Proof that God is imperfect

[Quesi]

I don’t know.   I kind of think that the existence of this forum is evidence of God’s imperfection.  An omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful being, whose main goal , is to be worshipped, allowed all of us atheists to fail to understand his scriptures?  Doesn’t sound perfect to me. 

I understand that the premise of this thread is that we all inherited our imperfections from A&E.  I thought it also had something to do with God's nemesis, Satan.  In either case, we are all examples of God's failure. 

[12 Monkeys]

So, freewill must be perfect - even though it allows a human to sin?

Perfect cannot have free will. A perfect thing must be unchangeable. Because if it were perfect there would be no reason for it to ever change. There is nothing to want, nothing to need, nothing to desire. It should be everything that it could ever be that would give it it's perfection. Any change that could be made to it would, by definition, be imperfect.

So no sentient being can be perfect.

Except me, of course.........and Christopher Walken......and Jessica Alba (rowr)

They were also in the PERFECT place the Garden of Eden. So how did the snake get there and how would God not know? Being ommni-everything but missing a snake in a perfect place means God is a failure.

[riley2112]

So, freewill must be perfect - even though it allows a human to sin?

Perfect cannot have free will. A perfect thing must be unchangeable. Because if it were perfect there would be no reason for it to ever change. There is nothing to want, nothing to need, nothing to desire. It should be everything that it could ever be that would give it it's perfection. Any change that could be made to it would, by definition, be imperfect.

So no sentient being can be perfect.

Except me, of course.........and Christopher Walken......and Jessica Alba (rowr)

They were also in the PERFECT place the Garden of Eden. So how did the snake get there and how would God not know? Being ommni-everything but missing a snake in a perfect place means God is a failure.

I do not see god as a failure, I mean , he made you monkey and I am starting to think you may not be perfect , but of anyone I know you come closest to it.   Come on ,, that is funny.

[12 Monkeys]

Sperm and egg made me,Imaginary beings had NOTHING to do with it....unless you dismiss the FACT that The Raven coaxed the first humans out of the clamshell on  Naikoun beach in Haida Gwaii about 16,000 years ago. (See I can be perfect AND funny)

[Turbo SS]

My answer: Making humans?! Most of the world's problems are caused by humanity:

War
Murder
Climate change
Environmental threats
Overpopulation

These are all examples of the threats humanity poses to the planet. These problems can be fixed, people need to learn not to kill each other (all the time). Only people that deserve to live should live. War is an ongoing thing, the only time all of humanity are going to be friends is when the planet is attacked by aliens. It shouldn't have to take an alien army to make people not kill each other. World peace could be achieved.

When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.
 
It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.
 
We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology - they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.
 
Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.
 
I am sure that many people share my concern about the present worldwide moral crisis and will join in my appeal to all humanitarians and religious practitioners who also share this concern to help make our societies more compassionate, just, and equitable. I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions. From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook - that:

Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems;
Compassion is the pillar of world peace;
All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology;
Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.
Solving Human Problems through Transforming Human Attitudes

Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained.
 
By far the greatest single danger facing humankind - in fact, all living beings on our planet - is the threat of nuclear destruction. I need not elaborate on this danger, but I would like to appeal to all the leaders of the nuclear powers who literally hold the future of the world in their hands, to the scientists and technicians who continue to create these awesome weapons of destruction, and to all the people at large who are in a position to influence their leaders: I appeal to them to exercise their sanity and begin to work at dismantling and destroying all nuclear weapons. We know that in the event of a nuclear war there will be no victors because there will be no survivors! Is it not frightening just to contemplate such inhuman and heartless destruction? And, is it not logical that we should remove the cause for our own destruction when we know the cause and have both the time and the means to do so? Often we cannot overcome our problems because we either do not know the cause or, if we understand it, do not have the means to remove it. This is not the case with the nuclear threat.
 
Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.
 
Broadly speaking there are two types of happiness and suffering, mental and physical, and of the two, I believe that mental suffering and happiness are the more acute. Hence, I stress the training of the mind to endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. However, I also have a more general and concrete idea of happiness: a combination of inner peace, economic development, and, above all, world peace. To achieve such goals I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all irrespective of creed, colour, sex, or nationality.
 
The premise behind this idea of universal responsibility is the simple fact that, in general terms, all others' desires are the same as mine. Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings, do not accept this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centred approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question.
 
