[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 257 KB, 1000x600, 1280006545860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1614685 No.1614685 [Reply] [Original]

ITT: Prove that God isn't real, using the scientific method.

>> No.1614688

inb4 shitstorm

>> No.1614693

Sage.
That is my answer.

>> No.1614695

Hypothesis: Biblical claims of god are false.

Test: Read Bible

Conclusion: God is false.

>> No.1614698

God, by definition, cannot be disproven by the scientific method. You cannot test him because he knows that you are trying to test him and so will fuck your shit up.

>> No.1614702

I believe trolls are afoot.

>> No.1614708

You're fucking stupid. God isn't real. End of story.

>> No.1614714
File: 374 KB, 782x536, 1282102473720.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1614714

>> No.1614722

Seriously is there ever NOT a fucking god does/doesn't exist thread on this shit board?

>> No.1614724

>>1614698

Which reminds me of when as a child there was always that one kid who'd refuse to die while playing cops 'n robbers or such.

"Hey Anon, let's go play cops 'n robbers."
>OKAY!

"BANG! I shot you!"
>No you didn't, I'm immortal.
"NO! That's absurd!"
>I'm MADE OF FUCKING ADAMANTITE!
"Okay, whatever. Let's play!"

>...sometime later
"BANG! You're dead!"
>NO! I'M SUPERMAN
"Oh go fuck yourself, I'm going to go play with someone else."

>> No.1614726

The scientific method is strictly based on naturalism; it is incorrect to apply it to supernatural claims and likewise you cannot logically prove a negative.

However any religios claims which are not entirely supernatural such as Noah's flood (floods are a natural event), and evolution-denial (life being a natural event) can and will be investigated by science and disproved if so deserving.

tl; dr.
Science can't disprove you're god's existence, but it can disprove the existence of everything you claim it has ever done, so your god is worthless.

>> No.1614781

Ok, show me any religous teaching/document that agrees with scientific logic. IT DOESN'T EXIST! Sooo I call b.s.

>> No.1614788

>>1614726
THIS.

/thread.

>> No.1614792

>>1614685
Null hypothesis has not been disproven with regards to God.
Done.

>> No.1614801

God doesn't exist because the Bible contradicts itself.
/thread

>> No.1614809

>>1614801

you are idiot

>> No.1614813

Burden of proof, etc.

>> No.1614819

>>1614801

I like how some of you kids just blurt out blindly that the Bible contradicts itself. What I don't like is how you children never elaborate on that finding.

>> No.1614829

>>1614809
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

If the Bible is the word of God, then why is God contradicting himself?

>> No.1614837

It's possible to prove that the religious gods don't exist, it's not possible to prove that there isn't some kind of god, though.

>> No.1614842

>>1614829

You are further idiot.

the Christian God isn't the only God you fucking dumbass.

>> No.1614844

Have we not established that this board is NOT for pseudoscience? God is not real, now take your retarded beliefs to /b/ kthxbai

>> No.1614846

Guys. The Bible has nothing to do with the existence of "god."

Yes, we can disprove the existence of Jehovah, the Christian god, using the most simple of logical arguments and noting the many contradictions/errors in the Bible, or at least most versions of the Bible (the King James version in particular), but it answers nothing about a deistic god.

Not that anything needs to be said about THAT, because a deistic god is the equivalent to the invisible unicorn that's right behind you, because such things will ALWAYS be impossible to disprove with absolute certainty.

And for the person that was asking:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/biblecontra.html

There's just one site about the contradictions of the Bible. There are many, many more out there.

>> No.1614847

>>1614837
Depends solely on the definition of "god".

If "god" has to be a conscious being, then it can be disproved. If "god" doesn't have to be conscious, then I don't know how it is possible to disprove that.

>> No.1614852

>>1614842
Then why do various religions contradict each other?

>> No.1614860

>>1614847
Considering God is split into three pieces, then one can be concious at a time.

>> No.1614864

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb7JFMfQB1o
William Lane Craig has a PhD in Philosophy & Theology. I'd encourage you to look at other videos if you are interested in his proof's for God. This video is specifically about, "Should we believe only what science can prove".

>> No.1614873

It has been argued if a god exist, so do many, close as possible to one, and distance & distinct. If i'm going to believe that its possible, its much more reasonable to assumed that the universe is either full of deities or has none at all, but not just 1. To control a universe of this massive size it would take many, not just one.

>> No.1614881

>>1614860
The sects of Christianity that believe in Trinitarianism are the second-most-retarded ones, the first being young-earth creationists. Though, these categories generally overlap, leading to one giant fuck-ton of stupidity.

The Bible doesn't suggest Trinitarianism at all. It was the Catholic church that popularized it several hundred years after Christianity formed. Much like the concept of hell.

That's one thing that Witnesses have over most other sects of Christianity: They don't believe in the Trinity, because the Bible doesn't support it and it's a logically contradictory idea. Granted, they are still Creationists, and thus, contradictory to science, but they aren't quite so contradictory to logic like Trinitarianists are.

I can't believe I'm even arguing about this. I'm a goddamn atheist. Ah well. The more you know.

>> No.1614890

>>1614864
Here's a fun game to play when listening to William Lane Craig.
Replace Jesus with Batman. It makes just as strong an argument for Batman's existance..

>> No.1614898

>>1614695
>>1614801
>>1614829
God != Christianity

Stop trying to disprove the existence of any deity based on the contents of one religious text.

>> No.1614915

>>1614726
This exactly.
Every fucking time I debate a creationist they try to use this logic:

1)God created all life in its present state 6000 years ago.
2)You can't disprove god.
3) Therefore you can't disprove god created all life in its present state 6000 years ago.


What they don't get is the only kind of god which cannot be disproven is one who's existance is not contingent on its interactions with the real world. Such a god couldn't create the Earth, tell a person what is moral, what to do on Sunday, or anything else.

>> No.1614923

>>1614726
best answer.

>> No.1614940

>>1614881
I can tell... because you are so wrong. That is all; if you are actually interested, the information is out there.
Here is a reformed theologian:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689
His criteria in understanding the truth of the Christian faith is very similar to how a scientist would go about it.
You look at the verse in question based on its context, look at the original texts (greek/hebrew), look at the sentence structures ect. Then look at other places where this topic is talked about in the bible to get an accurate view of what it is saying. Reformed theology is the only form of Christianity that is consistent in their handling of the text, and claiming illogical forms of handling the text are better, is not intellectually grounded.

