The Bible IS INDEED the Word of The Lord. You do not need to worry if it has any errors because The Lord himself has watched over it and guided all translations. The Bible is perfect because The Lord has made and kept it perfect.

merged: 05-24-2006 ~ 11:02am

Quote by shynakuThe Bible isn't completely 'God's word.' Unless God has many words... The bible has changed a lot in the many a years it's been around and it's hard to trust what is and isn't real in it. 'Ye without sin cast the first stone' was most likely never said by Jesus since it wasn't in the earlier books...

Anyway, I think that God has nothing to do with earth at all. I think we help ourselves more than we get helped by God. The human body can heal itself of many illnesses such as cancer if it truly believes it's been healed. This has been demonstrated many a times by spiritual healers. We also rationalize what we see. If we see something that looks similar to something else said, then we assume that a prophesy is being fulfilled. Everyone thought that the Cold War would bring the apocalypse, but it didn't. People really thought then that the foretold end of the world was going to happen then, and people now see the end happening in another way. Reality is how we perceive it, not what it is.

that is in regards to this

The argument that Plunkies makes in his/her above post has always amused me for it's simplicity and hypocrisy.

Plunkies does the very thing that he/she insults: "how can you people say you know anything about God when you can't prove He exists" but then follows up with "The fact is..."

So, it breaks down like this: "how can you know the truth when it's not even knowable and by the way, here's the truth." Weak and ineffective. You make the very same mistake that you claim others do.

Also, you prove that you're not credible because you pose questions that supposedly can't be answered when everyone of them IS answered in the Bible. You just prove that you claim to know what the "fact is" but yet you don't even know the text you're arguing about. Again, hypocritical and fairly elementary.

Quote by JazzYou buy a watch at the store. Now you probably don't think about it but, isn't it logical that that very watch was created by human hands? How very detailed every cog and gear is operating the very funtion of that devise? How much more introcate the earth is! From the simplest celled organism to the complexity for the human body, how can one believe that we came from an accident? It's not just blind faith that should make one believe that there is a God, but common sense.

I like this guy

anyway I believe because whenever I pray He tells me He exists

In previous posts Cyberdragoon makes an incorrect correlation: if God is perfect He must be able to do everything. I believe we've had this discussion before. God is perfect but He cannot do everything.

Specifically, God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot break HIs promise. And, God cannot do what is logically impossible like making a cube a circle. Therefore, your link between perfect and the ability to do everything is false.

God chose to make us in a way that requires our love and (like you've heard so many times before) forced love isn't true love. However, one must remember that this earth is not His home and we are not home yet. Heaven is where it is perfect and we are perfect and we are able to speak, see and be in His presence.

My fifty dollars.

...unless they believe in something "stupid and evil."

Quote by CelestrioI went to the restroom and thats when I felt that wierd expierence.

That's called 'taking-a-leak' brother.

I've got one. One night when I was 23 years old, I awoke to find this figure in my room. It had my television. I yelled "Hey, what the hell are you doing?" And then he (I assume it was a him) ran out of the house. Fortunately, he was unable to take my television with him to his "ghost dimension." I found it strange that he had to open the door to get out instead of simply pass through it. However, my wallet was missing that next morning.

Maybe that's why I'm in prison...because the stars told me to rob the bank.

Because they don't read or study the Text.

reading this thread...trying to interpret RubyDrgOn...and spiders.

Moral absolutes are unavoidable. Total moral relativism reduces to statement such as "You should never say never," "You should always avoid using always," or "You absolutely ought not believe in moral absolutes." "Ought" statements are moral statements, and "ought never" statements are absolute moral statements. So, there is no way to avoid moral absolutes without affirming a moral absolute. Total moral relativism is self-defeating.

If there is an absolute basis for morality, then why do so many believe that all morality is relative? The reasons for this are mostly based on the failure to make proper distinctions.