In their quest for happiness, humans have used different methods, which all too often have been cruel and repellent. Behaving in ways utterly unbecoming to their status as humans, they inflict suffering upon fellow humans and other living beings for their own selfish gains. In the end, such shortsighted actions bring suffering to oneself as well as to others. To be born a human being is a rare event in itself, and it is wise to use this opportunity as effectively and skillfully as possible. We must have the proper perspective that of the universal life process, so that the happiness or glory of one person or group is not sought at the expense of others.
 
All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller - and more and more interdependent - as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence - let alone bring about peace and happiness.
 
One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace. What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call 'wise self-interest', which hopefully will transform itself into 'compromised self-interest', or better still, 'mutual interest'.
 
Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony. A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today.
 
On the other hand, if humankind continues to approach its problems considering only temporary expediency, future generations will have to face tremendous difficulties. The global population is increasing, and our resources are being rapidly depleted. Look at the trees, for example. No one knows exactly what adverse effects massive deforestation will have on the climate, the soil, and global ecology as a whole. We are facing problems because people are concentrating only on their short-term, selfish interests, not thinking of the entire human family. They are not thinking of the earth and the long-term effects on universal life as a whole. If we of the present generation do not think about these now, future generations may not be able to cope with them.

Compassion as the Pillar of World Peace

According to Buddhist psychology, most of our troubles are due to our passionate desire for and attachment to things that we misapprehend as enduring entities. The pursuit of the objects of our desire and attachment involves the use of aggression and competitiveness as supposedly efficacious instruments. These mental processes easily translate into actions, breeding belligerence as an obvious effect. Such processes have been going on in the human mind since time immemorial, but their execution has become more effective under modern conditions. What can we do to control and regulate these 'poisons' - delusion, greed, and aggression? For it is these poisons that are behind almost every trouble in the world.
 
As one brought up in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. Let me first define what I mean by compassion. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations. On the other hand, love towards your wife, your husband, your children, or a close friend is usually based on attachment. When your attachment changes, your kindness also changes; it may disappear. This is not true love. Real love is not based on attachment, but on altruism. In this case your compassion will remain as a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer.
 
This type of compassion is what we must strive to cultivate in ourselves, and we must develop it from a limited amount to the limitless. Undiscriminating, spontaneous, and unlimited compassion for all sentient beings is obviously not the usual love that one has for friends or family, which is alloyed with ignorance, desire, and attachment. The kind of love we should advocate is this wider love that you can have even for someone who has done harm to you: your enemy.
 
The rationale for compassion is that every one of us wants to avoid suffering and gain happiness. This, in turn, is based on the valid feeling of '1', which determines the universal desire for happiness. Indeed, all beings are born with similar desires and should have an equal right to fulfill them. If I compare myself with others, who are countless, I feel that others are more important because I am just one person whereas others are many. Further, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition teaches us to view all sentient beings as our dear mothers and to show our gratitude by loving them all. For, according to Buddhist theory, we are born and reborn countless numbers of times, and it is conceivable that each being has been our parent at one time or another. In this way all beings in the universe share a family relationship.
 
Whether one believes in religion or not, there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. Right from the moment of our birth, we are under the care and kindness of our parents; later in life, when facing the sufferings of disease and old age, we are again dependent on the kindness of others. If at the beginning and end of our lives we depend upon others' kindness, why then in the middle should we not act kindly towards others?
The development of a kind heart (a feeling of closeness for all human beings) does not involve the religiosity we normally associate with conventional religious practice. It is not only for people who believe in religion, but is for everyone regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. It is for anyone who considers himself or herself, above all, a member of the human family and who sees things from this larger and longer perspective. This is a powerful feeling that we should develop and apply; instead, we often neglect it, particularly in our prime years when we experience a false sense of security.
 
When we take into account a longer perspective, the fact that all wish to gain happiness and avoid suffering, and keep in mind our relative unimportance in relation to countless others, we can conclude that it is worthwhile to share our possessions with others. When you train in this sort of outlook, a true sense of compassion - a true sense of love and respect for others - becomes possible. Individual happiness ceases to be a conscious self-seeking effort; it becomes an automatic and far superior by-product of the whole process of loving and serving others.
 
Another result of spiritual development, most useful in day-to-day life, is that it gives a calmness and presence of mind. Our lives are in constant flux, bringing many difficulties. When faced with a calm and clear mind, problems can be successfully resolved. When, instead, we lose control over our minds through hatred, selfishness, jealousy, and anger, we lose our sense of judgement. Our minds are blinded and at those wild moments anything can happen, including war. Thus, the practice of compassion and wisdom is useful to all, especially to those responsible for running national affairs, in whose hands lie the power and opportunity to create the structure of world peace.