>> No.1614953

>>1614829
Notice that no where in the bible does it state that the bible is infallible. In fact, the majority of the bible is a collection of letters, sermons, and ancient laws.

>> No.1614960

>>1614898
But this thread is about the Christian God, you DORK SIDED GORGYLE SATAN WORSHIPER.

>> No.1614985

>>1614915
If God exists, it's outside the universe, and the universe as we understand it is basically a computer simulation.

This of course leaves the question of what exists beyond our universe, and where God came from.

The issue is, however, that there is no reason to believe that logic and causality as we understand them would work the same way or exist at all in a higher plane of existence.

tl;dr
If you want to argue that God created the universe, you won't get anywhere until we find some obvious sign, like "God was here" written in the shape of nebulae.

>> No.1614995

>>1614985
>>"outside the universe"
>>outside
>>the
>>universe
O.o What are you smoking man.

>> No.1614996

>>1614985
Aha, clever. This is my preferred way of arguing religion anyway; that is, God is an unobservable mode of the system we know as the Universe. Universe works the same regardless of his existence, so it's easier to say he doesn't exist, for ease of modeling.

>> No.1615013

>>1614995
Ever run a simulation on a computer? You are basically creating a universe. It is certainly a very simple one compare to the one you live in, but it has rules, entities, forces, and whatnot. Certainly the rules are different there. Who's to say this universe isn't a simulation being run within a larger one?

You are in effect "God" in a simulation you build and run. If you created a complicated enough simulation, with sentient and sapient beings, would they have any way of determining whether or not YOU exist unless you deliberately places some clues for them?

>> No.1615026
File: 53 KB, 540x720, 35308_1488696292755_1094397761_1501739_7294369_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1615026

Impossible. The scientific method makes conclusions based on evidence. What you're asking is, find evidence that supports or doesn't support a conclusion. Thats fucking backwards, man

>> No.1615029

>>1614995
Outside is probably a poor choice of words on his part, but it should get across to people already familiar with the concept. Read the Brain in a vat article for a little elaboration on what he is referring too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

>> No.1615030

>>1615013
in that case what are the boundaries to "our universe", that is, where does our universe end?

>> No.1615033

>>1615013
Computer programmer here.
My computer programs tend to be efficient and have an obvious purpose. There isn't much efficiency or obvious purpose in the universe. Therefore God is a crap programmer or its all just random.

>> No.1615042

>>1615029
Thank you.

>> No.1615045

>>1615030
Who knows. Maybe if you flew a spaceship off in one direction, you'd eventually hit an invisible wall. Maybe you'd just keep going past where all the stars, etc. are. Maybe you'd continue to loop back over the same part of the universe, the same way you can travel one direction over the surface of the earth and come back to the same spot (because the universe is infinite in three dimensions but finite in four). Maybe something else would happen.

tl;dr
Being a part of our universe precludes us from understanding it fully.

>> No.1615055

>>1615045
it's like I'm watching the end of Men In Black...

>> No.1615056

>>1615033
You are "God" to your programs.
Do your programs or any entity within them know what the grand purpose is? Don't they just feed back data like they're told?

>> No.1615057

>>1615045
"Being a part of our universe precludes us from understanding it fully." True even if we are uncomfortable with that fact.

>> No.1615058

>>1615013
You fail to realize that universe = everything that exists.
If something is "outside" the universe, it IS the universe.

>> No.1615060

>>1615055
It's like you aren't responding in a constructive way.

>> No.1615064

prove you god is real, or prove that your god is the right one, and not one of the millions out there made up by man. woman never came up with anything good

>> No.1615066

>>1615058
No. "Universe" is a word. We use it to describe everything we know or speculate to exist. "Exist" is also a word. Nobody really has a perfect definition of it, though.

>> No.1615067

How about logic?

We can't prove God exists, because proving His existence would deny faith, and would thus mean He doesn't exist.

However, according to various Christian arguments, God's work has been impacted upon this world (I.E World is 6000 years old, natural design, etc.) to behold. Therefore, He exists.

However, because we have proven He exists, He does not exist by his own arguments.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

>> No.1615071

>>1615067
"Christianity is illogical" != "Christianity is wrong"
"Christianity is wrong" != "God doesn't exist"

>> No.1615072

>>1615066
Why willfully distort the definition tho when you could explain it in different words? Its like asking for a misunderstanding.

>> No.1615074

>>1615066
I'm not talking about the word.
The concept of the universe is everything that exists. You cannot per definition be outside or not part of it (or put in another way: if you're not part of the universe, you don't exist).

>> No.1615076

>>1615067


well put.

>> No.1615079

>>1615067
How deluded.

>> No.1615084

>>1615072
I don't need to ask for a misunderstanding. We don't understand the nature of existence. Until or unless we augment ourselves to perceive information in new ways, our understanding of anything is limited by our senses. They are the only way we can gather information. As per the "Brain in a Vat" postulation, we have no way to know whether or not our senses are reliable other than to fabricate a system of logic and empiricism. However, because our knowledge of the universe is limited to our senses, we have no way of knowing whether or not our foundation for these systems is sound, past what we can determine using the systems themselves. Science stands on ground that is just as shaky as religion.

>> No.1615087

>>1615067
Well done, my friend.

>>1615079
How biased.

>> No.1615088

>>1615071


True, that "proof" only applies to the Christian version of God, not any all-powerful being.

>> No.1615099

>>1615074
What do you mean by something that "exists"?

>> No.1615107
File: 13 KB, 510x357, universe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1615107

>>1615084
It doesn't matter what we understand.
Here's an image for illustration.

>> No.1615111

>>1615099
Doesn't matter, use whatever definition you want.

>> No.1615119

ALRIGHT. THIS IS PISSING ME OFF. THESE THREADS ARE JUST SPAM. /sci/ IS NOT THE PLACE FOR RELIGION vs ATHEISM THREADS. TROLLS, STOP POSTING THEM.
PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING TROLLED, STOP REPLYING. I'M SEEING THESE THREADS GET MORE REPLIES THAN NEARLY EVERYTHING ELSE ON /sci/.

