Evidence in Scripture disproving god once and for all

reply to post by jakyll


Nice response... excellent quote...

I'm a little out of it today lol I need more coffee I guess

Originally posted by papabryant

Let me quickly evicerate this arguement once and for all.

The definitions are fine as such, but then you go away from them when it suits your purpose.

Lets watch you redefine them in your response here...

You change the definition of Omniscience in midstream by saying God knows every action you will ever take, limitting His intelligence in the process.

If he does not know every action I am going to take, than he is not all knowing is he?

You're beginning to redefine omniscience already...

God does not know what you, a free will agent capable of creative power, will do next. And that does not take anything away from omniscience.

Yes it does, because Omniscience means he knows everything and all... there is nothing he doesn't know. You have just stated that God is not omniscient.

God knows every possible action you CANtake, AND what outcome would would occur as a result of those actions!

Ok, he might, but whats the point... if he knows all, then he is wasting his time on following the the path the decisions I didn't make would take me... but he can have at it I guess..

That is far more omniscient than what you claim. Which means that God's actions - from prophesy to intervention to the life of Christ - are God's attempt to educate and influence the free will actions of humanity so that they will achieve the best possible outcome.

Erm, look up Omniscience again up top... You're the one claiming he is not Omniscient. Following your response you state he doesn't know everything, and try to use that as proof that he knows everything... wow...

Now can we put this rather silly argument to bed, please? (I cannot believe you had the NERVE to use the "Can God make a rock..." line. What are you, 11?)

It has been put to bed... The way the bible describes god is not possible... therefore, the bible is wrong... you have not refuted this point in the least, and instead, seemed to decree that god is not omniscient in the process of injuring yourself with text.

How can you claim that the god/rock question is invalid? You haven't provided a single refutation... If that means I'm 11, than whats that say about you if you can't answer that question?

Its called philosophy. That question is one that is designed to make one think...










[edit on 28-11-2008 by nj2day]

Hey nj2day,

I'm still on my tryptophan-buzz...nice thread bro! Lot to be 'thankful' for...some not so...

Hope you and yours didn't eat too much

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


Nice to see ya again OT! Hope all went well with Thanksgiving...

Being in Michigan its a tradition to gather around, eat turkey and watch the Lions lose miserably!

My sister just got in town this morning, so I get to go eat another meal this afternoon!

I would love to see your take on this logical problem the bible has gotten us into... It seems that the majority here has assumed that I am trying to disprove god...

instead I think this casts the legitimacy of the bible into question... I'm thinking if god exists, it is not in the manner that people believe, and that the bible is incorrect...

reply to post by nj2day


I wrote a little something yesterday on here...don't remember where though...

OT

Sorry bout the lions think they may go 0-fer this year...

OT

reply to post by nj2day


Isn't it funny though that all belief systems use the circular logic. Kind of like, we know that the dinosaurs are this age because of the dating of the strata of rock, but we know the date of teh strata of rock much better because of awhich fossils are found in them????


pretty funny huh????

reply to post by AshleyD


Exactly. The big rock analogy is a false one. When the premises of an argument contradict each other, there is no valid argument. If there is an immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. If God is all powerful, can he do something he can't do?

reply to post by OldThinker


k... I think I understand what you're saying in that post...

You're pretty much saying that god knows us, but we don't know god, and it is not possible for us to describe him?

If I read that right, and that is what it means... then does it mean that we can not rely on the bible to find god?

I can understand this belief and reasoning... but it would appear that the "fundies" can't... because the bible can't be inaccurate...

If I'm way off base can ya set me straight OT? lol

The part that I think is funny though, is the fact that people always throw bible quotes at me to prove their points of view on evolution and other sciences... but now that I decided to take a stab at playing on their own turf, they are trying to throw quantum physics and science at me lol.

Its an irony so sweet, I can't help but chuckle

in the past the bible was kept in latin so that only the church could read it, everyone was controlled with what they were taught because none knew differently.
many were killed for translating it, lets face it, if the common people were made aware of some of the passages the following would have dropped off long ago.

reply to post by nj2day


hmmm....

i think you may be going somewhere with this, but religion, in all forms comes down to this fact.

Faith.

Believing that a giant man beyond the sky looks over us and cares for us is a bit far fetched but for a few people, that's all they've got.

Science Vs. Faith.

Otherwise, awesome stuff.

reply to post by open_eyeballs


Yet everyone seems to ignor the part that your actions will show what you believe. In other words if you do not keep the commandments then you do not believe in Christ.

There are several places in the bible that state this, off the top of my head I think James may be one of them. I believe (again off the top of my head) that James states that faith without works is dead and that you show your faith through your works.