World Religions for World Peace

The principles discussed so far are in accordance with the ethical teachings of all world religions. I maintain that every major religion of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings. All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.
 
All religions agree upon the necessity to control the undisciplined mind that harbours selfishness and other roots of trouble, and each teaches a path leading to a spiritual state that is peaceful, disciplined, ethical, and wise. It is in this sense that I believe all religions have essentially the same message. Differences of dogma may be ascribed to differences of time and circumstance as well as cultural influences; indeed, there is no end to scholastic argument when we consider the purely metaphysical side of religion. However, it is much more beneficial to try to implement in daily life the shared precepts for goodness taught by all religions rather than to argue about minor differences in approach.
 
There are many different religions to bring comfort and happiness to humanity in much the same way as there are particular treatments for different diseases. For, all religions endeavour in their own way to help living beings avoid misery and gain happiness. And, although we can find causes for preferring certain interpretations of religious truths, there is much greater cause for unity, stemming from the human heart. Each religion works in its own way to lessen human suffering and contribute to world civilization. Conversion is not the point. For instance, I do not think of converting others to Buddhism or merely furthering the Buddhist cause. Rather, I try to think of how I as a Buddhist humanitarian can contribute to human happiness.
 
While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion'. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings.
 
It is from this perspective that I welcome efforts being made in various parts of the world for better understanding among religions. The need for this is particularly urgent now. If all religions make the betterment of humanity their main concern, then they can easily work together in harmony for world peace. Interfaith understanding will bring about the unity necessary for all religions to work together. However, although this is indeed an important step, we must remember that there are no quick or easy solutions. We cannot hide the doctrinal differences that exist among various faiths, nor can we hope to replace the existing religions by a new universal belief. Each religion has its own distinctive contributions to make, and each in its own way is suitable to a particular group of people as they understand life. The world needs them all.
 
There are two primary tasks facing religious practitioners who are concerned with world peace. First, we must promote better interfaith understanding so as to create a workable degree of unity among all religions. This may be achieved in part by respecting each other's beliefs and by emphasizing our common concern for human well-being. Second, we must bring about a viable consensus on basic spiritual values that touch every human heart and enhance general human happiness. This means we must emphasize the common denominator of all world religions - humanitarian ideals. These two steps will enable us to act both individually and together to create the necessary spiritual conditions for world peace.
 
We practitioners of different faiths can work together for world peace when we view different religions as essentially instruments to develop a good heart - love and respect for others, a true sense of community. The most important thing is to look at the purpose of religion and not at the details of theology or metaphysics, which can lead to mere intellectualism. I believe that all the major religions of the world can contribute to world peace and work together for the benefit of humanity if we put aside subtle metaphysical differences, which are really the internal business of each religion.
 
Despite the progressive secularization brought about by worldwide modernization and despite systematic attempts in some parts of the world to destroy spiritual values, the vast majority of humanity continues to believe in one religion or another. The undying faith in religion, evident even under irreligious political systems, clearly demonstrates the potency of religion as such. This spiritual energy and power can be purposefully used to bring about the spiritual conditions necessary for world peace. Religious leaders and humanitarians all over the world have a special role to play in this respect.
 
Whether we will be able to achieve world peace or not, we have no choice but to work towards that goal. If our minds are dominated by anger, we will lose the best part of human intelligence - wisdom, the ability to decide between right and wrong. Anger is one of the most serious problems facing the world today.

Individual Power to Shape Institutions

Anger plays no small role in current conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the North-South problem, and so forth. These conflicts arise from a failure to understand one another's humanness. The answer is not the development and use of greater military force, nor an arms race. Nor is it purely political or purely technological. Basically it is spiritual, in the sense that what is required is a sensitive understanding of our common human situation. Hatred and fighting cannot bring happiness to anyone, even to the winners of battles. Violence always produces misery and thus is essentially counter-productive. It is, therefore, time for world leaders to learn to transcend the differences of race, culture, and ideology and to regard one another through eyes that see the common human situation. To do so would benefit individuals, communities, nations, and the world at large.
 