By the by, sorry for the caps. Just making sure people read this. That is also why I will not sage this one.

>> No.1615121

>>1615107
He looks like joker.. everything makes sense now.

>> No.1615134

>>1615107
>implying we know more than a pixel of the universe
>>implying we know even a pixel's worth

>> No.1615143

>>1615107
Okay, I'll simplify my argument to one word:

Recursion.

If you don't get that, then come on, man.

>> No.1615147

>>1615134
>pixel is an arbitrary quantity depending on resolution
>if we know even 1 thing about the universe we know at least 1 pixel worth of information in some resolution.

>> No.1615153

>>1615084
>Science stands on ground that is just as shaky as religion.
No.
Show me a computer designed by prayer.

>> No.1615158

>>1615084
Science allows us to use the senses we have to discover the world around us, and that has led us to create tools that allow us to gather information about shit we can't sense with our natural senses. Things like UV rays, x-rays, distant planets, extinct creatures... the list goes on and on.

Even if we were completely obvious to things outside of these senses, that does NOTHING to prove god exists.

Since the burden of proof is on the believer and not the non-believer, this vague attempt to disprove non-belief is an utter crock.

>> No.1615159

>>1615143
In exactly what way does recursion have anything to do with it?

>> No.1615161

>>1615153

heh heh heh

>> No.1615162

>>1615153
I didn't say anything about prayer. Stop making this about Christianity. Theirs isn't the only god.

>> No.1615167

>>1615162
Substitute prayer with worship/divine inspiration/revelation/whatever religious term you wanna use then.

>> No.1615168

>>1615162
And yet, the only "proof" of any other god is EXACTLY the same as the proof of the xtian deity: nothing

>> No.1615170

1 troll
69 victims and counting

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

>> No.1615173

>>1615158
Not trying to prove non-belief wrong.
Arguing that there is no logic behind non-belief in anything outside of our idea of the universe.

>>1615159
Have you never seen the Matrix? Did you completely ignore that link above to the article on the "Brain in a Vat" idea?

>> No.1615174

>>1615084
>Science stands on ground that is just as shaky as religion.

THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF SCIENCE.

Science isn't fucking "absolute". This is what you religiousfags won't understand. You guys are taught that everything is absolute (even morality), which is the biggest load of bullshit ever told.

Science is a process. If a phenomenon occurs that cannot be explained by our current theories, we try to figure out why. Even if that means changing our theories, we can accept that.

>> No.1615175

>>1615167
Religious belief requires none of those things.

>> No.1615176

>>1615170
>implying we aren't meta-trolling the original troll.

>> No.1615180

>>1615174
How do you know that your eyes/ears/etc. are perceiving reality though? What makes you think you aren't in a reality within a reality?

Theology exists beyond the scope of science. For now at least.

>> No.1615182

>>1615175
Yes it does.
If your belief system does not satisfy the criteria for religion, its not a religion but a philosophy.

>> No.1615186

Einstein was a fraud.

>> No.1615194

>>1615180
>What makes you think you aren't in a reality within a reality?

... and that is where you stepped out of the realm of science, and into the realm of pseudoscience.

>> No.1615197

>>1615182
If I believe that a being created the universe, does that not qualify as religion? For it to be a religion, must I prostrate myself before symbols of this being, rather than simply acknowledging its existence?

>> No.1615201

>>1615168
The cosmological argument is a perfectly rational conclusion for the existence of God. Something from nothing by nothing is far less coherent..

God is hardwired into human nature. The fact that people think there is right and wrong speaks to their inherent views on objective morality.

Either attempting to kill all the Jews was wrong, or it was only wrong for people who felt that way and right for those who were doing it. If you think it was wrong no matter what they thought about it, you believe in objective morality.

Evil exists.
Therefore Objective morality exists.
Therefore God exists.

To deny either premise is to say, morality is just governed by what we feel is right, our nature, and that there is no actual right and wrong apart from that.

>> No.1615202

>>1615194
Because we don't have any hard evidence that that is the case? Science in no way precludes this as a possibility.

>> No.1615203

FOR REAL THO YALL I SMOKED SOME DMT AND EVERYTHING WENT ALL CRAZY LIKE AND GOD SAID YO I DON'T EXIST AND I WAS LIKE SHIIIIIT THAT'S FUCKING EXPERIMENTS

>> No.1615207

>>1615197
>If I believe that a being created the universe, does that not qualify as religion?
No, that is not enough for something to be a religion.

>> No.1615218

>>1615201
Morality cannot be proven to be objective or subjective, simply because:

A.) We have no way to know what is "objective," no rules or anything to reference.

B.) If morality is proven to be subjective, then it is purely a concept within the mind, and therefore does not exist in any concrete sense.

>> No.1615219

>>1615180
That raises the point. Why should we trust these senses and not our internal feeling and moral sense. Why is one just assumed, and the other discarded. This includes aesthetics and the like.

>> No.1615228

>>1615218
Then why are there different standards for morality among various cultures?

>> No.1615232

>>1615207
Faith in a god does not qualify as a religion? If I believe in something without actual proof, I have faith that it exists. Faith doesn't necessarily mean I practice any form of worship, though.

Although it is important to recognize that those of us responding seriously are exercising a form of worship of our beliefs/philosophies/convictions/whatever you want to call them.

>> No.1615233

>>1615201
>The cosmological argument is a perfectly rational conclusion for the existence of God. Something from nothing by nothing is far less coherent..
No, the cosmological argument says nothing about God (unless you define God as the First Cause, but then you're just redefining God to whatever you want, and it loses it's meaning).
And it doesn't even explain anything. Why would the First Cause not need a cause? Why is it unique in that regard?

>The fact that people think there is right and wrong speaks to their inherent views on objective morality.
No.
>To deny either premise is to say, morality is just governed by what we feel is right, our nature, and that there is no actual right and wrong apart from that.
Yep, objective morality doesn't exist.
Can it happen again?

>> No.1615237

I hate to spoil the ending to this thread guys but nobody wins

>> No.1615239

>>1615232
>Faith in a god does not qualify as a religion?
Not by itself, no.
>Faith doesn't necessarily mean I practice any form of worship, though.
Yes, and that's why your faith is not a religion, just a personal belief/philosophy.

