Christian God Disproven

Post Reply New Topic

Not so, I've changed my mind on a variety of issues in the past, and will likely do so in the future.

Comparative theology is a long, messy debate that's not well suited to quick forum posts.

Unless one was able to first construct a solid case that (the books of) the bible are indeed authentic and what is written is consistent with archeology (where independent evidence is available) and does not conflict with available evidence.

Definitely something where a forum like this is not very suited for.

Which game?



The existence of historical figures are usually taken a facts or so, and given the issue, a level of leap of faith seems to be required for it.


Ha, that is quite an interesting issue.


well, my position on this is that actually, doubting everything, and that seems my position lately regarding epistemology and foundationalism, in the end, I don't make much difference between believers and non-believers regarding their beliefs or disbeliefs.

Wow. I did not watch the video yet, but some OP, Henriksson. "God lacks free will." How freaking awesome is that?

I'd ask the author of the piece I quoted, but I guess the traditional view of God.


Quite so. Maybe there wasn't any 'Socrates', but the writings attributed to this persona does exist.


Yeah, maybe Loki is mixturing with all the tests, or our world is in fact destroyed and recreated created every Thursday by a cat in Poland. Though there are only three things I take on faith.

There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.

If these articles of faith are granted, we can understand quite a lot of things through the scientific method. I haven't really found any good reason to see why these would be false, but you are of course welcome to disagree.

I have never heard the multi universe theory used to substantiate God...nice play.

Some folks will go to all ends to insist on the existence of free will. But seriously, that is an interesting concept.
As always compatabalism does nothing but confound me and I have never been able to make any sense of it at all.
I agree, nothing has been disproven, but I have to completely agree with the concept of omniscience and omnipotance being unable to go hand in hand.

Anyone ever heard of the Book of the Dead? Christianity is not remotely original.

well, I'm not conviced that God is a piece of pure nonsensical baloney, the issue is that that is not an argument and I'd say far from being regarded as a valid position.


well, the issue is about the certainty of the belief or any position, and that is a problem related to your quote, if you hold a concept with a great deal of certainty then I would say that concept would be set in concrete in your mind, so I don't see much of a point with this, other than perhaps some irony in it.

I'm not trying to convince you. That's your problem.

The burden of proof for god lies with the believer, not the disbeliever. It should be noted that no generally accepted proof for the existence of god has ever been formulated. Furthermore there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god that cannot be otherwise interpreted.

I will give an example. I prove to you there is a five dollar bill in my wallet. I show you my wallet then I pull out the fiver right before your eyes. Proof given. There is not such proof for the existence of god.

ruveyn

Omniscience only negates free will (that's our free will, not God's) if you assume that God is bound by the same linear time that we on earth are bound by. There is no reason to think that. The idea seems to be that if God knows everything, that includes future things that haven't happened yet and therefore our future is predetermined and therefore we don't really have free will. That point of view assumes that God's knowledge must move in a straight line from past to present just like ours does. It's a pretty anthropomorphic view of God. But a God who is outside of creation would also be outside of linear time.

This idea that God must be bound by linear time leads to the idea that omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence. It posits that not only do we have no free will (because of a predetermined future, which is only actually predetermined if you assume that God is bound by linear time), God also has no free will because He is no more able to change a predetermined future than we are, and therefore can't be omnipotent. That problem goes away if you stop trying to place God inside our universe and therefore bound by linear time like we are. And since God is defined as that which created our universe, it stands to reason that He is outside of it and so not bound by linear time.

What you seem to be saying is that God exists outside of our linear time and therefor is ignorant of future events even though you claim he is omniscient. What does it mean to be outside of our linear time. What kind of time exists outside of our linear time. It sounds a bit like the multi-universe theory but even assuming a multi-universe, if God is truly omniscient He also is well aware of which universe this universe is switching to if and when it switches. It really does not solve the omniscient-omnipotent problem at all. If you don't have a clear understanding of what it means to exist outside of our linear time continuum then you merely are adding a further snarl of ignorance to the pot that clarifies nothing.

The truthness of this statement relies on it's context, and seeing as you have presented it as a unilateral statement it can only be accurately described as false.

