"Proof of God" fallacies

[DeletedUser]

Well this is another question about believing and not believing.Or as MisterGadilf said,science versus religion.

My opinion on all that is that whatever we thought,and knew about God,wether he existed or not,we still are living with people who are atheists and theists.So,we share the same world.That is the only thing that should make both sides tolerant to others believings or "none"believing.

Sure,we all like hard evidence about things because those are the only ones that prove something.And we rely on them.But sometimes we can't find them.Or they aren't real.No one can really prove of Gods existance.I mean realy....

Anyone can make a web page with a content on anything.And we take those "evidences"for granted.I believe that no web page,no data,information,rumor,vision,can prove this.We can just prove it wrong.But that's not always good.

I knew people that held so much to their opinions and thinking,that were proved wrong at the end.
So,if we really believe that there is no god(or the other way around)why so much fighting about it?Fighting for something that to someone(atheists)doesn't exists,and to others(theists)that cannot prove it?It's a little bit silly,don't you all think?

We are all people.All equal.(well mostly.)So respecting each others even if you don't like their believing(or not believing)is perfectly fine.

Anyone who doesn't agree on respecting people for their thinking,(no matter how silly it was to you)are just lost.

 

[DeletedUser]

I guess religion is gonna have to come up with something pretty spectacular to even up that score....

Of course it will. After all, God made those scientists research stem cells to come up with limb regeneration. *smirk*

Ultimately, neither science nor religion will triumph. Science is not participating in a competition, whilst religion, as it has done in the past, will surely take credit for future scientific discoveries.

So,if we really believe that there is no god(or the other way around)why so much fighting about it?Fighting for something that to someone(atheists)doesn't exists,and to others(theists)that cannot prove it?It's a little bit silly,don't you all think?

We are all people.All equal.(well mostly.)So respecting each others even if you don't like their believing(or not believing)is perfectly fine.

Anyone who doesn't agree on respecting people for their thinking,(no matter how silly it was to you)are just lost.

Hugh, it's not that simple. It's not merely about having beliefs, it's that beliefs tend to intrude upon others, as in the case of religious groups trying to prevent homosexuals from being married, or preventing women from having abortions, preventing research into embryonic stem cells, preventing scientific facts/theories from being taught in school, etc and so on.

As John said, tolerance is a two-way street, and yet it seems those of religious beliefs are always attacking --- be it science or the rights of others --- through laws, through violence, through insurrection.

 

[DeletedUser]

Alright, quit with the hugs already, sheesh.


This is a flawed example ttr. Discussing something does not make it valid or invalid. There is no supporting evidence for religion, whilst there is supporting evidence for science. So while students/teachers may discuss and debate about both, does not make evidentiary equality.

Mate, I was responding to this:

I So, the evidence on this site is based on the bible. The bible is a book, i think we can all agree on that. This book was written, rewritten and translated by men. I think the bible is one of the most discussed books in the world. Why are there so much discussions? Because the book allows them. There is no single truth in it. And the writer of this site can't say he knows the truth of the bible just because he studied it. Many people did and a lot of them would disagree with him. So, no proof. Sorry.

I simply put forth my example of the calculus texbook and biologist report to counter the statement made by Desi saying that if a book has so many discussions, then it has no thruths. I will also make a point about your statement of the bible having no proof in contrast to the scientific and mathmatic evidence.

I will use this link: http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/18327/1589/1 to provide some insight on archeological finds that date back to the bible time period in the OT, thus providing some evidence that the time periods recorded in the bible were not speculated and false, but did in fact occur.

If you just look at the first page of the article, it is noted that the birthpace and hometown of Abraham, Ur, was found. The article also states that the hometown of Abrahams father was also found. Both cities were recorded in the bible. But what seemed to be most surprising for me is what the article states at the bottom of the page.

We have tangible evidence placing Abraham in these locations at the time stated. A discovery made in 1975 in the ancient city of Ebla (4), yielded 17,000 clay tablets. Ebla was a powerful city in what is now Syria, in the region between Mesopotamia and Palestine. On these tablets, a number of names are recorded, including Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham, as well as the names of Abraham's father, grandfather and great grandfather, Terah, Nahor and Serug. These names are also known from other sources in Northwest Mesopotamia in both Babylonian and Old Assyrian texts.