Relativists confuse Fact (Is) and Value (Ought), what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. There is a difference between sociology and morality. Sociology is descriptive; morality is prescriptive. Relativists confuse the changing factual situation with unchanging moral duty.

There is confusion as well between an absolute moral value and changing attitudes regarding whether a given action violates that value (refer to joemight16's examples). Once witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not. What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong. Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses. One's factual understanding of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.

Quote by KokibiWhy shouldn't christians be homosexual? It's not hypocritical to be, it is hypocritical to assume god hates homosexuality, since you are basing that on a misintrepetation and mistranslation of a single line, which in fact never applied to women in the first place - the bible never said a word about lesbianism.

Sorry boy, I know it is hard for you to accept girls can be happy without boys Don't cry too much.

Well I haven't posted in a long time but this kind of B.S. (Biblical Scatological-ness) is just absurd.

Like I've said before, if you claim to understand what the Bible says then you better damn well read it - correctly.

First of all, please show me, and in context please, where God demonstrates His hatred to homosexuals (and lesbians). Sure He's pronounced judgement upon their sin of homosexuality, but please show me where He admits He HATES them. You won't find it.

Also, I'm assuming you're referring to Romans 1:26 when you reference "a single line" and it's mistranslation. Again, B.S. Read it in context. Read a few lines prior and also read verse 27. The "unnatural function" is a lustful function, and acting upon that desire, with other women. The Bible is very clear. Jesus is very clear when He states that marriage is between Man and Woman. You however are not clear and then apply your own meaning.

It's okay if you choose not to read the Book but it's not okay for you to apply your own meanings and interpretations when you have no idea what the Book says. Try that one with the IRS and the tax code and see how they respond.

Quote by Ephix
If you are talking about an absolute true to the universe you won't find one because there is always some annoying and childish person who will claim otherwise and being mostly true does not make it true in a binary sense. This is why fuzzy logic exists, to extinguish the outlier stupidities that get thrown into questions where not much thought is required. Binary logic is the black and white, fuzzy logic is the grey.

I love it when you open your mouth and illustrate your simple lack of knowledge. Oh sure, you are good at insulting and use it as your argument but your points truly fail.

Before you claim what you stated above READ THE THREAD - save us some time from your rhetoric. We have dealt with your issues already. You are in fact correct about something - in the realm of opinion an absolute truth will never be established. There will always be "some annoying and childish person who will claim otherwise." But the realm of opinion isn't what is being discussed here. And to think, that you honestly believe there are NO absolute truths in the universe! That is about the dumbest thing I have read yet on this site.

Try again.

Quote by RubyDrgOnNOW... as a referal to my stand of VIEWS
apparently I am NOT A CHRISTIAN to whoever read that utterly disturbing post Kellyo put in my guestbook....

This is referencing the below quote I placed in Ruby's Guestbook:

Quote: RubyDrgOn,

Sorry to post here but I came across this quote of yours and was shocked:

Quote by RubyDrgOn
...i know you be surprised at wat i have say here but i am Christian...i think it important to help ppl think of how they belief...i am a missionary for Christ in Malaysia...most ppl don't know that...makes it fun...

WHAT!? Are you kidding me? You best be careful friend if you are in fact a Christian missionary because most, if not all, of your posts do not confirm Christ - I believe that is a huge mistake since this world is fallen anyway - doesn't need more help. If anything, it needs us to stand up and speak out.

Ruby, I am SO glad you finally responded to my post in your Guestbook. Why? Because you finally, once and for all, proved my point within this thread.

You just announced that the quote was NOT TRUE. You have made so many other truth claims but have never understood and could only ask others to help you - which of course they couldn't. But now, you have labeled it as false, corrected the quote, and announced to all that which is true - YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Now you can see that the truth is knowable because you've proven you know it.

