Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This reminds me of one of the most famous atheists and philosophers in history, Bertrand Russell. When a similar question was put to him he pointed out that the fault lies with God for not giving him any evidence. I can't think of the exact quote but he was one of the most influential writers on the subject and his book "Why I Am Not A Christian" greatly influenced my thoughts as well.
It's definately easier to reject God than it is to accept him...at least in fleshly terms. It's a whole lot easier I think to say, if there's something wrong with me or that I didn't get...it's God's fault.
Many think they'll get an opportunity to argue their case, IF God really exists. And I hope you're right, although I don't think that will be the case. In any event, what if you say "Well you didn't give me any proof!!" and he hands you the transcripts of these threads and says "That suited you..."
Well you didn't give me any proof!!" and he hands you the transcripts of these threads and says "That suited you..."
I'd say "I rest my case". All of the religious people have basically admitted that there really isn't any proof and it's a matter of faith. Faith by definition is belief in the unknown. That means you're choosing a particular course of action or belief without any foundation whatsoever because you simply want it to be true. I don't think that presents a strong case and I'd be willing to point out that fact to "The Big Fella" when he questions me on the matter.
It's definately easier to reject God than it is to accept him...at least in fleshly terms. It's a whole lot easier I think to say, if there's something wrong with me or that I didn't get...it's God's fault.
Many think they'll get an opportunity to argue their case, IF God really exists. And I hope you're right, although I don't think that will be the case. In any event, what if you say "Well you didn't give me any proof!!" and he hands you the transcripts of these threads and says "That suited you..."
I never think its Gods fault, as to me there is no God.
Anyway, the original question was about the bible proving God's non-existence. I.e badly written, contradictions, and the sheer amount of information we know to be false. Just for a start, the great flood simply didn't happen, the world couldn't have been created in 6 days (and I know.. how do you define a bible day yada yada), and we know the earth is older than 6,ooo years old. There are countless facts in the bible that are inaccurate.. isn't it rational to assume a document that is so unreliable in accuracy should be discounted?
I don't know where this came from as I've had it for years so I can't give any credit to the author. If anyone has seen it before and knows where it originated, I'd be glad to know.
This, for me is biblical evidence for god's non-existence.
1. No Genesis creation.
Humanity is much more than 6000 years old (old cave paintings and suchlike), and we evolved from (other) apes, being closely related to chimpanzees (hominid fossil record, DNA, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes etc).
2. No Noachian Flood.
The survival of Egypt's "Old Kingdom", and the total lack of all the massive geological evidence that a recent worldwide inundation would inevitably leave behind (massive runoff channels, massive water erosion, total disruption of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet layers, and so forth).
3. No Tower of Babel (no change in written records after the "confusion of languages").
Pretty self-explanatory, this. No sign of any pre-Babel "common language" in written records, no sign of any post-Babel "confusion of languages" towards the end of the second millennium BC (the time of Babel).
4. No Exodus.
No trace of the movement of several million people through the Sinai desert, no trace of their supposed encampment at Kadesh Barnea for many years. Where are the latrines, the corpses of those who must have died during that time, and so forth?
5. No Conquest of Caanan.
The Hebrews are Caananites. Their language evolved from Caananite (after the supposed Exodus), and their religion evolved from Caananite polytheism. We know this from Caananite records (notably the Ugaritic texts).
6. No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations, who barely noticed the existence of Israel and Judah.
7. Failure of Ezekiel's "Tyre Prophecy".
Ezekiel falsely predicted that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would take and permanently destroy Tyre. But Tyre survived Nebby's 13-year siege. Apologists have sought to cut this prophecy into 2 parts and have Alexander fulfil the second part centuries later (as he DID take Tyre), but this merely creates two failures where there was previously one: Nebby failed to take Tyre as prophesied, Alex failed to permanently destroy Tyre as prophesied.
8. Failure of Ezekiel's "Egypt Prophecy".
After the failure of the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel promised Egypt to Nebby as compensation. Nebby was to ransack Egypt so thoroughly that it would be uninhabited for 40 years. Historical records show that this did not happen.
9. Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Both of these prophesied that the Medes would take and permanently destroy Babylon. But the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.
10. Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.
11. Herod/Quirinius issue (Luke's Jesus born a decade after Matthew's Jesus).
Matthew's Jesus was born in Herod's time: Luke's Jesus was born at least a decade later, when Quirinius was governor of the region (as confirmed by various historical sources).
12. No "Massacre of the Innocents".
We have accounts from Herod's enemies, describing his various "crimes". The Massacre is not among them. It was invented by Matthew to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses (who also supposedly survived an infant massacre, by Pharaoh).
13. No "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" or "supernatural darkness" (easily-noticed large-scale miracles).
Again, pretty self-explanatory. The dead supposedly rose from their graves and wandered about in Jerusalem, and there was supposedly a supernatural darkness for several hours: numerous historians in the vicinity failed to notice these, as did all the gospel authors except one: obviously invented.
14. No return of Jesus within "this generation".
There are numerous NT references to the imminent Second Coming: within one generation. Didn't happen, hence the "a day is as a thousand years to God" excuse, and so forth
I don't know where this came from as I've had it for years so I can't give any credit to the author. If anyone has seen it before and knows where it originated, I'd be glad to know.
This, for me is biblical evidence for god's non-existence.
1. No Genesis creation.
Humanity is much more than 6000 years old (old cave paintings and suchlike), and we evolved from (other) apes, being closely related to chimpanzees (hominid fossil record, DNA, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes etc).