So now not only is there historical evidence of the hometowns of both Abraham and his family members, but also historical records from both the Elba tablets and Assyrian/Babylonian texts recording their names.

I will now point towards the topic on the 3rd page of the article. Sodom and Gomorrah. For some people, I am sure that they think that this story from the bible was a made up, fairy tale that shows fire and brimstone raining from the sky and killing everything. Well if you do think that, you are indeed wrong.

As stated by the article:


The book of Genesis describes Sodom (7) as the ring leader in a five-city league included Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar. All cities were abandoned and never reoccupied some time around 2000 BC.

The city of Sodom was found to constitute an almost impenetrable fortress: it had intact walls that measured 23 feet in width, and showed no signs of forced entry. What is eerie, is that the entire city is covered with almost seven feet of ashes. Even a graveyard located some distance away is similarly covered. Additionally, the burning took place from the outside in, not from the inside out, as would be suggested if the city had been burned by raiders or plunderers from within, or if it had fallen victim to a volcanic eruption and subsequent fire damage.

The cities were abandoned at the same time period that the story was written. Ashes blanket the ruins. And whats more, as the article states, the fire came from not the inside out, but from the outside in. It was not burned by looters, and not burned from volcanic damage. Something targeted it, and destroyed it.

Those are the two examples I will show you from the article. Once again, it can be found here. Here are a few pictures of the ruins of Sodom and Gommorah if you are interested:

This ruined cementary is still covered with ash.

Some pieces of Brimstone found littered at Gomorrah.

 

[DeletedUser3543]

Good Vs Evil.


I read a report the other day about a guy who has spent the last 20 years studying the bible - quite why he did it, or who paid for him to do so is beyond me - however he has noted the following....

God [Big 'G'] is directly responsible for the murder of over 2,000,000 people, who are either named directly in the Bible, or are the son / relation of a named person.

On the other hand Beelzebub the Devil is responsible for the deaths of 12 whole people. That's about 1,999,988 people less than God!

So, anyone willing to change their perception of who is the evil one in this fairytale?

 

[DeletedUser]

Good Vs Evil.


I read a report the other day about a guy who has spent the last 20 years studying the bible - quite why he did it, or who paid for him to do so is beyond me - however he has noted the following....

God [Big 'G'] is directly responsible for the murder of over 2,000,000 people, who are either named directly in the Bible, or are the son / relation of a named person.

On the other hand Beelzebub the Devil is responsible for the deaths of 12 whole people. That's about 1,999,988 people less than God!

So, anyone willing to change their perception of who is the evil one in this fairytale?

I doubt that the devil has only killed 12 people in the entire history of the universe
Either way, he's currently torturing billions more in Hell, so I doubt that God's the evil one. Just my opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ironically in the whole science vs religion debate, it will be science that triumphs.

Take all those soldiers that have had amputations. How many of them have spent hour upon hour praying to their God that they will have the limbs replaced? I imagine there has been a lot of time wasted in this fruitless pursuit.

In the meantime, science has been beavering away, and before long - through stem cell research - it will be possible to grow a new limb, maybe not today, tomorrow or the next 50 years, but I'm sure it will happen sooner rather than later.

I guess religion is gonna have to come up with something pretty spectacular to even up that score....

agian failed logic IF god gave absoloute proof of his exsistance then people wouldnt have faith in him they would simple know he exsitited its all about having faith

sooo if he jsut poofed there limbs back it would be absolute proof and woul stop people from seeking him

 

[DeletedUser]

Well this is another question about believing and not believing.Or as MisterGadilf said,science versus religion.

My opinion on all that is that whatever we thought,and knew about God,wether he existed or not,we still are living with people who are atheists and theists.So,we share the same world.That is the only thing that should make both sides tolerant to others believings or "none"believing.

Sure,we all like hard evidence about things because those are the only ones that prove something.And we rely on them.But sometimes we can't find them.Or they aren't real.No one can really prove of Gods existance.I mean realy....

Anyone can make a web page with a content on anything.And we take those "evidences"for granted.I believe that no web page,no data,information,rumor,vision,can prove this.We can just prove it wrong.But that's not always good.

I knew people that held so much to their opinions and thinking,that were proved wrong at the end.
So,if we really believe that there is no god(or the other way around)why so much fighting about it?Fighting for something that to someone(atheists)doesn't exists,and to others(theists)that cannot prove it?It's a little bit silly,don't you all think?

