Proving god is a lie

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Total: 223
Topic's author
#1
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie  is to understand what proof is. 

Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence.  It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable. 

For example -  many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof. 

For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.  

What we need is rational proof.  For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is  mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true. Not probable but true. 

It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true. 

The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving - because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.  

Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.  

As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.   

Please proceed to prove me wrong. 
#2
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Timid8967
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?

#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?

The bible doesn't ever say that " god is ALL loving". In fact, the bible makes it perfectly clear that god is a "jealous god of war". And there are stories  IN THE BIBLE - that  prove just how insignificant life is to him and that us mere mortal humans are literally  10 a penny.
Have you never read the sad story of  Job  or Lot?
#4
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Timid8967
The premises are not proper.

1. There is no statement that God is "all-loving"
2. Being all-knowing and allowing other beings freedom of choice do not contradict
3. Being all powerful does not mean doing whatever you think should be done

The problem is often not one of premises leading to logical conclusions, but a lack of agreed upon definitions of terms and expectations.

A child is taken to a doctor who gives the child a shot. The child yells at the parent "you don't love me because you let him hurt me."

If the child believed that the parent is "all loving" in a sense that the parent would never let any harm befall the child, can the child disprove the existence of the parent based on the pain of the shot?

If the parent lets the child try to ride a bike without any instruction or preparation, knowing that the child will fall, and the child falls, does this deny the parent's foreknowledge?

Socrates is a man
all men are mortal
Socrates is mortal

but define "man" first. If "man" is related to the presence of genitalia, DNA or something else, then is a dead man a man? The google dictionary has "an adult male human being" which says nothing about being animated. If so, that man who has already died is no longer mortal but is still a man so all men are not mortal. Precision in language is vital. So far, all living humans of either gender who have been born prior to 1905 have died in a biological sense. If Socrates was born before 1905, then he has died in a biological sense.
Topic's author
#5
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?
Because if an all loving god has the power to do all things and he can prevent it - he would.  An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.  Otherwise it would be not evidence of being all loving.  

So if he is all loving and he does not stop evil happening, then he is not all powerful. Therefore the god of the bible is false.  He is a lie. 
Topic's author
#6
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
@Tarik
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?

The bible doesn't ever say that " god is ALL loving". In fact, the bible makes it perfectly clear that god is a "jealous god of war". And there are stories  IN THE BIBLE - that  prove just how insignificant life is to him and that us mere mortal humans are literally  10 a penny.
Have you never read the sad story of  Job  or Lot?

That's the thing, though, isn't? the bible is so contradictory and over the place - that christians pull up the big three. All knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent. 

And just because god is three things does not mean he cannot be others - or that any of the other so called things - reduce these three big things. 

If he is all powerful and he refuses to stop pedophiles from hurting children - then he is not demonstrating love to the children. 
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
christians pull up the big three. All knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent. 


But isn't that because the bible says he is these things. 


John 3:20  "  for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything".

Jeremiah 32:17  "  Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you."

And there are many verses that proclaim gods benevolence , especially towards those that "love him"? 

 But I suppose you can be forgiven for not knowing these details  considering that you tell us that you only  read the bible once, would you?

  You cannot blame the Christian for believing what he believes. In my own opinion it is the bible that is responsible. 


It is not up to the atheist to prove god is a lie. Or the "non theist"  come to that. As much as you are slyly trying to push the idea that it is,  with this thread.. You are a clear as a sheet of glass. And your other comments on this forum prove this is your sly agenda and what you  are proposing. 


Topic's author
#8
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
You are the one quoting the bible - like it means something to you. It does not support your case.  Yeah, I have read the bible once - from cover to cover. It is not like I have not glanced at it in other places since - or that I don't have access to commentaries etc. My brother -was a fundy and was trying to convert me for years.  Yet sadly he died recently and does not bother me anymore. Does that make me evil too? 

I still think you are a freaking nightmare. 

This thread is not for people like you - atheists who are dogmatic in their opinions. It is for theists who want to prove that god is real.   I have put the challenge out there - and hopefully some will attempt to do so - so that others like you and me are able to remind them that proof is proof. 

I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books.  It has caused more harm than many others.  Yet  - that is the problem isn't? How much airtime do we need to give to these things - what is the line of balance - that will enable us to find reason - proof - real proof. 




#9
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
Uh no - you have an epistemological problem their bud - first of all - a syllogism does not provide "proof" at least not in the regard that you're referring to. Syllogisms provide a deductive argument that can highlight logical flaws in certain propositions; however, unless the premises of such syllogism are true, that syllogism is unsound, therefore, yes - empirical evidence is indeed proof. 