There is reason to think that God would be bound by the same linear time that we are bound by, here's the ideas:
1) Non-linear time falls apart due to retrocausation, as then an effect can be caused by something preceding it, and it is not hard to claim that such retrocausation then leads to impossibility. Retrocausation will necessarily happen because lacking linearity, there is no ordering of temporal events to prevent retrocausation and even an ordering that may promote it.
2) A lack of time is often not assumed because it is generally assumed that entities act. If something does not experience time, it is less of a sentient being and more of a universal law or pre-existent constraint.
3) If two linear times exist side by side with an ability for a being to leave one to enter the other at will, then the two timelines must have corresponding times in such a manner where retrocausation does not occur, even if the timelines may have different speeds.(change of a second could be the change of a day elsewhere)

As such, Henriksson making the assumption that God exists in linear time does not seem terrible, given that non-linear time does not make sense, and a lack of time prevents divine action, which Henriksson can generally assume exists given language about divine action, unless he is notified otherwise. After all, actions require a time before, and a time after, and thus a basic temporal linearity, and this is by the very nature of acting as action involves change. As such, I don't see the issue.

In any case, if God is timeless, how can it said that God knows anything? Knowing requires mental processes, processes require time, and time cannot co-exist with timelessness. Perhaps you have another way to look at this, saying that knowledge is different with God, but could you explain this? After all, saying "it's just different", could easily be a reason allowing a bad idea to still exist in spite of criticism.

This is rather odd. I seem to have countered this argument, made by you, in another thread.



And a fantastic misunderstanding of Hindu religion it is!

Brahman is the only Hindu god there is. All the gods in Hinduism are merely different incarnations and aspects of Brahman. Brahman is much like, in many paths of enlightenment, the Tao or Bodhi. In the other paths, Brahman is almost indistinguishable from the Christian God.

It should also be noted that the Taoist idea of the Christian God (which is actually supported by proper translations of the Bible) is that God is the Tao. Christianity could well be right alongside Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism, and no "true Christian" would insist that his religion must be right and the others must be wrong. Christianity, much like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, doesn't work that way. Jesus said that, if you love God, you will go to heaven. Hindus do that to go to heaven, just like Christians. Taoists, Buddhists, and other Hindus, however, seek oneness with God (in the Christian version of ultimate reality). Naturally, this would take a lot more work, and they do work quite hard to attain it.

The really odd thing about this thread seems to be this: Most of the people in here are arguing based on a view that is not necessarily accurate. I am sure that Osama Bin Laden says that he's a true Muslim, but that doesn't make it true. I'm sure that Quanzhen Taoists say they're true Taoists (though they don't necessarily say that the others are wrong, just not "true" Taoists), and yet their monks take vows of celibacy and they worship Lao Tzu, which counter many of the basic beliefs of Taoism.

What is a "true" follower of a religion? You must return to the core of the religion to be one. For Taoists, this means the Tao Te Ching, Hua Hu Ching, and (probably) the Chuang Tzu. Not only that, but a "true" Taoist would understand the historical significance of each word choice, and would also work carefully to ensure that that particular translation was accurate. The same goes for Christians. A "true" Christian reads the Bible (and other texts not included in the Bible), and understands the historical significance of each point.

I wonder how many people have decided to become athiests mostly because of the first 12 chapters of Genesis, written long after the rest of Genesis, and have justified their beliefs any way they could? I wonder how many have assumed that the Bible can be trusted completely as the Christian text, when it was compiled by Catholics? How many have decided to turn away from it because of decisions made after these texts were written? How many have turned from it because they view, for some reason, Zecharius as being on the level of Jesus or Moses?

Never forget this: There is a pecking order of prophets, and Zecharius stands fairly low in comparison to Jesus and Moses. If Chuang Tzu said something that countered something Lao Tzu said, I would most likely believe Lao Tzu over Chuang Tzu. This is why I reject the current Taoist organizations. Every last one of them goes against Lao Tzu's teachings in some way, and so cannot be said to be true Taoists.

The only true Taoists I have ever heard of or encountered were Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The only true Christian, Jesus.