We are all people.All equal.(well mostly.)So respecting each others even if you don't like their believing(or not believing)is perfectly fine.

Anyone who doesn't agree on respecting people for their thinking,(no matter how silly it was to you)are just lost.

exactly , thats what ive been trying to say all along

 

[DeletedUser]

Hugh, it's not that simple. It's not merely about having beliefs, it's that beliefs tend to intrude upon others, as in the case of religious groups trying to prevent homosexuals from being married, or preventing women from having abortions, preventing research into embryonic stem cells, preventing scientific facts/theories from being taught in school, etc and so on.

As John said, tolerance is a two-way street, and yet it seems those of religious beliefs are always attacking --- be it science or the rights of others --- through laws, through violence, through insurrection.

first and foremost gay marriare is a poor example as marriage is a religous concept that was accepted byt he secular world

im not saying homosexuals shouldnt hav hte same rights mind you but "MARRAGE" is a religous concept therefore should follow religous laws

what needs to happen is there needs to be an equivilant form of marrage with a differnt name that is strictly Secular
not just for homosexuals but for anyone that doesnt want the religous connection

make marrage only performable by ministers and let the secular version be the one performed by ships captains and jsutice of he peace etc .

(on a side note and small tanget if gay marrage is legalized theres an uninteded consiquince that im niether for nor agianst but people overlook

one of the major reasons that multiple marrage was made illegal is because it allows members of the same sex to be married to eachother so if gay marrage is allowed in short order they will have to allow multiple marrage)




abortion is also a poor example as its NOT jsut a religous thing while YES most religous folks ( there are in fact some religous folks who are for it mind you ) are against abortion many NO religous folks are also agianst it its a MORAL debate not a religous debate




lastly its rare that you see religous people (aside from mulsim extreemists ) involved in violent actions for religous reasons and more often then not religous folks are simply fighting for equal rights yet constantly nonn religous folks attack the religous folks rights

rember its freedom OF religoin not freedom FROM religoin so being denyed the right to practive there faith in certain places IS a denial of there rights

no one has the right to not be exposed to others religoins they only have hte right to choose to follow there own

 

[DeletedUser]

agian failed logic IF god gave absoloute proof of his exsistance then people wouldnt have faith in him they would simple know he exsitited its all about having faith

sooo if he jsut poofed there limbs back it would be absolute proof and woul stop people from seeking him

lol, that's just ridiculous crap. Considering the amount of conflict and death associated with people arguing about religion, it stands to reason He would provide that absolute proof and not allow people to harbor under a variety of delusions.

first and foremost gay marriare is a poor example as marriage is a religous concept that was accepted byt he secular world ... im not saying homosexuals shouldnt hav hte same rights mind you but "MARRAGE" is a religous concept therefore should follow religous laws

lol, wrong again spider. Marriage was a social necessity, to reduce conflict, jealousy, communal strife. Once again, do your homework.

To this day and age (and as far back as recorded law, 1760+ b.c.), marriage is a civil union, not a religious union. It is processed through a court of law. Religious institutions merely provide a backdrop for a social event, enacting rituals not relevant to the civil process.

abortion is also a poor example as its NOT jsut a religous thing while YES most religous folks ( there are in fact some religous folks who are for it mind you ) are against abortion many NO religous folks are also agianst it its a MORAL debate not a religous debate

The right to life stance is a predominantly Christian argument. It was, in fact, coined by a Christian organization.

In regards to the violent actions argument, I responded here -- http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=514104&postcount=72

I will also make a point about your statement of the bible having no proof in contrast to the scientific and mathmatic evidence.

Ah yes, the fallacy of historical piggybacking. The proof of God is not presented in the Bible. It provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever to the existence of God. Instead what it does is say, "And God said unto Abraham..." for which you're supposed to take as truth. Even if Abraham were determined to be a real person (btw, the link you provided made claims of evidence, but did not provide the evidence on Abraham, nor is there any), it is irrelevant, because it's not the existence of Abraham that we're requesting evidence on, it's the existence of God.

This ruined cementary is still covered with ash.
Some pieces of Brimstone found littered at Gomorrah.