The works/no works argument is a inmature argument made by people that want all the blessings without any of the work. I am consistantly amazed by "leaders" in the christian churches that run around saying works do not matter. These are the same "leaders" that are more hung up on who Christ was and could care less on what he said.

how do you delet a post?

[edit on 28-11-2008 by clcreek]

Originally posted by clcreek
Yet everyone seems to ignor the part that your actions will show what you believe. In other words if you do not keep the commandments then you do not believe in Christ.

I cannot accept this reasoning. Actions do not dictate beliefs, but sometimes, beliefs dictate actions.

christians have killed in the name of god and jesus for centuries now... Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Abortion Clinic bombings...

I am not saying that ALL christians are like this... but you can't deny the fact that the people guilty of engaging in these activities, were most decidedly believers in Christ.

James states that faith without works is dead and that you show your faith through your works.

This is supported by my statement that beliefs sometimes dictate actions. however the converse is not true in the least.

All lions are cats, but not all cats are lions... catch my drift?


[edit on 28-11-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by nj2day

Here is the definition of a christian according to Merriam-Webster : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If you believe that jesus is a savior... You're christian mate... or maybe you can explain what you mean to me?

Actually here is where you are incorrect, at least in my thinking: Paul is the one who started Christianity, not Jesus. HE ran with that title or phrase. It is my belief that Jesus wanted nothing to do with any religion and that if anything, he came down to expose religion!

I used to call myself Christian until I left religion entirely and then discovered, or learned, that the Jesus I think existed, was not the Jesus that I was taught.

The problem with both sides (and I think you are trying to touch on it) is that there is too much black and white involved, and too much comparing of knowledge, yet all still miss the mark!

I commend you for making this attempt, but the problem is; you cannot or will never understand it until you leave all of your filters behind!

Naturally, a Christian will defend to their life their beliefs. I can appreciate that. The atheists will stand and defend to their life their beliefs, also, and I understand that. But both are too much alike, and too similar in a stand, that still shows both are missing the entire message.

Both the atheists and the religious are being duped - in my spiritual experience.

It isn't a case of either...or! It is in a space or reality that neither understand or get. This is why quantum mechanics would be difficult for both worlds as neither get it!

Yes, the Bible is very faulty and cannot be taken at face value or used in the form it is in (as is more and more being discovered). One must look beyond the dogma, doctrine and rhetoric to actually see the real meanings behind it. It was brilliantly written (a work of genius) and executed, and achieved exactly what the Gods desired, and that includes - Jesus!

reply to post by nj2day

Originally posted by nj2day
I am re-asserting my origional opinion because you have, in a round about way, proven it for me.
Let me re-word the origional question and maybe you will understand:
"can god create an unstoppable force and move an immovable object?"
If he cannot create an unstoppable force nor an immovable object... he cannot be as the bible describes him.
Since the unstoppable force/immovable object conundrum has no logical answer, then the bible describes him inaccurately.
As I've said, I have not proven that a supreme being doesn't exist... this is impossible. I've proven the way the bible describes him is not possible.
You insist on proving this to me over and over again, then stating that I haven't proven anything... you are debating the existence, I'm debating the biblical description.

If you reword your original question, then you will have to reword the whole thread or demonstrate where the Bible, with such precision, describes that God can create an “unstoppable force” or “move an immovable” object. To stick strictly to the biblical quotations you employ, none of these say God can make a stone that he cannot move. Indeed, your attempt to clarify now shows the entire fallacy of what you attempt to prove here – you say God cannot make a stone which he cannot move, thus Scripture is wrong, when Scripture in fact does not claim that He can.
In fact the quotations support what I have been saying.
“with God all things are possible." … “For nothing is impossible with God” … “and of great power”
The unmovable stone is not a thing, it is utterly impossible. It may be possible in your imagination but then recall you are predicating this phantasm of your imagination on having some grasp of That which cannot move it. Now when you define God, or can encapsulate His totality with your consciousness then you can begin to imagine something bigger than the infinite – which of course you cannot do and neither, for that matter, can anyone. Can an undefined quality called “X” make something “X” cannot move, as you can’t define “X” you can’t solve the problem, let alone pose it. It is not the answers which are illogical; it’s that the question is illogical.

Both according to www.thefreedictionary.com...
Predetermine: To determine, decide, or establish in advance
Predestination: The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation
In the context we are using here... these two are the same... if you wish to redefine them, then let me know...

No, you let me know where Scripture uses the phrase “predestination” and defines it as that which you found on freedictionary.com? If you are determined that this be only about Scripture disproving God then don’t bring in other sources to affirm your assertion. In fact, and here we do again, your whole argument is premised on definitions which are outside of your own remit. When you state in your OP “first lets agree on some definitions” you do not use Scriptural definitions. Your entire argument is crumbling the more you try to exclude answers which don’t meet those terms and conditions you don’t meet yourself. Whilst you claim your OP uses the Bible to prove there is no God as the Bible proves it what you are actually trying to say is that omniscience and free-will are incompatible and that, my friend, is an old, very old, argument.

which means from our point of view... we've already been selected for damnation or salvation, regardless of "his" point of view because he really isn't allowed to change his mind due to his omniscience.