Furthermore, you cannot be 100% of almost anything, its an absurd claim to make - it means you KNOW that there are no other possibilities - but you don't even have 100% evidence that the reality you share is real - is that reality most likely real, yes, but that's not what you said, you said: "100% certain", please own that. 
Topic's author
#10
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
People can be 100% sure of things. I am 100% I am alive.  What is the proof of that? 

I am therefore I exist.  

Yet it is more than this.  


#11
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
you cannot be 100% of almost anything
You did notice the qualifier right? Because you seem to have a problem with qualifiers, its fairly obvious that somethings are within the realm of certainty, but there mere fact that there are a couple propositions like that do not prove that you can be certain with the vast majority of things - please - go ahead and prove 100% that the reality we perceive is real. 

Also  do you agree with the rest of my argument? Because your non-interaction would suggest that. 
#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
You are the one quoting the bible -


 That is correct, on a forum about religion.  Where-as you believe it shouldn't even be discussed at all because is all that does is "give it air to a myth",and would prefer any discussion on the scriptures and Jesus "be closed down"#16  yet here you are creating a thread of your own to discuss god.

like it means something to you.

 Opinion. Doesn't count for anything, sunshine.


It does not support your case.

What case?

  Yeah, I have read the bible once - from cover to cover. It is not like I have not glanced at it in other places since - or that I don't have access to commentaries etc. My brother -was a fundy and was trying to convert me for years. 

 So? 


I still think you are a freaking nightmare. 

 Your nightmare?  Why?  is all I have done is shown you for what you really are. 


This thread is not for people like you - atheists who are dogmatic in their opinions.

This thread is for anyone that is interested.




It is for theists who want to prove that god is real. 

 That's nice to hear but you appear to have totally forgotten about your own earlier statements princess.

 


I have put the challenge out there - and hopefully some will attempt to do so - so that others like you and me are able to remind them that proof is proof.

 So are you now saying then that the theist do indeed have the burden of proof?  Or are you just discussing here what counts as proof  according to only YOU? 
Listen. the BIBLE makes the claims about the existence of god.  Christians believe what the BIBLE  says about god and all of his wonderous works. The burden of proof is on them,  as much as you are slyly trying to tell us that "we" and "us"  should take the burden.


I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books.

 Opinion again. And I disagree. It is a history of sorts; it has some historicity in my own opinion, and I am not into burning such books . 



  It has caused more harm than many others. 

 It has.   But didn't you just say that you "don't support my case" when I spoke of the bible being responsible for what Christians believe.



How much airtime do we need to give to these things -



Why do you believe there should be lines and time limits? Are you pack peddling now ? Are you saying that the scriptures and Jesus and god should be discussed and not "closed down"?


that will enable us to find reason - proof - real proof. 

" us" again.  Proof of what exactly? 




#13
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
None of that answers my question.
#14
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Timid8967
An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.  
You’re begging the question, how do you know this?
#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?

The bible doesn't ever say that " god is ALL loving". In fact, the bible makes it perfectly clear that god is a "jealous god of war". And there are stories  IN THE BIBLE - that  prove just how insignificant life is to him and that us mere mortal humans are literally  10 a penny.
Have you never read the sad story of  Job  or Lot?


None of that answers my question.

 I think it does. Who said god has to " prevent evil things happening to prove he is all loving".  Christians on the other hand will have us believe that " our father loves us"  but he does have a funny way of showing that. Killing 10 children for a bet is not showing love.  

#16
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
I think it does. Who said god has to " prevent evil things happening to prove he is all loving".  Christians on the other hand will have us believe that " our father loves us"  but he does have a funny way of showing that. Killing 10 children for an bet is not showing love.  
So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?
#17
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.  
You’re begging the question, how do you know this?
Axiomatically - by definition an all-loving god wants what's best for the beings they love,  any "evil" that occurs would automatically be not the best thing for said beings, therefore if they had enough power to prevent any evil, they would prevent it. 
#18
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did it ever occur to you that an 
all-loving God can also want the beings He loves to have the freedom to make their own choices?
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?

 Who are you referring to when you say  _  "those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible" ?  

There are millions that believe in the god of the bible, they just won't accept what THE BIBLE shows  his real nature to be and that there is nothing "all loving" about him. He is a jealous egotistical, vain god of war. He makes all of this clear. 


Did it ever occur to you that an 
all-loving God can also want the beings He loves to have the freedom to make their own choices?

