
and suceptible to similar disconfirmations.
stoic and neo-Platonist thinkers long wrestled
with these problems. Epicurus noted the problem
of evil long before Christianity. Stoics tried
to explain things by positing all is matter but
souls and gods and such are made of a finer grade
of matter. Which ideas are based on unproven claims
of doubtful nature and are thus disprovable.
These systems also created impossible contradictions,
argumenst about pre-destination vs free will that
were never solved when Christianiy overtook them
and left these arguments unresolved, as these
religions faded away.
30. Other arguments, an imminent god versus a
transcedent god, god beyond and outside of time,
a world that does not exist outside the mind of god
and other variations and kinds of gods introduce
a rich soure of further debunkable claims.
31. Example: a god outside of time sees the world
differently from us as a one big now without actual
past nor future. Thus god see the future and can
know the future with exactitude. But such a god
that interacts with the world is part of it, at
such a point that he so acts, the world and god
are frozen in the big now of the Universe, god
thus is frozen embedded in the Universe and thus
like us, has no free will. All is determined
strongly and already is. Since theology demands
god has free will dogmatically, this god out of time
claim must be false.
32. Finally, any empty assertion, unproven, is only that,
unproven. Many claims made for god are just that.
Merely pointing this out when appropriate is the
equivalent of showing that claim is not acceptable
because if is not backed by hard evidence it is true.
Gods based on mere assertions and related concepts
based on mere assertions cannot be said to be true
and are disproven by pointing out they are based
solely on unproven or unprovable or unlikely
assertions.
End
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
--
Dance, monkeys, dance!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
24 Dec 2004 06:37:07 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cqgtvi$5r2@library2.airnews.net...
Richard wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g-SdnbSksKegl17cRVn-pw@io.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being
unsure
or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you
can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a
believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison without
ill effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god
does
not exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
That should read prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm not Christian.
What
proof is there that God doesn't exist?
God disproved.
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
<HUGE SNIP>
Please stop posting that rubbish.
I have already responded to it several times and its getting boring.
You seem to be interested in Christianity. Thats what your pasted points
deal with.
I told you that I am not Christian. The law of karma and other aspects of
the original form of theology- Vedic philsopsophy, defeats all of your
points completely.
Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
24 Dec 2004 08:01:21 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cqh46k$28e$1@kermit.esat.net...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cqgtvi$5r2@library2.airnews.net...
Richard wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g-SdnbSksKegl17cRVn-pw@io.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or
the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being
unsure
or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as you
can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a
believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison without
ill effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god
does
not exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
That should read prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm not Christian.
What
proof is there that God doesn't exist?
God disproved.
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
<HUGE SNIP>
Please stop posting that rubbish.
I have already responded to it several times and its getting boring.
You seem to be interested in Christianity. Thats what your pasted points
deal with.
I told you that I am not Christian. The law of karma and other aspects of
the original form of theology- Vedic philsopsophy, defeats all of your
points completely.
Richard
Right Richard, one religion is just as false as the next one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Does God Exist? |
24 Dec 2004 09:08:52 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cCVyd.22620$ru3.1915@fe04.lga...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cqh46k$28e$1@kermit.esat.net...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cqgtvi$5r2@library2.airnews.net...
Richard wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:g-SdnbSksKegl17cRVn-pw@io.com...
"Richard" <nospam@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:cpuo9p$jnu$1@kermit.esat.net...
Does God Exist?
There are three answers to this question:
1) Yes, God does exist - this can be based on belief, evidence or
the
combination of the two.
Evidence? What evidence?
2) I don't know if God exists - this stance is a result of being
unsure
or
unconvinced about the evidence and having no clear beliefs
Honest.
3) No, God doesn't exist - this answer involves belief only, as
you
can
never find evidence that something doesn't exist.
Sure you can. Since I assume you're talking about the bible god, a
believer
should be able to move mountains with prayer, drink any poison
without
ill effect, etc. If a believer can't do these things, then that god
does
not exist.
So you should include disconfirming evidence in answer 3.
That should read prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm not Christian.
What
proof is there that God doesn't exist?
God disproved.
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
<HUGE SNIP>
Please stop posting that rubbish.
I have already responded to it several times and its getting boring.
You seem to be interested in Christianity. Thats what your pasted points
deal with.
I told you that I am not Christian. The law of karma and other aspects
of
the original form of theology- Vedic philsopsophy, defeats all of your
points completely.
Richard
Right Richard, one religion is just as false as the next one.
Who said anything about religion?
Richard
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