The greater part of present world tension seems to stem from the 'Eastern bloc' versus 'Western bloc' conflict that has been going on since World War II. These two blocs tend to describe and view each other in a totally unfavourable light. This continuing, unreasonable struggle is due to a lack of mutual affection and respect for each other as fellow human beings. Those of the Eastern bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Western bloc because the Western bloc is also made up of human beings - men, women, and children. Similarly those of the Western bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Eastern bloc because the Eastern bloc is also human beings. In such a reduction of mutual hatred, the leaders of both blocs have a powerful role to play. But first and foremost, leaders must realize their own and others' humanness. Without this basic realization, very little effective reduction of organized hatred can be achieved.
 
If, for example, the leader of the United States of America and the leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly met each other in the middle of a desolate island, I am sure they would respond to each other spontaneously as fellow human beings. But a wall of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding separates them the moment they are identified as the 'President of the USA' and the 'Secretary-General of the USSR'). More human contact in the form of informal extended meetings, without any agenda, would improve their mutual understanding; they would learn to relate to each other as human beings and could then try to tackle international problems based on this understanding. No two parties, especially those with a history of antagonism, can negotiate fruitfully in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and hatred.
 
I suggest that world leaders meet about once a year in a beautiful place without any business, just to get to know each other as human beings. Then, later, they could meet to discuss mutual and global problems. I am sure many others share my wish that world leaders meet at the conference table in such an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding of each other's humanness.
 
To improve person-to-person contact in the world at large, I would like to see greater encouragement of international tourism. Also, mass media, particularly in democratic societies, can make a considerable contribution to world peace by giving greater coverage to human interest items that reflect the ultimate oneness of humanity. With the rise of a few big powers in the international arena, the humanitarian role of international organizations is being bypassed and neglected. I hope that this will be corrected and that all international organizations, especially the United Nations, will be more active and effective in ensuring maximum benefit to humanity and promoting international understanding. It will indeed be tragic if the few powerful members continue to misuse world bodies like the UN for their one-sided interests. The UN must become the instrument of world peace. This world body must be respected by all, for the UN is the only source of hope for small oppressed nations and hence for the planet as a whole.
 
As all nations are economically dependent upon one another more than ever before, human understanding must go beyond national boundaries and embrace the international community at large. Indeed, unless we can create an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, gained not by threatened or actual use of force but by heartfelt understanding, world problems will only increase. If people in poorer countries are denied the happiness they desire and deserve, they will naturally be dissatisfied and pose problems for the rich. If unwanted social, political, and cultural forms continue to be imposed upon unwilling people, the attainment of world peace is doubtful. However, if we satisfy people at a heart-to-heart level, peace will surely come.
 
Within each nation, the individual ought to be given the right to happiness, and among nations, there must be equal concern for the welfare of even the smallest nations. I am not suggesting that one system is better than another and all should adopt it. On the contrary, a variety of political systems and ideologies is desirable and accords with the variety of dispositions within the human community. This variety enhances the ceaseless human quest for happiness. Thus each community should be free to evolve its own political and socio-economic system, based on the principle of self-determination.
 
The achievement of justice, harmony, and peace depends on many factors. We should think about them in terms of human benefit in the long run rather than the short term. I realize the enormity of the task before us, but I see no other alternative than the one I am proposing - which is based on our common humanity. Nations have no choice but to be concerned about the welfare of others, not so much because of their belief in humanity, but because it is in the mutual and long-term interest of all concerned. An appreciation of this new reality is indicated by the emergence of regional or continental economic organizations such as the European Economic Community, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and so forth. I hope more such trans-national organizations will be formed, particularly in regions where economic development and regional stability seem in short supply.

Click the link for more: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/a-human-approach-to-peace

[raytech70]

Therefore God cannot be perfect.
[/quote]

There's a school of thought here you entirely miss: it wasn't so much that God punished Adam and Eve (after all he told them what would happen if they did eat from the tree of knowledge)... Satan is doomed to Hell, but God has allowed him to appeal and prove his position that God created him and therefore was not subject to the sin he committed.  Our whole existence is a big court case with Satan trying to prove that man cannot live without sinning (to justify his own infraction trying to take over Heaven)... It's an odd way of stating it-- but if you go further you'll see God killing people because they stood in the way of proving God's Divine Justice (the Nephilim corrupted the human genome in the attempt to foul the bloodline to Jesus)... You find contests like this in Job, for example.  The Old Testament is abound with examples of God vetting out those who seek to avoid Him... the punishment for sin is to be put in the absence of God / Life... they could not stay in Eden so God kicked them out and made them mortal.