 That has to be the biggest cop-out theist ever come up with. I have heard this BS excuse so many times. Tell me, how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence? Again we see the free will excuse used for gods own failings are  utter nonsense.

#20
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
No - that would be stupid - do your parents allow their children to run into the middle of the street to "feel the freedom of their choices"? No. No, they don't. Please quit the theodicy. 
#21
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?
Like pagans and polytheists or do you man like Jews and Muslims?  

 
#22
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
It is not providing empirical evidence.  It is providing a rational scientific proof.
Proof is not providing empiric evidence, but it is providing scientific proof? What is scientific proof if not empiric evidence?  "Science Produces Explanations That Can Be Tested Using Empirical Evidence" https://www.nap.edu/read/10865/chapter/4

The failure of your argument starts there, and concludes with

assuming the premises are correct.   
for example:

if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.  
Probability. At what confidence level? I am a certified six sigma black belt - a statistical expert. Probability is worthless without a confidence level, and it best by above 95% to be credible.  So, what is the probability in 100 tries that I will find evidence disproving your white swan theory? Let's see...

I've just demonstrated your necessary 95% confidence level has fallen to an unacceptable 90% confidence level. 

all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is  mortal.
A typical syllogism, many of which fail logic, and, therefore, are not. Case in point: 

P1 All men are mortal
P2 Socrates is human
C.  Socrates is mortal

P1 is not correct: mortality ends at death. Men die. The dead are no longer mortal, but remain as a being described as man.
P2 is correct; Socrates was human, and remains as such, even though dead.
C.  is not correct because Socrates is no longer mortal.

Or, if you disagree with the concept of life after death, then P1 still fails because men in great numbers are dead. Mortality is still at an end. Both propositions must be correct for the conclusion to be correct, therefore, the conclusion fails because P1 fails. Additionally, Socrates is now a was, not an is. He is dead. Fail.

It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true. 
Your assumption [not a given fact] is that God, being omni-whatever, must always act with that full-tilt omni-whatever that is allegedly possessed. Do you use all the whatever that you possess, all the time? Or do you limit the whatever you exert because all of it is not needed all the time? Do not assume God is any less capable of limiting the whatever he possesses if it is not needed - and you cannot prove it is otherwise.

Shall I go on, or is my case to date sufficient that your premise is faulty?
#23
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Unfortunately many people think that scientists can prove something to be true, but this is not true at all, they can never know if they have all the evidence or not and many times the discovery of previously undiscovered evidence has overturned previously held beliefs.  
#24
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Stephen



Did it ever occur to you that an 
all-loving God can also want the beings He loves to have the freedom to make their own choices?

 That has to be the biggest cop-out theist ever come up with. I have heard this BS excuse so many times. Tell me, how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence? Again we see the free will excuse used for gods own failings are  utter nonsense.
I don't quite get in what sense you pose the question. Do you mean death or death sentence in general can't be prone to any compatibilist causation?
#25
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - that would be stupid - do your parents allow their children to run into the middle of the street to "feel the freedom of their choices"? No. No, they don't. Please quit the theodicy. 
Yet you can't expect them to walk with you, carrying your arse forever or shadowing you even in school. Whatabout learning to take responsibility? Everytime you fall down the street or fail your test- you go on to blame your parents for it?
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,592
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Safalcon7
in what sense you pose the question.



I mean it in the Genesis 2:17 sense.  “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”  Sound reasonably clear.  Thing is neither of them did die  " that day" if the BIBLE is to be believed?    Adam we are told in the bible lived to nearly 1000 years!

Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died  Genesis 5:5
#27
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Stephen
I'm not actually a Christian and haven't read the Bible yet although I plan to one day. However, I thought death imposed from God's sentence ain't sitting well with your understanding of free will.
#28
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
That's a drastically different concept - what I'm saying is that if your parents COULD prevent a bad thing from happening, then they DO. Yes, sometimes they allow hardship that allows growth (though it is debatable if its always a good thing), but "responsibility" has nothing to do with letting a toddler run into the street. 
#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,419
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Safalcon7
I don't know any parent that would have a problem with an Angel watching over and protecting their child for the child's whole life. Why wouldn't God want to do that for all his children? The Bible is clear that all people are God's creation (Colossians 1:16).
#30
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Weird exemplification. You can't possibly compare a mortal parent with God. Even if, say, the parent is granted the power of all-knowing ability of his son's whereabouts and accordingly he saves him from every turn of bad events of his life- how does the son knowing that he's being controlled at every second of his life feel? Does he ever develop any respect for a life he has no contribution in?