Have we found the fossilized missing link that would have to exist for us to believe we evolved from apes as a fact and not theory? I don't think we have. Darwin tried to prove evolution by studying the changes in the beaks of finches. Hmm..... so their beaks changed shape due to environmental changes. They STAYED finches, same as they are today. What IS scientific fact, is that a gene pool of any species can not add new genes on its own. The evolution that does exist is an evolution of subraction, not addition. Which is why a finch's beak can change shape, but it cannot grow a poseable thumb. The biological information cannot just self-create itself. Believing such a thing seems to require more faith than believing in a creator.
Quote:
2. No Noachian Flood.
The survival of Egypt's "Old Kingdom", and the total lack of all the massive geological evidence that a recent worldwide inundation would inevitably leave behind (massive runoff channels, massive water erosion, total disruption of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet layers, and so forth).
Worldwide changes?? Genesis mentions 4 rivers flowing out from the Garden of Eden, one of which named as the Euphrates. Where are the other 3 now? The only other river that could qualify to be one geographically is the Tigris river, which means the landscape of the earth changed enough for 2 rivers to cease to exist, or join together to leave only the Tigris and Euphrates. Why would the writer of Genesis have made such an obvious mistake if he was going to great lengths to document other small details? Its out of character. And massive runoff channels??? Like maybe the Grand Canyon?? Formed by a little bit of water and a long time, or a lot of water in a much shorter amount of time. Not touting this as fact just putting the idea out there.
Quote:
4. No Exodus.
No trace of the movement of several million people through the Sinai desert, no trace of their supposed encampment at Kadesh Barnea for many years. Where are the latrines, the corpses of those who must have died during that time, and so forth?
Like Egyptian chariot wheels found in the middle of the red sea? You concoct a theory as to how they got there.
Corpes? Probably buried. Its a wide expanse of desert so imagine what could be there and has NOT been found. Geez they just unearthed the city of Petra how long ago? And entire city practically buried in sand.[/quote]
Quote:
6. No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations, who barely noticed the existence of Israel and Judah.
What reliable secular historians do we have from this period to draw from. There is no record denying the splendor of Soloman, as well as the city and Temple he built.
Quote:
9. Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Both of these prophesied that the Medes would take and permanently destroy Babylon. But the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.
Babylon was destroyed in the sense that it lost its standing, its character, and its rulers. Unlike Rome who assimilated much of greek culture, religion, art and architecture, babylon was simply blotted out.
Quote:
10. Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.
11. Herod/Quirinius issue (Luke's Jesus born a decade after Matthew's Jesus).
Matthew's Jesus was born in Herod's time: Luke's Jesus was born at least a decade later, when Quirinius was governor of the region (as confirmed by various historical sources).
12. No "Massacre of the Innocents".
We have accounts from Herod's enemies, describing his various "crimes". The Massacre is not among them. It was invented by Matthew to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses (who also supposedly survived an infant massacre, by Pharaoh).
13. No "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" or "supernatural darkness" (easily-noticed large-scale miracles).
Again, pretty self-explanatory. The dead supposedly rose from their graves and wandered about in Jerusalem, and there was supposedly a supernatural darkness for several hours: numerous historians in the vicinity failed to notice these, as did all the gospel authors except one: obviously invented.
I don't recall zombies invading jerusalem in the gospels, enlighten me?
Quote:
14. No return of Jesus within "this generation".
There are numerous NT references to the imminent Second Coming: within one generation. Didn't happen, hence the "a day is as a thousand years to God" excuse, and so forth
I've commented on this several times in possibly this post and others just in the last couple of days. Jesus described in Matt 24 what would happen within his disciple's generation; the final destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, and the doing away of the old covenant. True Judaism doesnt exist anymore without the temple or the Levitical priesthood to carry out burnt offerrings. Go ahead and read Matt 24 with Josephus' account in the other hand, and without any preconceived notion that the chapter is about "armageddon" or end of the world.
Have we found the fossilized missing link that would have to exist for us to believe we evolved from apes as a fact and not theory? I don't think we have. Darwin tried to prove evolution by studying the changes in the beaks of finches. Hmm..... so their beaks changed shape due to environmental changes. They STAYED finches, same as they are today. What IS scientific fact, is that a gene pool of any species can not add new genes on its own. The evolution that does exist is an evolution of subraction, not addition. Which is why a finch's beak can change shape, but it cannot grow a poseable thumb. The biological information cannot just self-create itself. Believing such a thing seems to require more faith than believing in a creator.
There is no such thing as a 'missing link'. This is a pop culture term that has no real meaning in science. In reality, there is a slow, gradual change from one species to another, with indistinguishable changes from one generation to another. In other words, your generation has evolved a miniscule amount compared to your parents, and your children have evolved a miniscule amount compared to you.
For an example of slow change resulting in different species, follow this link. You will see a series of very similar skulls that clearly show gradual evolution
As for "What IS scientific fact, is that a gene pool of any species can not add new genes on its own", this is patently false as well. Due to errors in reproduction, entire sequences of DNA can be duplicated, or genes can split.
For a simple example, say you have a piece of DNA 100 pairs long. Your child experiences a mutation, and this piece of DNA, in her, is 200 pairs long. Information has been added. It will be of no value for her, but it is the base upon which further mutation can occur.
Darwin's finches. Of course they stayed finches. It has only been 150+ years. Give it another million and lets see what happens.
Last edited by stretch00; 05-06-2007 at 06:18 AM..
Reason: Include link to visual evidence for evolution
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of the religious people have basically admitted that there really isn't any proof and it's a matter of faith. Faith by definition is belief in the unknown. That means you're choosing a particular course of action or belief without any foundation whatsoever because you simply want it to be true. I don't think that presents a strong case and I'd be willing to point out that fact to "The Big Fella" when he questions me on the matter.
