The Bible's Greatest Contradiction

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Socrastein, Feb 7, 2006.

  1. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    The Bible says: God exists, and everything around you testifies to his existence.

    In reality: There is zero evidence of God's existence, and there is every reason to believe that there is no need for a God to exist. In fact, there is even some evidence that God does not exist.

    This is the most striking and potent contradiction I have ever seen in the Bible. Until it is resolved, nothing else really matters so far as truth of the Bible is concerned. Without the existence of God firmly established, the rest of the Bible falls apart as it is entirely predicated on His existence.
     
  2. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    While I agree with the general thrust of your post, you need to take this bit out- you can't prove a negative.
     
  3. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    ( Singing voice ) Onward athiesssst soOOuuUUldierrrrs :woo:
     
  4. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    First off, I didn't say proof. I said evidence. Second, I find it interesting you would tell me I'm wrong without even knowing what I'm speaking of. Third, what do you mean by negative? I can prove that there are no pictures in my post: see, look. I'm sure you have something else in mind by negative.
     
  5. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    No you can't. I can maintain that there are pictures in your post that you can't see. And you can argue with me until your face goes blue. That occam's razor thing you were going on about? works both ways. You can't prove that anything does not exist, never happened or is not purple.
     
  6. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Um, if they can't be seen, they aren't pictures by definition. And even if you want to go that route, I'll step it up a bit: nowhere is there a whale that is not a whale.

    That's true by definition buddy, I don't recommend you try to refute that one.

    That has nothing to do with Ockham's razor. I'm assuming by "proof" you mean "absolute and undeniable proof", rather than "sufficient evidence to convince one of a proposition's validity". So if you're being absolute about it, why specify negative? If we're going by your definition, you can't prove ANYTHING, affirmative OR negative. So proof no longer means anything.

    I dunno about you, I like to use words that have some application, rather than define them in a way they have no meaning and can't be used. But that's just me.

    Oh, and in case you missed it the first two times, I said "evidence" not "proof".
     
  7. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    Ahem* - A house divided amongst itself cannot stand - Jesus Christ

    You guys are here for apparently here for one thing, to tell us Christians how stupid we are, so stop arguing with eachother! It's not effective for your own argument, sheesh. ;)
     
  8. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    No, I heard you perfectly well the first two times. I doubt that you move your lips quickly enough for me to be able to miss it. Evidence is part of proof, and without something to prove you can't have evidence.
    I said 'can't bee seen by you. You might want to pay a bit more attention next time.
    You can have absolute and undeniable proof of something that does actually exist, but you can't even have sufficient evidence to convince one of a proposition's validity if the event or thing in question never happened or existed in the first place.
    Nah, stating the obvious is starting to become boring. For me, I mean. I don't care how boring it becomes for you.
     
  9. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Like what?

    Indeed, but you can have evidence of something without claiming it's been proven. Like a naturalistic origin of the universe for example: there's plenty of evidence for that, but it hasn't been proven yet.

    I'm waiting for you to refute my negative claim that there don't exist any whales that aren't whales. Until you do, it would seem I've proven a negative, now wouldn't it?
     
  10. uki

    uki Banned Banned

    wow!! your understanding of the bible is unsurpassed. absolutely astounding... astonishing!!! where is your church located. teach me. teach us. my precious... mine... all mine.
     
  11. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    I was proposing to hit somebody with something, and then hit somebody with nothing, and then ask you to tell me the difference.
    I'm sorry, but I don't think that's relevant. Unless you're saying that by not claiming it's proven, you are claiming that it has been disproven, which I don't support. The two are not necessarily one and the same thing.

    By claiming that there are no whales which are not whales, you're just arguing that all whales are whales, aren't you? whereas if you were claiming that all whales are not whales, and somebody else argued that all whales were in fact whales, it would not be the same thing for you to claim that all whales could not be proven to be whales as for him to claim that all whales could be proven to be whales- provided the conditions for proving that whales are whales have in fact been met.
     
  12. Radok

    Radok Love myself better than U

    The fact that everything is here seems like excellent evidence to me.
     
  13. Aegis

    Aegis River Guardian Admin Supporter

    But is that because you already believe, or evidence that leads you to a belief?
     
  14. tbubb1

    tbubb1 Notes of Autumn

    cease the white horse is going to play at the nation on march 4th!!!

    The fact that I'm breathing now is evidence enough for me that God exists. :cool:
     
  15. pj_goober

    pj_goober Valued Member

    I'm a devout atheist and i still couldn't disagree with what you are saying any more.

    Your post is garbage, for a start what you are presenting is not a "contradiction" in any way. The existance of God is a matter of faith, as is the non-existance of god. However strongly you believe that God does not exist you cannot prove that he doesn't, in much the same way that a religious person cannot prove that he does.

    To someone who does believe in god, life the universe and everything is testament to his existance, this is not proof or evidence in your eyes, but in the eyes of an atheist there is little that would count as proof - and visa versa. You are trying to apply (very bad) logic to a religious debate. Religion is about faith, faith is about belief contrary to logic, so logic has no part to play.

    May i ask what the purpose of your post was? I mean a post along the lines of
    wouldn't have been fundementally differant?
     
  16. jonmonk

    jonmonk New Member

    As long as you don't consider it scientific evidence then that's fine. If you're saying that the fact that everything around us exists is an amazing thing and that if looked at from a certain point of view you can feel a connection with the universe because you are a part of it and it inspires you then nice one. Enjoy.
     
  17. uki

    uki Banned Banned

    i am soscareditstime... :p
     
  18. Radok

    Radok Love myself better than U

    Cause it makes more sense than saying it was always there, especially since there isn't enough matter in the universe to crunch it back down. It can't go on banging and crunching, it had to have been a one time deal. And to say that everything, including life, evolved from hydrogen evolving into other elements which then made solar systems which had planets with chemicles which magically bacame amino acids and dna and finally magically became a living cell which somehow wound up human after billions of years seems like more of a stretch than to just say God made it. If you have to place you faith on very sketchy odds or God, I would say God would be the best choice.
     
  19. pj_goober

    pj_goober Valued Member

    thats a very VERY poor understanding of the commonly held beliefs amongst the science community about how the universe and life came into being.

    The thing is, science is not a answer in itself, the scientific method of hypothesis and testing - is a good way of attempting to disprove beliefs. Evidence can be used to prove, within reasonable doubt (or at least is incapable of disproving) that evolution is something that both happens (fact - you can watch evolution happening in bacteria samples - look at MRSA and SARS)and is a reasonable way of explaining how single celled protozoa changed over time to become complex animals including people. Similar methods of testing are used to back up all scientific theories. If there is a scientific theory you doubt (more than likely through a lack of understanding ) i guarantee you that the best and most qualified scientists in that field will have tried to prove it wrong.
     
  20. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    I think the point is that scientists say those things didn't happen by magic.

    You, on the other hand, are saying exactly that.



    In any case, trying to figure out the mechanism by which life happened has a benefit to man's knowledge of the universe, whereas sitting on your butt saying "God made it" doesn't expand our knowledge one bit.
     

Share This Page