Quote: I believe there might be something out there but I don't believe it neccesarily.

alexjohn - you missed my point about the non-contradiction. "I believe there might be something out there" (claim)..."but I don't believe it" (contradiction to claim). Very simple

Quote by Plunkies

Quote: You were the one who referenced the site as evidence that the Bible is full of contradictions which then would prove it's full of crap. Now you're saying that it wouldn't mean anything if in fact all those "contradictions" could be shown as incorrect therefore making that website the one that's full of crap. And you accused me of not accepting evidence to the contrary - that is just plain hilarious.

Ugh. I was saying you can argue those damn contradictions all day long and get absolutely nowhere. The contradictions weren't the point,

Then why did you bring them up. You were the one to post the website NOT me.

Quote: wrong or not it's irrelevent unless the bible has real info in the first place (then the contradictions would actually matter). You see it doesn't even matter if the bible contradicts itself if the bible itself is full of implausable, unvarifiable claims.

True. But, it's not full of implausable, unverifiable claims therefore, it is relevant to discuss.

Quote: I was just trying to avoid this inevitably stupid argument I'm now engaging in about your book of ignorance. YOUR BIBLE IS MEANINGLESS TO ME. I DONT CARE IF GOD'S SANDLES WERE PURPLE OR BLUE IF THE CLAIM ISN'T VARIFIABLE OR LOGICAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Typical. You'll attempt to use it against me but then you run away with this kind of statement as soon as It begins to show you wrong.

Quote: Sorry Plukies but you're losing bad here. If you claim you can prove (via the website) that the Bible contains contradictions that prove it's full of junk then you also have to allow the Bible to prove that those "contradictions" are in fact not contradictions. That's like misdefining a tax law and then telling the IRS that they can't use the tax law to prove your misdefinition. Utterly absurd - pretty typical at this point.

Quote: Holy crap, you must seriously have some wires crossed in that brain of yours to re-word everything everyone says like this. Why is it I practically have to draw you a freakin diagram to get you to not misinterpret something?

Just shows how weak your points are. Once we draw an actual comparable it reveals their ineptness.

Quote: Do I need to define every single word I use? Is it physically impossible for you to come to a logical conclusion about anything? The contradictions were never the point, you made them the point and then put words in my mouth to make your argument.

Wrong. You've got to be kidding me. Look back, YOU mentioned them, I challenged you, YOU posted the site. Nice try. Putting words in your mouth? No, just showing that your words aren't accurate.

Quote: I'm saying you can't use the bible as fact only because the bible says the bible was written by god. I'm sure you're well versed in circular logic, this is what I was trying to avoid and what I knew it would eventually spiral into. The contradictions are contradicting meaningless information. The bible itself is not a reliable source for historical events.

Virtually every paleontologist would disagree. Almost ALL of them use the book of Acts and Luke as their maps. Good try but yet again, your facts aren't accurate.

Quote: AGAIN, this was simply my way of trying to avoid another worthless argument. I know it's in your best intrest to change the topic but please stop beating a dead horse here. I get it, the contradictions are arguable, FINE. I'm not going to argue the meaning of individual bible quotes, it's beneath me.

Then you shouldn't have brought them into the discussion.

Quote: Absolutely right but only from the standpoint that they are "alleged" contradictions. But, many will stand by them even if they can be shown to be false. I know many who simply accept things - like Plunkies ("I assume they're all correct."). I'm wired to analyze and then make a decision.

Quote: I actually tried to assume they were all INCORRECT just to agree with you and shut up the ensuing blather that was certain to follow. I only used them as an example to help support a point, I'm very sure you could argue them all day long if you wanted to (and clearly you do). I've told you numerous times that the problem is I give your bible as much historical credit as any other fictional book in existence.

I'm sure then you qualify Aristotle, books on Roman history, or any other book in all of antiquity as fictional. You'd have to since the Bible has more evidence, in some cases a thousand-fold, than all other ancient books. Don't believe me, I can prove it.