[Historicity]

There's a school of thought here you entirely miss: ... Our whole existence is a big court case with Satan trying to prove that man cannot live without sinning (to justify his own infraction trying to take over Heaven).

Yeah, I got something like that from Gary North in None Dare Call it Witchcraft (1976).  In North's twist, socialism is Satan's plot.  Socialism, y'see, gives the undeserving -- the sinner -- stuff.  So Satan's plan is world socialism for a few centuries.  Then at the last judgement when Satan gets his sentence there will be so many Christians who were raised all easy like under socialism that they will raise a clamor, "Hey, Lord, chill out!  Lighten up!  I got Social Security and I didn't do anything for it.  Let Satan off the hook.  He ain't so bad."

And Satan figures Jesus will reluctantly give that an "ok. all right."

And Dr. North meant that seriously.

[sheri817]

is there proof that god is real or not real?

[Dante]

is there proof that god is real or not real?

There is no proof that any gods are real, and it's nigh impossible to disprove that which does not exist.

Is there proof that invisble pink unicorns don't live in my closet? Leprechauns? Fairies? Santa Claus?

Like gods, all of the above are mythical beings, so far as we can tell.

Read some of the other threads around here. They can be very educational, and help you form a more accurate mental picture of religious beliefs, and why they're all highly suspect.

[screwtape]

is there proof that god is real or not real?

how would  you prove a thing - a dog, a car, a dragon, a god, anything,  - is not real?  What sort of evidence would you expect to find of a thing's non-existence?

[BaalServant]

how would  you prove a thing - a dog, a car, a dragon, a god, anything,  - is not real?  What sort of evidence would you expect to find of a thing's non-existence?

Well, if a god is claimed to have invented the world's languages at the base of a tower, and we are presented with all evidence indicating that languages actually evolved, this is an example of proof that a god is not real.

If a god is claimed to have flooded the earth, yet there is no point in history when the world's civilizations have ended, then we can see this is another example of proof that a god is not real.

I guess it does depend on which god one is talking about.  Ba'al for example?  Yeah, I'm still up in the air on that one, but the bible god?  There's no way that that armageddon fairy's for real.

[screwtape]

how would  you prove a thing - a dog, a car, a dragon, a god, anything,  - is not real?  What sort of evidence would you expect to find of a thing's non-existence?

Well, if a god is claimed to have invented the world's languages at the base of a tower, and we are presented with all evidence indicating that languages actually evolved, this is an example of proof that a god is not real.

Nope.  that is just evidence that god did not invent language the way we thought.  Or that perhaps god did not invent lanuage at all.

If a god is claimed to have flooded the earth, yet there is no point in history when the world's civilizations have ended, then we can see this is another example of proof that a god is not real.

Nope.  It just means the story is wrong, not that there are no gods.

[BaalServant]

Nope.  that is just evidence that god did not invent language the way we thought.  Or that perhaps god did not invent lanuage at all.

Nope.  It just means the story is wrong, not that there are no gods.

I agree with you here.  I'm just saying it's proven that specifically, given any god that's based on descriptions of the god in the bible, this god doesn't exist.

Other gods have been wise enough not to have made such disprovable claims.  : )

[jeremy0]

Therefore God cannot be perfect.

There's a school of thought here you entirely miss: it wasn't so much that God punished Adam and Eve (after all he told them what would happen if they did eat from the tree of knowledge)... Satan is doomed to Hell, but God has allowed him to appeal and prove his position that God created him and therefore was not subject to the sin he committed.  Our whole existence is a big court case with Satan trying to prove that man cannot live without sinning (to justify his own infraction trying to take over Heaven)... It's an odd way of stating it-- but if you go further you'll see God killing people because they stood in the way of proving God's Divine Justice (the Nephilim corrupted the human genome in the attempt to foul the bloodline to Jesus)... You find contests like this in Job, for example.  The Old Testament is abound with examples of God vetting out those who seek to avoid Him... the punishment for sin is to be put in the absence of God / Life... they could not stay in Eden so God kicked them out and made them mortal.