God knows my final destination, I don’t. I am not one of those Christians who presumes to declare myself “saved” already. God gives me sufficient Grace that I might be saved, I pray to be responsive enough to that Grace to indeed attain salvation – I don’t know what the future holds. God does know what my future holds but His knowledge is not in my past/present/future, it is in His “Now” which is not our “now.”

But, in genesis, it would appear that god is within time... as everything doesn't spontaniously appear at once... and is spread out over a series of days... he even was tired, and needed a vacation on the last day...
If we run with your definition of outside of time... than no more of god is needed than the initial spark... as he lives outside of time, he created the entire universe, knows how everything will turn out and no longer has any work to do. for all intents and purposes, you've described a god that might exist, but is on a permanent vacation of some sorts from our prespective.

Ah but here’s the glorious and wonderful reality of things, God has deigned to enter into our History from time to time so that we might take the course that will lead to the greatest of destinations which is to be in His presence. God already knows where we are destined, and many of us are destined for Him because in His goodness he has deigned to show us the path. The Great Sat-Nav! But, as anyone with one will know, because the Sat-Nav tells us to turn left we don’t have to. Indeed my own frequently has cause to say to me “recalculating alternate route” – indeed God in His infinite goodness has often done this. Now he could force our hand and be an auto-Pilot for us, but really I am most grateful for the freedom He has given me. Now, if He directly applied his omniscience to our lives and revealed categorically and definitively our destination where would our free-will be? What he has done though is give us all the information we require – He is indeed splendid! This reality is explained beautifully by Christ Himself in the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 give it a read.

I defined both words according to a dictionary. I think you're attempting to redefine the words themselves... It is beginning to sound like you are arguing yourself away from christianity and the bible, and towards the idea of Pantheism.

But you are not trying to prove that a dictionary disproves God, you are trying to show that the Scriptures do. I’m arguing myself deeper into the heart of faith and the splendours of God’s grace as shown to the world throughout history and in His continuing presence in His beloved Bride the Church.

no.1 your first question is a contradiction of tems, therefore doesnt prove anything accept trick wording. you are asking God to prove himself to you...who do you think you are asking for such proof? same question as immovable object and an unstoppable force. cant have both. its a play on words.
no.2 freewill, our future is not set in stone imo, our job as christians is to bring other close to Christ, in order for them to be with God. God also said, how can I explain to you "heavenly things, if you cannot even understand earthly things. again I think you are questioning Gods power. He did not want to force us to love Him therefore "freewill" I think one of the blessing he bestowed upon christians is the ability to change the "future" by bringing non-believers to Christ. I also believe he is glad to change the future to accept his beloved into His kingdom.
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." that pretty much answers 2-5 and the bad thing is...if your right, your doomed to hell. if your wrong your doomed to hell. hmm not a promising outcome.
I am not saying the Bible is 100% right, because it has been changed by man, but I do believe, when you accept Christ, and love one another unconditionally, you have a greater understanding of God and what the bible is trying to convey. I am fairly sure their are alot of things that are left out, but that doesnt make me want to give up. I believe, the greatest victory of satan is to make people believe, he doesnt exist. therefore God doesnt exist. I believe in God, but if im wrong, no harm done. if your wrong however, the consequences are much more severe.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by AKARonco]

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by OldThinker

 

k... I think I understand what you're saying in that post...

You're pretty much saying that god knows us, but we don't know god, and it is not possible for us to describe him?

If I read that right, and that is what it means... then does it mean that we can not rely on the bible to find god?

I can understand this belief and reasoning... but it would appear that the "fundies" can't... because the bible can't be inaccurate...

If I'm way off base can ya set me straight OT? lol

The part that I think is funny though, is the fact that people always throw bible quotes at me to prove their points of view on evolution and other sciences... but now that I decided to take a stab at playing on their own turf, they are trying to throw quantum physics and science at me lol.

Its an irony so sweet, I can't help but chuckle

Nj2day,

That is quite ironic and very funny on the switch-a-roni….99.9% mean well and are sincere…just roll with it….and have another Baileys!

Man, you probably already know where OT’s going…I shake out that a ‘purposeful’ God can preserve (the intent) of HIS message, just as He preserves the earth, people, love, time, etc…in the midst of distractions…might be wishful thinking on my part…but I’ve conversed with him for so long, seen his intervention in my life, got more blessing than I deserve, etc, etc…

Intellectually speaking, cause the prior paragraph was subjective for sure…I refer to Isaiah 55:8,9 to support my other post… 8 “ For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. 9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways.”