>> No.1615246

>>1615228
The existence of objective morality does not mean subjective morality doesn't exist. Subjective morality would just be a less-valid morality.

>> No.1615252

>>1615239
Regardless of our definitions of religion, that still doesn't prove that God does not exist.

>> No.1615253

>>1615246
Can you give me an example of an objective moral?

>> No.1615260

>>1615219
Because we have developed these senses more, and formed a more solid understanding of them. The result is that our understanding of the other senses is that they are evolutionary holdovers and not "worthy" of competition for our attention.

Not that I personally hold this opinion.

>> No.1615268

>>1615253
No. I can't. Nobody can because if objective morality exists, we have no way to know what it is.

>> No.1615288

>>1615268
TROLL!

>> No.1615302

>>1615201
>If you think it was wrong no matter what they thought about it, you believe in objective morality.
Or it was right.
Who says objective morality condemns mass murder?
According to the Christian God it is ok sometimes (the many -ites people in the Bible, etc)

>> No.1615309

>>1615288
Why? Is that statement wrong?

>> No.1615324

>>1615067
>>1615067
>>1615067

you fucking parrot.

>> No.1615379

>>1614864

William Lane Craig is a psuedophilosophic piece of trash. He is the worst kind of intellectual; one who begins with his conclusions in place and hodgepodges whatever evidence he can onto his assumtion. These videos, in particular, were atrocious pieces on intellectual dishonesty. He should be executed for academic high treason.

>>1614940

James White isn't even close to the same catagory as Craig. He's just an idiot dressed in a suit who's learned how to speak in such a way that he sounds like he's actually saying something. He doesn't even understand basic notions about how time works. Fucking retard.

>> No.1615497

I believe the best empirical evidence against the existence of a god is sociological. Statistics clearly show that one's personal religious preference is almost always contingent on one's surroundings as a youth; and especially relevent are the religious preferences of one's parents. This seems to suggest that which god, gods, or itteration of a god one believes in is significantly related to the memeplex of a community or society. If we consider individual itterations of the same god (such as differentiating between the conceptualizations that mormons versus catholics have of god; a reasonable suggestion in my opinion) as different gods, then the number of possible gods which exist in the modern world is exceedingly large. If the existence of each of these gods can't be demonstrated through induction or deduction, then it makes deciding which of these gods is the real one nearly impossible. Furthermore, if in fact one (or even a hundred, given the sheer number) of these gods actually existed, then one would have to be extraordinarily lucky to believe in the exact one. All of this suggests that god concepts are social constructs of man. Obviously this is not a hard proof, as such a proof is impossible, but it should be good enough for someone rational.

>> No.1615517

>>1615497

Aggravating the situation is the fact that many, if not most of these religions have some sort of clause attached where eternal paradise or torture are attatched to selecting the appropriate god. If a hypothetical real god happened to be figurehead of such a religion, then it would be safe to say that well over 99% of all humans in history would be damned to hell. This further complicates the already complicated problem of evil. If a god did exist under these circumstances, it would almost certainly have to be malevolent.

Again, this isn't anywhere near hard proof, but it should at least be enough to make one question whether they should worship a god who, if it existed, was very probably an evil motherfucker.

>> No.1615617
File: 20 KB, 400x400, unamused.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1615617

>>1615497
>>1615517

How is that at all scientific?

>> No.1615627

>>1615617
>implying any response in this thread has been scientific

>> No.1615677

>>1615627
>implying he isn't an idiot for not recognizing science.

>> No.1615709

hi,

it cannot be done. It is an untestable/non-falsifiable theory/belief system.
Science still has nothing to do with whether god exists or not. Clearly you have failed to grasp what science is about. ha ha you beleive in god

>> No.1615710

>>1615497
Westerners prefer Western religion and Easterners prefer Eastern religion, therefore God doesn't exist? Makes no sense, dude.

>> No.1615713

>>1614685

Is impossible to prove or disprove god.

But we can all agree that lots of his followers are dicks.

>> No.1615731
File: 35 KB, 450x295, royal-fail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1615731

>>1615710

Dropping the thousands of religions which exist into two super-catagories is not a refutation, it's a smokescreen.

>> No.1615734

>>1615731
wut? You're not making any sense. It doesn't matter how many categories you divide religions into. You can divide them into 7 billion categories if you like. It still doesn't imply, even slightly, that God isn't real.

>> No.1615742

>>1615497
That's like saying that since the children of physicists are more likely to become physicists, and the children of chemists are more likely to become chemists, and the children of biologists are more likely to become biologists, that the natural world doesn't exist.

>> No.1615751

>>1615742

Actually it's more like saying that if the children of physicists tend to become physicists (etc.) that the study of physics is a social construct.

Maybe you should read the whole argument next time.

>> No.1615752
File: 40 KB, 225x225, trolling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1615752

>> No.1615758

You cannot prove unfalsifiable hypothesis right or wrong.

>> No.1615763

>>1615751
I did read the whole argument. It sucked donkey balls.

>> No.1615769

>>1615763
nice counterargument

>> No.1615770

>>1615769
Thank you.

>> No.1615773

>>1615763

You read the entire argument then made a shitty-ass retort?

Excuse me while I laugh at you.

>> No.1615775

>>1615758
/thread

>> No.1615780
File: 57 KB, 500x485, catwatermelonlake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1615780

>>1615763

>> No.1615782

>>1615773
No, I read the argument, made a concise analogy to demonstrate why the argument failed, you made a shitty-ass retort, and then I made a shitty-ass counter-retort.

>> No.1615786

>>1615782
>implying your analogy reflected reality in any way

>> No.1615796

Here, let me in on the argument.

Biology, chemistry, physics, etc. are all consistent with each other, and often coalesce and supervene upon each other. They are harmonious. However, the different religions of the planet are all in contradiction with each other, even within religions there are splinters and sects and such.

>> No.1615805

$\rightarrow$ dicks

>> No.1615809

<span class="math">\rightarrow[\math] dicks[/spoiler]

>> No.1615811

>>1615786
I'll try to be seriously long enough to explain why your argument is bullshit, but I can't promise to remain serious indefinitely.

