"Disproving god"

[gonegolfing]

. At that point, that is where faith comes in. To my knowledge there is no way to absolutely, without a doubt prove that God does not exist so the question comes down to “What are you putting your faith in?” I don’t think evidence alone can convince someone 100% one way or the other so that is where faith comes in.

Proving a negative...which we don't have to. We don't make it our business to do so. Although most atheists here can easily refute the god-idea with logical reasoning, the onus is always on the likes of you who make the god claims to prove them true.

Do you understand what logical fallacies are ? To deem a premise true only because it has not been proved false is such a fallacy.

As far as I recall, hard, clear, unambiguous, and empirical evidence has always been 100% convincing so I'm not sure what the hell your talking about.

The facts of reality and experiences in life are what we build our trust on and form our reasonable expectations with. Not faith. What's faith anyways ? I'm sure you're meaning it to be some kind of strong trust by means of "spiritual conviction" with regards to the supposed eternal nature of the human soul ? Which is of course something again for which you have zero evidence of its existence.

“What are you putting your faith in?”

Should really have said--"so what hands are you putting the fate of your soul in?" Correct Zach ?

[Alzael]

. At that point, that is where faith comes in. To my knowledge there is no way to absolutely, without a doubt prove that God does not exist so the question comes down to “What are you putting your faith in?” I don’t think evidence alone can convince someone 100% one way or the other so that is where faith comes in.

Depends on which god. The Christian god? Absolutely.

There's several ways to do that.

1) God is, according to scripture, all-knowing.

2)God is also, according to scripture, all-powerful.

3) Either the future hasn't been determined yet, and thus can't be known, or it has been determined, and thus cannot be changed.

4) God cannot exist with the two aforementioned attributes in a universe in which time is determinative.

Or

1) God said Tyre will never be rebuilt. (Ezekiel 26:1-14)

2) Tyre was rebuilt, and exists today.

3) God either was wrong, or he lied.

4) Scripture claims god is perfect.

5) Perfect beings cannot be wrong.

6)God must have lied.

7)God is, according to scripture, without sin.

8)Lying and being without sin are mutually exclusive.

9)These two traits cannot exist in one being.

10)God cannot exist.

Or we could just phrase it even more simply.

"God is all merciful" and "God is perfectly just."

You cannot have perfect mercy and perfect justice at the same time, because mercy is a suspension of justice.

There, the Christian god disproved as being logically impossible. Did you have another god in mind?

[ButterFlavoredPam]

3) Either the future hasn't been determined yet, and thus can't be known, or it has been determined, and thus cannot be changed.

Just a comment here.  This seems as narrow minded as the theist who uses the opening line of "Either God exists, or he doesn't".

I'll admit that I don't have any ready alternatives in this case, however, I am also not as powerful or knowledgeable as God is alleged to be.  Perhaps there is a third (or forth or fifth) alternative hiding in the "has not been determined yet" scenario? 

[Alzael]

Just a comment here.  This seems as narrow minded as the theist who uses the opening line of "Either God exists, or he doesn't".

That's not narrow-minded. That's the truth. How exactly does something half-exist? The narrow-minded bit is that they instantly assume the exists part and ignore evidence against it.

I'll admit that I don't have any ready alternatives in this case, however, I am also not as powerful or knowledgeable as God is alleged to be.  Perhaps there is a third (or forth or fifth) alternative hiding in the "has not been determined yet" scenario?

Logically no, there isn't. Unless you're going to assume that god can also do the illogical and the contradictory as part of his omnipotence, in which case the very existence of god becomes a contradiction of its own. Which could possibly be the case, but at that point there's nothing to work with to have any semblance of a meaningful conversation.

[Hatter23]

However, I’m sure some people will never be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented.

Lets start with the evidence of some healed amputees and I won't think you a complete moron.

[Hatter23]

There are few lines of evidence (or, if I may use, arguments) that provide some support for the existence of God: historical

Ohhh, really show me one...One instance where something in history happened that required the interference of a deity. Else wise, you are talking a history of belief, or mythology

moral

Once again, the morality shown in the bible is less advanced than a 21rst century secular humanist. It is bronze age morality written by a bronze age people

cosmological

The a name for this, it is called an appeal to ignorance. Deities have always been the explanation for things men could not understand and this is no different

teleological

The a name for this, it is called an appeal to ignorance. Deities have always been the explanation for things men could not understand and this is no different

ontological

Someone else on this thread used the analogy of the Planet Vulcan from Star Trek, it applies equally to this ludicrous line of thinking

Of course, each argument varies in strength and degree of confidence

They don't vary in strength. They all simply are linguistic slights of hand and appeals to distract the plain and simple fact there is no more evidence for Yahweh than there is for Zeus or Spock.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

Just a comment here.  This seems as narrow minded as the theist who uses the opening line of "Either God exists, or he doesn't".

That's not narrow-minded. That's the truth. How exactly does something half-exist? The narrow-minded bit is that they instantly assume the exists part and ignore evidence against it.

I'll admit that I don't have any ready alternatives in this case, however, I am also not as powerful or knowledgeable as God is alleged to be.  Perhaps there is a third (or forth or fifth) alternative hiding in the "has not been determined yet" scenario?

Logically no, there isn't. Unless you're going to assume that god can also do the illogical and the contradictory as part of his omnipotence, in which case the very existence of god becomes a contradiction of its own. Which could possibly be the case, but at that point there's nothing to work with to have any semblance of a meaningful conversation.

Logically your statement that "either the future has been determined or it hasn't" is a tautology.  I cannot find anyway to disagree with it because of its very nature.  My point was that other options exist.  For example, an expert gambler counting cards can, in the aggregate, predict the future without knowing what every card dealt wil be and in what order. 