Quote: Do not respond to this post kellyo. Don't even bother. Go all the way back to my original post that contained the link and started this mess, ignore the link, and answer the rest of it.

I just responded to your posts Plunky, that was all. So, next time, don't bring in websites or items that you're not willing to discuss.

Quote by Aoshi101In the end a topic like this will have tons and tons of contradiction. It comes down to those who are analytical and those who just accept things.

Absolutely right but only from the standpoint that they are "alleged" contradictions. But, many will stand by them even if they can be shown to be false. I know many who simply accept things - like Plunkies ("I assume they're all correct."). I'm wired to analyze and then make a decision.

Quote: I myself am more analytical than I am to accepting. Though I am not an aitheist nor a christian. I believe there might be something out there but I don't believe it neccesarily.

A cannot be non-A. You need to make a decision because that's commiting a logical problem (law of non-contradictory).

Ok, so they're relative. Please answer this: Relative to what?

Here you go Plunkies, the "contradiction" that you claim rebutes them all.

Here's what is mentioned on that website:

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Certainly could have picked a harder one but since this one "rebutes" them all then let's go through it.

Matthew mentions two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark says Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. John mentions only Mary Magdalene.

There were three Mary's to reference: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary the mother of James. Matthew uses "the other Mary" to specifically distinguish which one was with Magdalene. The "other Mary" is specifically not the Virgin Mary. Mark then specifies the other Mary by calling her the mother of James - still the same woman. John initially mentions only Magdalene but two things: (1) Is he wrong? No. And (2), it was not uncommon, as a matter of fact it was typically done in that time, when referencing a person or persons to reference the more "dominate" individual. Mary Magdalene was a favorite of Jesus so mentioning only her is not contradictory but actually fits perfectly with the culture of the time. Also, if you would have read the next verse (John 20:2) you'd see this: "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." Italics added by me. That was Magdalene speaking and look what she said "we." What about the book of Luke? That website didn't mention that one: Luke 24:5 - "and as the women were terrified...." again italics added.

Wow, great one to rebute them all. They are in fact perfectly harmonious unless of course you simply refuse to look and you just want to believe whatever you want to make up.

Pick another one. I will go through everyone for you so you can see that all those contradictions that are used to keep people away from understanding the Truth are in fact completely false.

Quote by Plunkies

Quote by kellyoAnyway, everyone of these have been countered, and guess what, by me. These are so easy to prove wrong because all you have to do is refer to the Text. Now, if you want to show that what's in the Bible is contradictory to itself then you have to allow the Bible to prove you wrong.

Oh for the love of jesus and all that's holy....kellyo it's irrelevent. Don't bother going deeper into this, we'll be here forever. Just assume I'm wrong. I can just see you clamping onto what you've seen before and know you can counter after the rest of your argument has been completely shattered.

By who? By you? You have yet to "shatter" anything. All you've done is provide opinions. But, that's how you argue.

Quote: Even if all the quotes are wrong it doesn't change anything.

Now this is just funny. You were the one who referenced the site as evidence that the Bible is full of contradictions which then would prove it's full of crap. Now you're saying that it wouldn't mean anything if in fact all those "contradictions" could be shown as incorrect therefore making that website the one that's full of crap. And you accused me of not accepting evidence to the contrary - that is just plain hilarious.

Quote: The bible, as a historical document, is completely unreliable and certainly shouldn't be used to prove itself. I just typed "bible contradictions" in google and hit "I'm feeling lucky".

Sorry Plukies but you're losing bad here. If you claim you can prove (via the website) that the Bible contains contradictions that prove it's full of junk then you also have to allow the Bible to prove that those "contradictions" are in fact not contradictions. That's like misdefining a tax law and then telling the IRS that they can't use the tax law to prove your misdefinition. Utterly absurd - pretty typical at this point.

Quote: Infact I just looked and the 4th one down rebuts them all. I don't care enough to read them but for both our sake I'll just assume they're all right. Feel free to get back to the point.