There's a school of thought you entirely miss - it's called science.  If Adam and Eve really ate from the tree of knowledge, then why don't we know everything already, from day 1 ^[1]
You claim that Satan is doomed to hell, then 'not subject to the sin he committed.' Where is your reference for this statement?
The OT is abound with contradictions to science - science has completely invalidated it.  When that happened for me, my immediate response was 'the OT cannot be true whatsoever'.  You all's contention is 'We just interpreted it wrong.  maybe it should have been metaphorical'.  You try to force in puzzle pieces by changing the message, which no longer makes any logical sense...
You claim that Adam and Eve were immortal - I never heard of that... <sup>[2]
[1] This is obviously a paradox.  You speak of a magical garden, then a mystical tree of which fruit was eating due to a talking snake.  This 'snake' was then supposedly put here to 'trick' everyone into doing 'evil'.  Then, God treats everyone as a sinner and condemns.  But somehow, you are saved from all of this.  If god was pissed enough to cast out Adam and Eve for eating fruit, why wouldn't he be pissed at everyone for anything relatively bad that they did?  (sic) btw - a lot of people believe that Eden was in Missouri...   

[2] Adam and Eve were immortals, but then given mortality, only to prove through their children the viability of becoming immortal again.  It sounds like Adam and Eve were in heaven, then cast down to hell, then in heaven again.  if god is willing to put a tree right in the middle of Adam and Eve, leave, and then allow his 'nemesis' to persuade them to eat from it, why did he put it there in the first place?  Wouldn't he have already known, as a god, that they would eat from it?  And Adam and Eve were immortals yet they were created, along with every other animal/species, just to become mortal in one single day?  Sounds like crap to me...</sup>

[nogodsforme]

There's a school of thought you entirely miss - it's called science.  If Adam and Eve really ate from the tree of knowledge, then why don't we know everything already, from day 1 ^[1]
You claim that Satan is doomed to hell, then 'not subject to the sin he committed.' Where is your reference for this statement?
The OT is abound with contradictions to science - science has completely invalidated it.  When that happened for me, my immediate response was 'the OT cannot be true whatsoever'.  You all's contention is 'We just interpreted it wrong.  maybe it should have been metaphorical'.  You try to force in puzzle pieces by changing the message, which no longer makes any logical sense...
You claim that Adam and Eve were immortal - I never heard of that... <sup>[2]
[1] This is obviously a paradox.  You speak of a magical garden, then a mystical tree of which fruit was eating due to a talking snake.  This 'snake' was then supposedly put here to 'trick' everyone into doing 'evil'.  Then, God treats everyone as a sinner and condemns.  But somehow, you are saved from all of this.  If god was pissed enough to cast out Adam and Eve for eating fruit, why wouldn't he be pissed at everyone for anything relatively bad that they did?  (sic) btw - a lot of people believe that Eden was in Missouri...   

[2] Adam and Eve were immortals, but then given mortality, only to prove through their children the viability of becoming immortal again.  It sounds like Adam and Eve were in heaven, then cast down to hell, then in heaven again.  if god is willing to put a tree right in the middle of Adam and Eve, leave, and then allow his 'nemesis' to persuade them to eat from it, why did he put it there in the first place?  Wouldn't he have already known, as a god, that they would eat from it?  And Adam and Eve were immortals yet they were created, along with every other animal/species, just to become mortal in one single day?  Sounds like crap to me...</sup>

This one, although young, has great wisdom, Obi-wan.

[magicguy]

I have seen some theist say that it does not say god made them perfect so they had free will just like we do now.I usually reply asking them why god would be mad if an imperfect creature he created does something imperfect,then they insult me LOL ad hominem.Anyway would you guys answer similarly?

[Bereft_of_Faith]

These semantics are making my head spin.  Here's my take on this:

If biblegod knows everything, but allowed a&e to fall, then he is clearly a dick. 

The xian response should be, he is the Lord, and if you say he's a dick, he's gonna get your ass but good!

OR

If biblegod does not know everything, then he's not a dick.  He's just a god in the same way as other gods are gods... flawed, doing the best they can or will.

The xian response should be, words like perfection are used as logical tricks by atheists.  We don't know why it happened the way that it did, but god provided an escape route, so we could be redeemed, praise jebus.

Where they make their most common mistake is to collectively use either and both answers as needed.  It's either or.  They are mutually exclusive.

[willyt]

And this proves that God isn't perfect?  Where did you get that God is perfect and how do you define perfect?

[screwtape]

And this proves that God isn't perfect?  Where did you get that God is perfect and how do you define perfect?

Are you saying god is not perfect?

[jeremy0]

And this proves that God isn't perfect?  Where did you get that God is perfect and how do you define perfect?

Are you saying god is not perfect?

Are you saying god is a mere mortal?  (loopback)