There is One God. Nearly all religions acknowledge this in their own way. There are some genuine polytheistic Hindus, but most Hindus are essentially monotheistic seeing the gods as manifestations of the one creator. Then there are eastern religions such as Taoism and Buddhism. The Tao is a non-personal conception of God. Buddhism comprises mechanisms of cultivating spirituality, which, as considered in the Christian paradigm, is connection to God. There are these different paradigms for establishing relationship with God, because there are many types of people.

You fail when you think that many paradigms implies many Gods. It doesn't there's just one, as almost all these paradigms will tell you. You fail when you think that God only approves of one paradigm and will punish those who don't use the approved one. That's silly.

>> No.1615820

>>1615796
The different religions on the planet say 99.9% the exact same thing. Where they differ, they differ by less than say, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics differ. Yet neither GR nor QM should be abandoned. And whatever failings GR or QM have do not imply the non-existence of physical reality, any more than failings in religion imply the non-existence of God.

>> No.1615828

>>1615811
I'll try to be seriously long enough to explain why your argument is bullshit, but I can't promise to remain serious indefinitely.

There is one Eternal President Kim Il-sung. Nearly all religions acknowledge this in their own way. There are some genuine polytheistic Hindus, but most Hindus are essentially monotheistic seeing the gods as manifestations of the one Eternal President. Then there are eastern religions such as Taoism and Buddhism. The Tao is a non-personal conception of the Eternal President. Buddhism comprises mechanisms of cultivating spirituality, which, as considered in the Christian paradigm, is connection to the Eternal President. There are these different paradigms for establishing relationship with Eternal President Kim Il-sung, because there are many types of people.

You fail when you think that many paradigms implies many Eternal Presidents. It doesn't there's just one, as almost all these paradigms will tell you. You fail when you think that Eternal President Kim Il-sung approves of other paradigms. He will punish those who don't use the approved one.

>> No.1615835

>>1615828
about what I expected

>> No.1615836

>>1615820
See, qm and gr physics don't go around with strapped explosives or flying planes into buildings over that .1% difference.

>captcha: 000000600600200200800 recaem
fuck

>> No.1615839

>>1614685
chuck norris fucks your mom can you prove he doesnt?
god is a fairytale for moralfags end of story
and if you want a real answerwhy dont YOU prove as you god is real?

>> No.1615852

>>1615820
>>1615811

Do you actually believe that? REALLY? So Allah isn't a significantly different deity from Ahura Mazda? How about Thor to Jesus? How about Baal to Jesus?

Over half of the religious adherents on the planet would kill you for suggesting they're worshipping the same god as any other religion.

>> No.1615860

>>1615820

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Islam and Taoism are 99% the same? FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-

>> No.1615863

>>1615811
Nothing makes me rage more than when christfags try to make it look like all religions worship their little god of Israel.

>> No.1615866

>>1615863
Not what I said.

>> No.1615870

>>1615863
The "God of Israel" is particular to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. But all monotheists, including Plato, Pythagoras, believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal, immutable creator of all finite reality.

>> No.1615871

>>1615866
>implying you didn't say there's one god that nearly all religions acknowledge

>> No.1615874

>>1615866

Don't play semantics. The point is that suggesting that all deities represent the same concept is ludicrous.

>> No.1615878

>>1615870
Doesn't mean other monotheists are talking about the same deity that the jews eventually decided to say is the highest and only god. Also, not all religions are monotheistic. Mosts Buddhists and Taoists don't believe in any gods

>> No.1615884

>>1615870

Who's the newfag retard?

Inb4 shitstorm

>> No.1615889

>>1615874
No, what is ludicrous is that if you have two different groups who both worship the infinite creator of all finite reality, but they use two different books in their worship, for you to say that there are two different entities being worshiped. That's nonsensical. Even if everyone thinks of the Creator in a slightly different way, that doesn't make there be many different Creators. There can only be one. Especially as that creator is defined as an Infinity. There can't be multiple infinite sources of reality. That's the whole point of monotheism. Saying that different understandings of that infinite source implies they aren't all trying to describe the same thing, is nothing but amateur rhetoric.

>> No.1615897

>>1615889
You're right. It doesn't make two different creators.
It means there are zero different creators.
Each side can clearly see that the other's is not the creator, and thus is false. They still believe in their one creator, which is separate. And one more than the actual number.

>> No.1615898

>>1615878
Taoists believe in the Tao. The Tao is highly related to the ancient Greek concept of Logos.

>> No.1615900

>>1615889
>There can't be multiple infinite sources of reality.
aaaaand that was the point where everyone realized you really are that retarded

>> No.1615903

>>1615889
>two different groups who both worship the infinite creator of all finite reality

You seem to assume a lot about non-Abrahamic religions you don't really know much about.

>> No.1615904

>>1615897
LOL If two people have different conceptions of a thing, that thing doesn't exist? Okay, chief.

>> No.1615906

>>1615903
I've studied ancient and eastern religions for 20 years.

>> No.1615909

>>1615898
According to Tao Te Ching, no one is more important than another. The idea of a Taoist god would not fit their beliefs.

>> No.1615912

Easy. Note: This does not prove god isn't real, it only proves that using the scientific method we can determine so. Because god is unfalsifiable, belief in him can still be justified. But as far as science is concerned, he is nonexistant.
Observe.

Because there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that the universe was created by an intelligent being, it is logical to assume it was not.

>> No.1615914

>>1615909
What do you know about the ancient greek concept of the logos?

>> No.1615915

>>1615903
This. Pretty much the only major religion besides the Abrahamic ones that would apply to would be Hinduism, and some modern forms of Zoroastrianism.

>> No.1615916

>>1615912
No, that is not logical. That is one of the classical fallacies of logic.

>> No.1615917

It really depends on what your definition of god is

>> No.1615920

>>1615916

Care to explain how? There's no proof of unicorns, either, so it's logical to assume they don't exist. Until proven otherwise, of course, which is obligatory in science.

>> No.1615923

>>1615906

How could you study anything for 20 years when you're 16?

Oooooohhh, I get it. You're a liar on top of being an idiot.

>> No.1615924

>>1615898
I like how these fags keep saying things are "highly related" to justify them being considered to be the same thing.

also "Logos" does not necessarily equal a sentient deity.