"All or nothing" isn't usually our style here. 

[Alzael]

Logically your statement that "either the future has been determined or it hasn't" is a tautology.  I cannot find anyway to disagree with it because of its very nature.  My point was that other options exist.  For example, an expert gambler counting cards can, in the aggregate, predict the future without knowing what every card dealt wil be and in what order. 

"All or nothing" isn't usually our style here. 

Which is not remotely the same thing. You're talking about probability, not omniscience. An expert gambler can predict what might happen. He does not know that it will happen. It has nothing to do with whether the future is pre-determined.

You haven't presented another option, you've shifted the goalposts.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

Logically your statement that "either the future has been determined or it hasn't" is a tautology.  I cannot find anyway to disagree with it because of its very nature.  My point was that other options exist.  For example, an expert gambler counting cards can, in the aggregate, predict the future without knowing what every card dealt wil be and in what order. 

"All or nothing" isn't usually our style here. 

Which is not remotely the same thing. You're talking about probability, not omniscience. An expert gambler can predict what might happen. He does not know that it will happen. It has nothing to do with whether the future is pre-determined.

You haven't presented another option, you've shifted the goalposts.

I understand your point and I agree with it . . . to a degree.  An expert gambler counting cards knows, in the aggregate, what WILL happen, not what might happen.  Flip a fair coin and I can tell you with uncanny accuracy what the aggregate outcome with be over 1000 flips.  If I designed the coin and I weighted the coin slightly more on one side than the other I can tell you how that will change the outcome.

Again, please note that this is a clumsy and very crude analogy.  I am attempting only to show that we don't know what all the options or ramifications of a supreme creator would be given the finite, limited tools we have to view the enormity of the universe around us. 

[screwtape]

An expert gambler counting cards knows, in the aggregate, what WILL happen, not what might happen. 

The cards in the deck are shuffled and set.  They are determined, though possibly not known by the gambler.

Flip a fair coin and I can tell you with uncanny accuracy what the aggregate outcome with be over 1000 flips.

If all the variables were known - flipping force, weight of the coin, center of gravity of the coin, etc - each flip could also be known.  Because each flip is subject to natural laws, and thus is determined. 

You are getting hung up on available information and predictability and missing the point of determined vs non-determined.

If something is determined - the already shuffled deck of cards - then it cannot be changed.  The question of what is or is not determined does not apply to that.  It applies to the shuffle itself.  Is that truly "random" or is it subject to laws that determine how it will come out even though we cannot predict it?  The same is true of the coin flip.  Is it determined by gravity, friction, air resistance, laws of motion, or not? 

It is not a tautology.  Either we live in a deterministic world, or we do not. 

[Alzael]

Again, please note that this is a clumsy and very crude analogy.  I am attempting only to show that we don't know what all the options or ramifications of a supreme creator would be given the finite, limited tools we have to view the enormity of the universe around us.

And as I said, at that point it has no bearing on any meaningful conversation. As I said before, at this point you are positing a god that can freely defy logic and perform contradictory actions. At such a point any discussion breaks down.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

Again, please note that this is a clumsy and very crude analogy.  I am attempting only to show that we don't know what all the options or ramifications of a supreme creator would be given the finite, limited tools we have to view the enormity of the universe around us.

And as I said, at that point it has no bearing on any meaningful conversation. As I said before, at this point you are positing a god that can freely defy logic and perform contradictory actions. At such a point any discussion breaks down.

No, I'm not.  I positing an alternative to a 3"O" God.

Actually, that is incorrect.  I am not positing the existence of any God.  My only point was that "Either the future is set or it isn't" does not encompass "Either the future is knowable or it isn't".  A God who knows certain aspects of the future need not be omniscient.  A God capable of creating the universe we live in need not be omnipotent.  Finally, the terms omnipotent and omniscient are really meaningless, place-holder words for concepts that are, by definition, outside our ability to grasp.  Discounting the existence of God based on "If not X then Y" seems to be too . . .er . . . theistic.  That is normally their game, not ours.

[Alzael]

No, I'm not.  I positing an alternative to a 3"O" God.

Yes but so what? The discussion was based on a 3"O" god. What does it matter if you posit an entirely different god then the one that is being discussed?

A God who knows certain aspects of the future need not be omniscient.  A God capable of creating the universe we live in need not be omnipotent.

Neither of which is relevant since we are talking about the logical existence of a god that is omniscient and omnipotent.

Finally, the terms omnipotent and omniscient are really meaningless, place-holder words for concepts that are, by definition, outside our ability to grasp.  Discounting the existence of God based on "If not X then Y" seems to be too . . .er . . . theistic.  That is normally their game, not ours.

Agreed, but that's the main point of the argument that was made.

Pam......did you actually read the thread? You seem to be having an entirely different conversation than the rest of us.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

You seem to be having an entirely different conversation than the rest of us.

Not exactly.  I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to explore a tangent based on your statement that either the future was set in stone or it wasn't.  The average Christian employs a peculiar variety of doublethink to accept both omniscience and omnipotence.  Since you agree that both terms are beyond our comprehension, the logical consequences of those terms may also not be limited to a simple if/then argument.

As I said, the fault is mine.  Just trying to flesh-out a vague thought and using you guys as a sounding board.    

[Alzael]

As I said, the fault is mine.  Just trying to flesh-out a vague thought and using you guys as a sounding board.   

It helps if you state such things from the beginning.

The average Christian employs a peculiar variety of doublethink to accept both omniscience and omnipotence.  Since you agree that both terms are beyond our comprehension, the logical consequences of those terms may also not be limited to a simple if/then argument.

Not so much doublethink as not thinking in general.