Again, you accuse me of being "blind" and yet here you admited that you will simply "assume" they're correct. Well, that's ignorance because they can be proven false. Man, you are great at arguing yourself in a circle. But I'll take a look at that fourth one for you.

Quote by Plunkies

Quote: You wonder why men have less ribs than women and then you read the Bible and it said that God had taken the rib bone from Adam and created Eve with it. And the Bible was written long before doctors even knew we HAD ribs. Makes you wonder, eh?

What? Doctor? You don't have to be a doctor to count ribs. And I hate to break it to you but men and women have the same number of ribs. So no, it doesn't make you wonder at all really. Human beings, male or female, have 12 ribs. But seriously if you only have 11 ribs you should get that checked out...

Don't know who you're quoting here but it's not me. I have never typed the quote being referenced. Nice try though.

Quote by MichaelW
lol. I often find children are far less the "blind believers" than their parents, it doesn't surprise the eight-year old girl would find the questionaire silly. - It wasn't aimed at her.

Just shows how simple his questionaire was. Certainly not challenging. Plus, he claimed he could develop a much better one - still waiting.

Quote:
I suppose you wouldn't consider something a problem if you couldn't see it right? But does ignoring it stop it being there?

And your point is what? I have yet to ignore a "metal trap" of ruby's.

Quote:

Quote by kellyo
Nice try. Read your quote. You say that some Christians believe that God will bring them back from hell. My answer, the only Christians who may present an argument like that are the Catholics. However, that opinion can be refuted by Christ's own words. Doesn't fit the picture? What you've shown is that everything that disagrees with you or proves you wrong or even clarifies a point for you doesn't fit the picture. Great defense. Maybe I'll try that. From now on I'll just accuse someone of not fitting the picture and "spamming."

How is this argument relevant?

The question was, "Will you be willing to go to Hell eternally for God?" and the reference to the speechless Christians was simply to back it up. - It didn't require an answer. And what difference does it make that they were Catholics thinking of a specific incident?
"strong in their knowledge"... I'm guessing that a religious way of saying "haven't memorised enough of the bible"?

This has been addressed. If you read all of our posts then you wouldn't waste time here.

Quote:
"But, the Bible tells me to run everything through a filter and verify it myself"
That would mean that you are not relying on anyone. You're verifying for yourself... Ruby's conclusion is accurate. It's easier to read posts when they make sense.

Again, please read the posts. Instead of re-quoting that which has already been posted, I'll let you find them. His conclusion was not accurate and that's why I had to clarify. Your misinterpretation is unnecessary.

Quote:

Quote by kellyoUm, no. Just shows how easy it is to rip apart your logic. How do you know that I don't allow for other possibilities. I'm a student of this stuff. I allow every possibility to cross my mind - but, the Truth always prevails.

lmao.
Isn't it amazing how much easier it is to know the truth when you're always right?...

Um, no. But it is easier to know the truth when you actually study - and that includes the point of views of others.

Quote: How exactly is it that you determine what is true? I wonder... *sigh* but I suppose this isn't the thread for that...

What? Are you asking me or is that more of a third-person question? Let's see, hmm, this is hard. You study, various texts from various authors with various points of view, you study the evidence, you draw a conclusion. You see, you have come to believe in a truth claim just like myself. However, since we know that the absolute truth is knowable, one of us is right and the other is wrong or both of us are wrong. We can't both be right at the same time because we claim different things. Therefore, after the above process, I put my faith in the truth claim as the one that is absolutely true and the one that applies to all.

Quote: Why is Ruby's logic ridiculous because it involves things that (according to your FAITH) won't happen? How does that undermine the logic? ... or was this just some christian warping that made it easier for you to admit you wouldn't be willing to go to hell for God?