>> No.1615925

>>1615920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"."

>> No.1615927

>>1615924
No the logos, is not necessarily sentient. I never said it was.

>> No.1615930

>>1615925

Of course it isn't. That's not what I'm saying, you're using a strawman argument here.

I'm only going as far as science is concerned; it can't entirely prove something because something new can be introduced to disprove it. Similarly, if something has no evidence supporting it, it's scientifically assumed to be false (or as close as you can get) until proven otherwise.

That's how science works.

>> No.1615931

>>1615927
then don't try to use a perceived similarity between the Tao and the Logos to justify saying that the Tao and a Hebrew god are the same thing.

>> No.1615933

>>1615930
No, assuming something is false because it is unproven is EXACTLY the argument from ignorance fallacy that I referenced.

>> No.1615935

>>1615931
I didn't say anything specifically about the Hebrew God.

>> No.1615939

>>1615935
okay, then you agree that the Tao and the Abrahamic god are two different things. Good.

>> No.1615941

>>1615935
However, what I did suggest, is that the logos, the tao, the Hebrew God, Zoroaster's God, and I will further suggest the Egyptian pantheon, are all ways to try to understand and explain the same thing.

And my other point is that there are not "different gods" among monotheists. All monotheists try to understand and relate to the singular creator of the universe.

>> No.1615947

>>1615941
But they disagree on who the creator of the universe is, and a Zoroastrian would not say that Ahura Mazda is also yahweh.

>> No.1615948

>>1615933

Argument from ignorance requires that you are asserting that something is false; science doesn't assert anything. It merely makes observations and deductions based on evidence.

As far as it's concerned, something is true if evidence supports it, and something is false if no evidence supports it- both sides being something that can change rapidly depending on what discoveries we make.

Using this method, you can prove that god is scientifically false, even if he may still exist. If we were to assume that he did exist despite lack of evidence, we'd be going against the scientific method.

>> No.1615950

>>1615947
Those are just names.

>> No.1615954

>>1614864
Sweet. Thanks for that.

>> No.1615955

Hypothesis: God exists.

Evidence: none

Conclusion: Until proven otherwise, god is assumed to be false. But just like everything else, we'll keep our minds open and still look in to the possibility, and let those who believe seek evidence.

>> No.1615956

>>1615950
Names that describe different things.

>> No.1615957

>>1615948
>As far as [science is] concerned, ...something is false if no evidence supports it

Again this is false. You do not understand science or logic. You are contradicting both of them.

>> No.1615959

>>1615955
Argument from ignorance fallacy.

>> No.1615962

>>1615959

Then what's your position on god, scientifically?

>> No.1615963

>>1615956
There are many different names given for God in the Bible, many different names given in the Vedas. Different names does not necessarily imply different things. Since these things are described, you can look at the description and see that they are describing the same thing.

>> No.1615965

>>1615962
Most would agree that God is outside the realm of science. So science can take no position.

>> No.1615966

>>1615889

No. Just no. I don't really blame you for not understanding why you're wrong as the fallacy in your argument is one that most religionists have problems with.

Just because you can broadly predefine something as an "infinite creator of all finite reality" doesn't mean it shares any other characteristics with any other concept which you claim to have the same quality.

If you'd actually studied religions for as long as you claim you have, you'd know very well that the Allah of the Qu'aran is a very very different character than the Yaweh of the Old Testament is a very very different character than the Jesus of the New Testament.

Really, the problem with you're whole argument is your ideology. The deities written about in these books didn't exist before their respective religions were founded. Allah isn't simply an idiosyncratic representation of an infinite being by a primitive culture; rather, he's a fictional character created by an asshole, written about in a trashy novel.

>> No.1615968

>>1615957

you're wrong.

science's position on something is ALWAYS: x may or may not be false

however, logically it assumes something to be true if proven, and something to be false if not proven

that's how science works. it asserts neither, only assumes and observes.

god is technically unfalsifiable, but that's the closest science can get to disproving such an idea. which fulfill's op's request

>> No.1615970

>>1615963
Okay, apparently when I use their names it confuses you. Let me fix it then.

A Zoroastrian would not say their god is also the Jewish god. In fact, there's Zoroastrian myth that says Judaism was invented by Ahriman.

>> No.1615974

>>1615966
I doubt you have read by the Koran and the Bible. Both use the generic term for God in their respective languages "Allah" and "Elohim"... both of which are modified versions of the term used for "gods". Both describe the creator of the universe. Both describe this creator nearly identically. Saying they are talking about two separate beings is frankly, pure ignorance. No one who has studied the source material would make that claim. It's one of those things that come from third had accounts and cherry-picked differences.

>> No.1615978

>>1615968
>logically it assumes something to be true if proven, and something to be false if not proven
FOR FUCK SAKE, JUST LEAVE. THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

>> No.1615980

>>1615974

Elohim is from the Hebrew Bible. It's jewish.

Yahweh is the name of the Christian god.

>> No.1615982

>>1615978

you could explain how instead of yelling at me

though you're probably too dumb to do that.

>> No.1615986

>>1615970
Yes, and you can find Christians, who say all non-christians are going to hell, or even specific sects of christians who say non-members of their sect are going to hell, and that's a pretty human attitude and pretty retarded.

It doesn't change the fact that all these people are trying in their own way to understand and relate to the infinite creator of the universe, which they all acknowledge and similarly describe.

>> No.1615988

>>1615957

Science has nothing to say in this matter.

Science works only when presented with hypotheses that are falsifiable. Because the very nature of any supposed God is, by definition, unprovable,, and therefore unfalsifiable, this is not a matter for Science to answer.


However, Science can say somethings regarding religion. For example, a religion says "The Earth is flat!" Of course, science finds this to be false. Perhaps not a big hit for the religion. But, what if the religion also says "Everything that this religions says and does is in accordance with the perfect will of God." Now we KNOW that something is wrong. Either God was wrong about the Earth being flat (so he's a dumbass and why worship him?), God deceived the religious (So he isn't perfect, and he's also a prick), or the religion is lying when they say that all of their knowledge comes from God. When it turns out that a whole crapload of stuff that a religion spews is found to be unsupported by science, then the validity of that religion as a 'portal to God' diminishes. When the considerable content of EVERY religion is found to be largely unsupported by science, then the idea of a God who has revealed himself to humanity becomes incredibly diminished.