The areas they are referring to are known as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, archeological dig sites from 1965+. These cities "may" have existed (there is still far insufficient information to make such a claim), but it is not evidence of God.

The Bible exists, people wrote it. That's self-evident. But these in and of themselves are not evidence of God, nor is there anything in the Bible that provides such evidence, nor is there anything anywhere on Earth that provides evidence of God. Choosing to believe is not evidence. Piggybacking on historical events is not evidence supporting the existence of God, it's merely supporting historical events.

Please understand the fallacy here, because it is fundamental to understanding the problem we're constantly struggling with in attempting to reason with creation science adherents.

 

[DeletedUser]

Reiterating Hellstrom's point, I may write:

"Einstein was a Nazi and two plus two equals four."

Now, clearly, two plus two DOES equal four - even my enemies accept this. So I'm obviously telling the truth and not some liar. Therefore it follows that you should believe me when I say that Einstein was a Nazi.

It's easy to see the fallacy here, yet Bibilcal apologists use this method all the time.

To teh train robber: I found the notion of 7 feet of ashes literally incredible, so I checked the literature. It seems the site you are talking about (by no means incontestably that of Sodom) has 4-20 inches of ashes. This does not bode well for your factual accuracy or critical acumen.

The important thing is to read a range of opinions and then formulate your own, not to read just one and tag along with it.

 

[DeletedUser3543]

I doubt that the devil has only killed 12 people in the entire history of the universe
Either way, he's currently torturing billions more in Hell, so I doubt that God's the evil one. Just my opinion.

Why would you doubt that?

It's written in the bible, right there in those pages, so it MUST be true right?

How do you know he's torturing billions more in Hell? If you believe that Hell exists, because it's written so in the good book, then you must believe that God has murdered over 2 million people, as that is written in the same book!

It's seems a fallacy for one of the ten commandments to be 'thou shalt not kill', when the divine being is doing just that! Lead by example I say

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, it's, "thou shalt not kill --- unless it's your whoring wife, your disrespectful child, your neighbor's first born son, your slave, pagans/atheists/witches, thieves, liars, cheats, sodomites and puppies."

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, it's, "thou shalt not kill --- unless it's your whoring wife, your disrespectful child, your neighbor's first born son, your slave, pagans/atheists/witches, thieves, liars, cheats, sodomites and puppies."

Sweet sweet exceptions.

So much for gods universal law!

 

[DeletedUser]

Why puppies??

 

[DeletedUser3543]

Why puppies??

Because puppies grow into dogs.

Dogs are cousins of wolves.

Wolves are responsible for stealing babies.

If the wolves steal the babies, then we can't kill them ourselves!

Puppies must die

 

[DeletedUser]

Because puppies grow into dogs.

Dogs are cousins of wolves.

Wolves are responsible for stealing babies.

If the wolves steal the babies, then we can't kill them ourselves!

Puppies must die

Wha?What are you people talking about?Is this Bible or just a play?xD

Dogs aren't cousins of wolves,but wolves are dogs.Wolves were taimed by human.But okay I'll buy that.

Wolves steal babies? Now you lost me there hun...

If the wolves steal the babies, then we can't kill them ourselves!-No,we need to hair a mob!?!

Now you need to see a doctor,,,realy...xDD

 

[DeletedUser3543]

Wha?What are you people talking about?Is this Bible or just a play?xD

Dogs aren't cousins of wolves,but wolves are dogs.Wolves were taimed by human.But okay I'll buy that.

Wolves steal babies? Now you lost me there hun...

If the wolves steal the babies, then we can't kill them ourselves!-No,we need to hair a mob!?!

Now you need to see a doctor,,,realy...xDD

To be fair, it was meant to be a parody of the twisted logic of Religion, where everything can be justified eventually...

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow. Just wowl.
Good job getting hung up and side-tracked. Meh.

 

[DeletedUser]

To be fair, it was meant to be a parody of the twisted logic of Religion, where everything can be justified eventually...

A parody..well you got me going then..hahahaha....
Religion....I stop and think when I hear that....xD

With some help from the friends on this Forum,I now think same as them,because they were right.There is no such thing as God.
The only thing that exists is a parody on god..xD

 

[DeletedUser3543]

Wow. Just wowl.
Good job getting hung up and side-tracked. Meh.

Proof of God is one big sidetrack isn't it?