And on the NT side…

Romans 11:33 “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”

…past finding out…

So OT agrees wholeheartedly that the often-concocted version of God is distorted and the premise of your brilliant post is true!

Nj2day…you are a truth-seeker…my interpretation of God’s economy guarantees you’ll find it/him/whatever..

OT

Originally posted by nj2day
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Some of us folks are enjoying some pretty good cuppas from that pot o' tae.

It's a taste'n see situation.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Actually here is where you are incorrect, at least in my thinking: Paul is the one who started Christianity, not Jesus. HE ran with that title or phrase. It is my belief that Jesus wanted nothing to do with any religion and that if anything, he came down to expose religion!

This is acceptable, but it validates my point down to a tee. The way the bible describes god, is not valid. I think this is what you are stating here in a round about way... as it was the organized religions that decided how the bible was going to represent their ideas (See Counsel of Nicea)

If this is your supposition, than our points of view are the same regarding the OT... our methodologies and semantics differ slightly as we converge on the same conclusion.

[quoteI used to call myself Christian until I left religion entirely and then discovered, or learned, that the Jesus I think existed, was not the Jesus that I was taught.

Same here... only after realizing what you realized, I kept going and eventually realized this is also true of the deity. I then looked at the possibility that a supreme being might not be necessary for the universe to function, and became an Atheist.

The problem with both sides (and I think you are trying to touch on it) is that there is too much black and white involved, and too much comparing of knowledge, yet all still miss the mark!

Atheists keep themselves open to change pending the admission of proper evidence. When the probability of x happening begins to get closer and closer to 0%, most atheists feel comfortable stating the conclusions of x as an absolute...

I commend you for making this attempt, but the problem is; you cannot or will never understand it until you leave all of your filters behind!

The only filter I have in place is the scientific method. Not everything can be proven/disproven using science. but I am confident that as we find out more about how our universe works, we will discover there is less and less room for the supernatural...

Naturally, a Christian will defend to their life their beliefs. I can appreciate that. The atheists will stand and defend to their life their beliefs, also, and I understand that. But both are too much alike, and too similar in a stand, that still shows both are missing the entire message.

Here is where you are mistaken. Atheists are not defined by "beliefs". Instead we are defined by lack of beliefs. I can understand how people make this supposition though...

If you like the color blue, it is possible to still believe in say... Bhuddism.. (using a 3rd party here to explain my point... ) The color blue, and Bhuddism are not mutually exclusive.

However, if you are Bhuddist, you cannot be a Muslim, as they are mutually exclusive.

Atheism means you don't believe in supernatural gods and deities... which means that it is mutually exclusive from all religions containing supernatural gods.

The fact that Atheism and religions being mutually exclusive, makes people draw a false conclusion, and declare that Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion, instead it is a lack of religious beliefs... the word Atheism itself meaning "Without gods".

Atheists stand up for their disbelief too often because we are attacked, condemned and cursed for not believing the various beliefs of other religions. (Christianity just damns us for eternity... Islam wants us stoned to death before we are damned, etc).

The current atheist movement is growing momentum because of the lack of equality that we face every day. (If you want, I'll post some sources/articles for you to read)

Hope that clears it up a bit.

Both the atheists and the religious are being duped - in my spiritual experience.

Atheists cannot be duped, as we demand evidence for outrageous claims. Only the religious that blindly follow their faith are truely duped... The faithful that have asked the same questions as Atheists, and drawn different conclusions, IMO cannot be duped either... they just have different standards of evidence than I do.

It isn't a case of either...or! It is in a space or reality that neither understand or get. This is why quantum mechanics would be difficult for both worlds as neither get it!

No one can fully understand quantum theory... thats the premise of it. You would almost have to be a raving lunatic to be able to accurately depict a 10 dimensional shape in your head... Quantum is impossible to understand, but is provable using mathematics... I don't have a problem believing in something abstract if it is provable using the sciences.

Yes, the Bible is very faulty and cannot be taken at face value or used in the form it is in (as is more and more being discovered). One must look beyond the dogma, doctrine and rhetoric to actually see the real meanings behind it. It was brilliantly written (a work of genius) and executed, and achieved exactly what the Gods desired, and that includes - Jesus!

I agree with 75% of this, excluding only the parts about god and jesus

reply to post by gordonwest


the definition of "Christian" is Christ like. its not a religion. so what are you trying to say? I strive to be "christian" but, that is not a religion so to speak. its a way of being. loving, living, not a church that I go to. so how could that be wrong? I know I am in no way perfect, but I believe Christ was, so as i try daily to be more "Christ like" or christian, how can that be wrong?