Please, if you want to discuss the Bible then let's discuss the Bible but don't pretend you can make an argument on It's behalf when you don't even know the Text. What he, Ruby, asked (about going to hell for God) is evidence that he has no knowledge of the Bible. It's utter nonsense. So, if you want to discuss the particulars of the Bible then you must be willing to let the Bible show he is wrong - which it does.

Quote: Oh, and you're query about Satan is valid. Except that Ruby started this thread with Christianity in mind, not satanism... and the question wasn't about whether you'd follow him, it was just asking you to prove your love of him.

Close. Yet again, you misinterpreted my point. My post was to illustrate how ridiculous his question was. Remember, whether you like it or not, Ruby was asking us Christians about our God which involved God's character. Ruby must then be willing to allow us to answer him with the Book that actually describes His character. Again, it's nonsense.

Quote: I'm pretty sure a Satanic's (or whatever his worshippers are called) idea of Hell IS Heaven...*

I'm sure it is. But, they're in for a surprise and one they will regret forever.

Quote: But being as Satan is Satan the question would more likely be "Will you go get yourself into Heaven and kill God for me?"... not that I can particularly imagine Satan ASKING them...

Well, he already tried that one and guess what, he lost.

Quote: Kellyo, honestly, you're a lil disturbing. I accept your arguments are sound to you... but I suspect there are a lot of assumptions in your life that you're unwilling to challenge.

Like what? I mean, if you seem to understand my position and my various arguments then please fill me in on some of these "assumptions" I'm unwilling to challenge.

Quote by PlunkiesHeh, If you insist. But the quotes are straight from the bible. I mean I see your point and all but it doesn't make any sense again. The location you get the info from is irrelevent if the info is proven. The bible contradicts itself. How can you even not know that considering the amount of time you've supposedly spent studying it?

Right now I don't have the time to respond to your post; however, I find it so funny that the majority of you atheist go to these Jim Merit quotes. This is probably the fourth time - you'd think this was your damn bible. Anyway, everyone of these have been countered, and guess what, by me. These are so easy to prove wrong because all you have to do is refer to the Text. Now, if you want to show that what's in the Bible is contradictory to itself then you have to allow the Bible to prove you wrong.

So, here's the challenge Mr. Original, pick one and I'll go through it with you. This will show that you have put your faith in another person and way of thought without even taking a moment to study it or confirm it.

Quote by Plunkies

No. The statement must be presented in such a way in that it COULD be proven incorrect if it happens to BE incorrect. It doesn't HAVE to be proven false, the claim just needs to be varifiable one way or the other. You missed the point entirely. Or you decided to misinterpret some more, honestly I wouldn't put it past you.

No. You missed the point. Read the site again. It clearly states that something must be defined in order to even be able to be tested. It clearly assumes that God is not defined. Wrong. He is clearly defined.

Quote:

What? Decimals? You've been arguing with rubydragon too much, I can't understand you. 2 + 2 = 4 is the statement. I take 2 apples, I take 2 more apples, I put them together and I get 4 apples, the statement is confirmed. Didn't you go to preschool? However it could have been proven false if it WAS false. 2 + 2 = 5, you take your 2 + 2 apples, you get 4, 4 doesn't equal 5, false. Hooray! Nap time!

You obviously didn't understand my point. I have in fact used that statement before (2+2=4) as a truth and others have actually refuted it saying that it might not be true due to more numbers - i.e. 2.1+2=4.1 not 4.

Quote:

Uh huh. Yeah you've got me all kinds of emotional. I believe the specific emotion is annoyed. But whether I'm annoyed or not is irrelevant, you're still wrong either way.

Since you've misinterpreted not only the site but me it appears that you in fact simply posted without thinking.

Quote:

No. The point of the article was that a scientific or logical claim needs to be varifiable.

And according to how that site's article defined what it would need to be verifiable, then God is in fact verifiable. Why? Because He can be defined. You need to read it again.

Quote: However the bible is anything but a scientific, varified source. A vast amount of the bible has either been proven false or contradicts itself.