But again, it says nothing about the existence of some kind of creator. Perhaps our universe was created by a some geek late one night in his lab after reading some stuff about magnets on fourchan.gro. Maybe our "God" doesn't know we exist, maybe it's a she, maybe she likes to have sex with donkeys when no one is looking. Maybe, there is no God at all. I don't think Science will ever have anything to say on this matter, but I think Science will continue to do an excellent job at showing why religions are all cons of the worst kind - the kind that take not your money or your possessions, but your mind.

>> No.1615996

>>1615986
except they make it clear that their deity is the true one and the others are false. To try to mash a bunch of religions together that all contradict each other and say all other religions are inspired by Ahriman or Satan is foolish.

>> No.1615999

>>1615988

so science has no position on whether or not unicorns are real

>> No.1616003

>>1615974

They are both obviously the God of Abraham, but it seems as if, over a course of 1,500 years or so, God had some massive mood swings!

>> No.1616005

>>1615980
>Elohim is from the Hebrew Bible. It's jewish.
>Yahweh is the name of the Christian god.
LOL WUT?

Elohim and Yehowah, are both Hebrew. They are both from the Hebrew Bible. "Elohim" is the Hebrew generic term for "God" which corresponds to the Arabic term "Allah". "Yehowah" is the "name" that Elohim speaks to Moses, meaning "I AM". The terms are frequently used together, Yehowah Elohim, typically translated in English The Lord God.

Christianity is an offshoot from the Hebrew tradition. It teaches that Yehowah Elohim was born in human flesh as Yeshuah, which is translated in English "Jesus". Christians, worship Yehowah Elohim specifically as revealed in the flesh as Yeshuah.

>> No.1616008

God has nothing to do with the scientific method, or science, or nature itself. God has everything to do with common sense, however, and I think that's why a lot of people don't believe in a deity.

>> No.1616011

>>1615988
For the record, the world being flat has generally been associated with atheism. The idea of a flat instead of spherical earth was perhaps first introduced by Democritus, who dismissed Pythagoras's spherical earth, along with his theism as superstition.

>> No.1616012

>>1615988

alright, i was wrong.

>> No.1616015
File: 321 KB, 371x470, 1270509530614.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1616015

>>1616005
>yehowah

protip: translating "YHWH" in retarded ways does not make you look smart.

>> No.1616017

Scientific method can prove all of religions wrong, or, all known gods. But for the "concept" itself, you can't prove it wrong, since there's no evidence for it.

>> No.1616020

>>1616015
I'm not trying to look smart, I just think that Yahweh is the wrong pronunciation. The better argument can be made for Yehowah.

>> No.1616024

>>1615974

Actually, I have read them, that's why I know that Allah selects those who perfrom good works for paradise (Surah 23:102 and Surah 23:103) while Yahweh selects based on faith (Isaiah 64:6, John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Titus 3:5).

Also why I know that Allah has no son (Surah 6:101) while Yahweh very clearly does (uh, duh).

That Allah hates sinners (Surah 5:64) while Yaweh loves them (John 3:16 and Romans 5:8)

That Allah is one "person" (Surah 4:171) while Yahweh has a serious case of multiple personality disorder (John 5:7 and John 5:8).

All of these attributes were meant to be taken LITERALLY, as divine and immutable mandates of the respective god.

>> No.1616025

>>1616012

Good, now get the fuck out of here and go kill yourself, you stupid fuck.

>> No.1616034

>>1616024
I think you just illustrated that you haven't read them.

Protip: 1 John 5:7 references a completely different book than John 5:7. The former is an epistle. The latter is the gospel. You referenced the gospel. You wanted the epistle.

>> No.1616036

>>1615999
But unicorns are real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal

>> No.1616039

>>1616025
nothing like a gracious winner

>> No.1616041

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwqXuMPsoc

>> No.1616044

>>1616034
It doesn't necessarily show that he hasn't read them, merely that he's far more knowledgeable about the Koran compared to the Bible.

>> No.1616045

>>1616034
>poster made a small mistake in citation
>entire argument is now invalid

>> No.1616047

>>1616024

You forgot all the times Allah explicitly mandates the torture and murder of everyone he doesn't like.

>> No.1616048

>>1615999

That is a different sort of question. I don't think Science can make any positive claims about the existence of Unicorns, BUT:

God is, by nearly every definition out there, outside of nature. Science can only examine things that are within nature (thus why it is able to refute the idea of a personal god but not a deistic God).

Unicorns, apparently, are or were within nature. So Science could have something to say about it. But of course, you can't prove that something never existed, so Science would have to probably say something like "There is no evidence to suggest that unicorns ever existed."

You might now say, "alright, but then can't Science also say 'There is no evidence to suggest God exists?'" I would respond by saying, simply "no." Because, again, God is apparently outside of nature, so you would not expect to find evidence even if it did exist.

For the record, I think the whole "outside of nature" thing is a really annoying argument used by theists. They should realize that this argument does not really help their cause, as it doesn't favor their position. True, it shows that Science has no place in the discussion, but it also shows that Religion (or anyone, for that matter) has no place in the discussion XD.

>> No.1616051

>>1616047
that's a similarity allah has with yahweh

>> No.1616052

>>1616034

You're a child. I'm sorry, let me fix my previous post:

+1

Faggot.

>> No.1616054

>>1616051

I was thinking moreso of after he gets the facelift in the New Testament.

Regardless, even with how much of a raving lunatic Yahweh was in the Old Testament, he still doesn't hold a candle to Allah.

>> No.1616057

>>1616044
That looks like it's actually a list from a christian website that says why the Koran is evil. The thing is, no one would come up with those things from reading the New Testament, rather ONLY from later christian doctrine.

Two examples.

1) The idea of God being multiple PERSONS (that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being independent PERSONS, rather than aspects or such) is unheard of in the Bible, and was only developed several hundred years later in Christianity.

2) Anyone reading the Bible, or just the New Testament would get the OVERWHELMING impression (especially the gospels and revelation) that man is judged based on works moreso than faith. It is only post-Luther protestantism that advances the faith-alone idea and cherry-picks verses to that effect.

Therefore, the poster got this from a christian website and has probably never read either book.

>> No.1616077

>>1616057

You don't get to wiggle out of this one, I fucking cited specific scripture.

1 John 5:7-8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Not to mention the fact that Paul is very clear about the seperate divinity of Jesus. At best, the authors in the New Testament didn't know what the fuck they thought on the topic, which isn't a great claim for consistency.

And I don't even need to direct quote the verses supporting faith over works. The simple fact is that the Bible is incredibly ecclectic on the subject, while the Qu'aran is explicit.

Total inconsistencies of character.

Don't try to claim that someone's cheating when they bests you in a battle. It makes you look like even more of an idiot than we already knew you were.

>> No.1616080

Fucking owned. GTFO Christianfag.

>> No.1616088

>>1616077
But your examples are all nonsense. There are FAR more places that say we are judged by works than by faith. Do you really want me to start quoting?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are related like Soul, Body, and Action. That's why their ONENESS is emphasized throughout. Read the book of John, specifically the last half where Jesus talks to his disciples at the last supper. He talk in extreme detail about his oneness with the father.

I can find plenty of quotes about God hating the ungodly in the Bible as well. Another total nonsense distinction between the two books.

I never said that the Bible and Koran were similar in style. I said they described God in remarkably similar ways. Do yourself a favor and read them both. Then you won't embarrass yourself by arguing this point.

>> No.1616112

>>1614685

Please give an explicit definition of god, so we have a discussion base first.

>> No.1616113

tl;dr 214 answers.

It's simple: if God was real, he would exist. But he doesn't exist, therefore he isn't real.

>> No.1616134

>>1616088

FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

I don't understand how you can be so obstinate. The sheer stupidity of your argumentation style gives me a headache.

I've already demonstrated that I have adequate knowledge of the bible. It doesn't really matter to me that you want to ignorantly continue claiming that I haven't read it when it's clear that I have. Honestly, if the delusion makes you feel better about yourself, then so be it.

You just don't understand that the inconsistencies, which I had already thoroughly pointed out, help my case and not yours. These inconsistencies show that the persons involved with dictating what their people would believe demonstrates more than anything that their deity is a social construct and that they didn't and don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

It's sheer idiocy to believe that all of these diverse traditions are speaking about the exact same entity. Stop being blinded by your own misguided sense of religious progress.

>> No.1616295
File: 16 KB, 428x336, you mad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1616295

>>1616134

>> No.1616357
File: 969 KB, 1069x1600, Space woman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1616357

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief


I quote, as what man knows about reasoning and logic up to this point. Which may be refused if later discoveries are to frown Epicurus.

The existence of a God, what we perceive as God, may not be that great if we consider that maybe, that deity may be not that benevolent.

>> No.1616408

>>1616134
No. Just no. I demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the Bible whatsoever. It's obvious to anyone who has read it. You are embarrassing yourself. Seriously, do some reading, and you will understand exactly where I am coming from.

>> No.1616418

>>1616357
God is benevolent but does not want to abolish evil, because the abolishment of evil is also the abolishment of free will, and free will is the greatest good given by God to mankind.

>> No.1616427

>>1614726
/thread
No need to debate further

>> No.1616475
File: 364 KB, 813x800, The Annu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1616475

>>1616418

Redundant, for one could argue about free will before the consumption of the fruit and after it.

What is free will? To know from right and wrong? to choose regardless of the consequences? yet, one could argue about free will if an ignorant whom has been conditioned by others is trully free to decide.

To know right from wrong, now that is power, to be aware now that is power, to be able to defy now that is power! A power taken from GOD. Not given, taken by accident.

Something that the bible explicitly says 21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. {P}
כב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע; וְעַתָּה פֶּן-יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ, וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, וְאָכַל, וָחַי לְעֹלָם. 22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.'
כג וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִגַּן-עֵדֶן--לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח, מִשָּׁם. 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
כד וַיְגָרֶשׁ, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן-עֵדֶן אֶת-הַכְּרֻבִים, וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת, לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים. {ס} 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. {S}

Sounds like God was making damage control.

>> No.1616498

>>1616475
Dude... what the fuck are you on about? Epicurus didn't know nothin about no hebrew scriptures.

But yes... I think the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil signified the beginning of free will. And the serpent wasn't lying. Nor was God. For through free will man can take to himself good from God and become immortal and indeed like God. But through free will man can also take to himself the means of spiritual death by taking evil to himself. But this is what man was born for. It was still a separation from God for man to reach for this fruit, but it was one planned for the beginning, so that man could indeed become like God.

>> No.1616519

Prove that he is real
Burden of proof is on you
You cannot prove the supernatural
etc
etc
sage

>> No.1616521
File: 86 KB, 578x588, 1275829244804.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1616521

Quick! A particle and it's antiparticle just appeared in your mouth! What do you do?

>> No.1616533

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal


all you guys should read this.

>> No.1616547

>>1616533
stop spamming that faggotry

>> No.1616557

>>1616498

I HAZ A QUESTOIN!!!one!!

You say that before eating from the tree of knowledge, humans did not have freewill, right?

But, if humans didn't have freewill before hand, then all of their 'choices' were predetermines (presumably by God?). So then, eating from the tree of knowledge was predetermined (by God?). So he was kind of a jackass for punishing us for it, wasn't he? It seems to be either that, or it was predetermined by something else (what would God give this power to?). Or the other possibility, humanity had freewill before eating the fruit. Oh, there is one other possibility, everything is determined, and we don't have freewill even now.

>> No.1616565

>>1616557
Yes, that was predetermined. But although banishment from the garden it is presented like a punishment, I think you have to look beyond that literal interpretation. It is describing the emergence of the human race from its infancy.

>> No.1616569

y'all niggers need to read up on Gnosticism

>> No.1616572

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
Always relevant.
33 videos of pure creationism lulz.

>> No.1616593

>Prove that God isn't real, using the scientific method.

1. Is there a evidence for existence of god?
2. NO
3. ???
4. Profit

also sage

>> No.1616602

/b/

>> No.1616612

>>1616565

Hold on though. This is the original sin, is it not? This is what God is punishing humanity for with hellfire, is it not?

>> No.1616620

>>1616612
That's what some pope said. I disagree with said pope.