Opinion. You have no evidence and any evidence that you get from some atheist site can be and already has been proven wrong. So, please Plunkies, since you seem to have that ability, which you've continuingly claimed but NEVER backed up, then please, enlighten us all.

Quote: I don't care if you get your stuff from the bible as long as you're not using the bible to prove the bible. Follow me?

Let's use that same logic to define your stance. "I don't care if you get your stuff from atheistic websites or other atheist thinkers as long as you're not using those websites and thinkers to prove your point of view."

Nonsense. Use what you use and I use what I use and let the evidence fall. But, yet again, you NEVER provide evidence just a bunch of platitudes and diatribes.

Quote by RubyDrg0nkellyo: you are being reasonable...

Thank you.

Quote: hope that you really see through all my reasonings...

I do. It's not difficult.

Quote: (and stop posting nonsense which i have to repeat myself just to explain to you)

since it is something repetitive... i dun think i wanna argue with you anymore...

also i still kinda hope other ppl give their comments on the topic...:)

Again, concession accepted.

Quote by Plunkies"Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can't prove that God doesn't exist if no one even knows what God is supposed to be."

You feel free to give some descriptions of god. Keep in mind that they have to be falsifiable. If you say god's location is heaven, that's also a nonsensical statement. Where's heaven? How can you prove/disprove another mystical location, let alone use it to try and prove something else? You give it a shot, most likely by the time you get to something falsifiable it's already disproven and you have to pull your discription back out of reality again. Go ahead, I strongly doubt you can give me anything useful though. Have fun.

I was so hoping that someone would use that quote as a rebuttal and how great that it's you Plunkies. This is further evidence that the website used is completely false: as illustrated in my post and now as illustrated by Plunkies.

Here's the quote you used and even put in bold: "...it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect."

This is such a load of crap. Two easy ways to illustrate: (1) it defeats itself. If it's own statement is true then we can prove it false. (2) Is it logical to say that 2 + 2 = 4? Yes. But you may say that there may be more decimals. No. 2 + 2 = 4. However, according to this silly definition of what must be logical then we must present that "statement" in way to be proven false.

I'm so glad you used that. It shows that in fact you are the one who doesn't think first and apply reason to the answer. You simply react based upon emotion - maybe not all the time but here you certainly did.

As far as your God statements and challenge. There is only One source that can be used to prove God and you don't recognize the source. There's no reason to show you all the verses that describe His character and even His location - you wouldn't accept them anyway. But, remember what that website said had to exist in order to show that one could in fact prove a negative: descriptions, characteristics, and location. The Bible covers all three. The point here is that website article is utterly false and you helped prove that.

Quote by alexjohnc3To answer the original question, atheists do not try to disprove God's existence because they don't have to. Logically I wouldn't have to prove to you that there are no flying pigs for there to be no flying pigs. The default logical position is negative and then requires a proof to be positive.

I just read that link you referenced in the above post and I don't believe you represented it correctly.

Here's a quote: "Clearly, it's possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God - that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if "God" is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of - except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings."

You would be right if us Theists only claim "God exists" and never provide any definition. Clearly, the Bible provides this necessary definition (the Bible clearly defines who He is, His characteristics, and even His location), which then, according to this website's explanation, you should be able to prove God does not exist. So, using it's own logic and the fact that you can't disprove the statement false (God exists) makes me conclude then that He does.

At the end it says "except for (surprise) the non-existence of mystical beings." You may say that God is a mystical being but I would disagree. Greek mythology is mystical. God has shown Himself, provided miracles to confirm Himself, proven Himself to exist, created all (here come the attacks), and given us His Word - certainly NOT mystical but real.

I'm glad you pointed us to that website because now we all can see that the argument from the atheist of "I don't have to prove it because you can't prove a negative therefore you have to provide the evidence of existence" is no longer valid.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein.