7 Things You CANNOT Use To Disprove GOD & Why:

7 Things You CANNOT Use To Disprove GOD :​

1) LIGHT

2) TIME

3) FORCE

4) ACTION

5) SPACE

6) MATTER

7) WATER

Why?: According to HIS RECORDED WORD, HE IS and/or Created all the Above.

So in order for you to Disprove HIM, you must use, AND CAN ONLY use, STUFF that is not HIM and/or HIS Creation:
​

​

​

​

 

Why do you get to assume that the Bible is "his recorded word?" You're accepting God's existence as one of your premises and then using it as your conclusion. Your logic is circular.

 

I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense. So according to God he created all of the above. And for someone to disprove him one can only use stuff that is not him/not created by him?

I'm sorry but that's one of the...I'll just say it nicely, worst arguments I've heard in a while. If someone doesn't believe in God then they don't believe all of the above and more were created by him, so then why would that person only be able to use things that aren't "created/by god"?

Doesn't make sense.

 

Rational world to the religious, Come in religious.....
It's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist. That's why the burden of proof lays with those making ludicrous claims, Not with those refuting their "evidence".

 

ah....another nehemiah post...the world is now a better place.

 

The bible is the word of 6 guys, not god, we even have the guys' names, man made god not vice versa.

 

Um huh. Okay.

 

I Wanna Ask You A Question..!!!
Can You Create Just One Of These 7 Things..????
If Your Answer Is Yes ..So You Are The God...

 

Okay Charlie, you have my permission to use all "7 Things" to disprove GOD. Happy now? You can even get Person to help you.

I mean, wow, you 'ats' and 'ags' have been using GOD'S STUFF for centuries, in a feeble and vain attempt to prove that HE Isn't, and Ignorance on both sides of the argument was allowing you to get away with it.

See, even you 'ats' and 'ags' believe in "a god"; it just that the 'god (s)' you believe in is "unbelief" and "rejection".

But you don't have a problem believing 1) LIGHT, 2) TIME, 3) FORCE, 4) ACTION, 5) SPACE, 6) MATTER, and 7) WATER, but you cannot provide a rational and majority consensus as to how they came to be. Nor have you ever laid eyes on and/nor touched the first 5 of the "7" . Now how dumb is it to believe in the "5 of the 7" and not believe THE ONLY ONE WHO can account Reasonably, Rationally, and Logically for all of the "7".

BTW, Do you know why the Scripture states, "GOD. . .cannot lie... (Tit 1:2)"
It would seem that if HE'S really GOD, HE should be able to "lie" if HE wanted to, huh? So why do you reckon THE ALMIGHTY GOD "cannot lie"?

NO, I cannot

BTW, That which is already Is, cannot be Created . GOD is not going to allow us humans to out GOD HIMSELF!

Alvin, Simon, Theodore, Larry, Moe, and Curly!

 

There was a few more 'authors' 'inspired writers' than six, - off the top of my head - Moses, David, Solomon, Apostles Paul, John, Matthew, Luke; Daniel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, not including books that we don't know who wrote like Ruth, Judges, Chronicles,

 

I can make my computer say 'I created myself'. Would you believe that? I could even make some people confirm that, but that wouldn't make it true.
I don't think you can get a majority consensus on the existence of your god either. And even if you could, the majority is not always right. Just a few centuries ago, there was a majority consensus on the world being flat. Now, thanks to science, we know it is round. This is just one example of many misconceptions that are now fixed.
On those 7 things: I can rationally explain most of these things, and in the future we will be able to explain even more, when science advances.
You also say the Bible is to be believed because it has been used by people for centuries. First of all, most of the people haven't used it, even people who did believe in (your) god (catholics for example). And second, it's only 2 millennia old (the New Testament anyway), before that there were, for example, Greek myths (you should read some of them, I did) about many gods. Now Greek polytheism is nearly extinct. But you definitely wouldn't be liked if you would say that Ares didn't exist back then. Socrates (you should read some of his too) did, and he had to drink poison for his atheism.

By the way, I have no problems with your personal belief, nor with you spreading them, but you too should be open to learning and hearing other people's.

 

I believe in God...but i just couldn't understand the logic of the first post!

 

Why do people argue constantly over God and his existence?

I don't care how much evidence you put forth, in the end, it's pointless to argue about, and arguing about it certainly won't make you closer to him, spiritually (if you believe in him, that is) - so what gives?

 

No offense, but he wouldn't help to disprove your arguments.

I mean, wow, you 'ats' and 'ags' have been using GOD'S STUFF for centuries, in a feeble and vain attempt to prove that HE Isn't, and Ignorance on both sides of the argument was allowing you to get away with it.

See, even you 'ats' and 'ags' believe in "a god"; it just that the 'god (s)' you believe in is "unbelief" and "rejection".[/QUOTE]

How are either of those things God in my worldview?

Light can be observed and measured, time can be observed and measured, force can be observed and measured, action is a concept that doesn't empirically exist, space can be observed and measured, matter can be observed and measured, and water is a type of matter. Your God cannot be observed or measured in any way, and is not even the logical conclusion of empirical observation. That's a substantial difference.

Neither can you. In fact, thanks to the sheer number of Christian denominations, you're even further from consensus than the scientific community, not that it matters since truth is not a popularity contest. Of course, my view is rational, or at the very least more rational than yours, by parsimony and consistency with empirical evidence. Yours isn't rational at all. You start with your presupposition that God exists (your opening post assumes God's existence) and then reach God's existence as your conclusion. It's called circular logic, and it's a fallacy.

I've seen light and space, and all but one of the five have been empirically observed, measured, or tested for. That one (action) is a concept, not something that empirically exists. Your God has not been measured, observed, or tested for, nor do you show how we could begin to find out if God existed, so your analogy is flawed.

Your God doesn't even begin to do that since the Bible never gives us the method he used to supposedly create those things. Plenty of other creation stories can account for all of those things as well, as can Big Bang Theory or pretty much any story I can dream up right now. Your God is a whole lot less likely than Big Bang Theory due to scientific evidence as well as parsimony, and is equally unlikely compared to all the rest.

This is a prime example of circular logic. You accept the bible being true as a premise and then reach the bible being true as your conclusion, making a nice little circle of flawed reasoning.

 

Very well put.

 

Part of the argument you are trying to provide here is part of your own beliefs...But if you want to try to label what you believe into being absoulte fact who am I to argue

 

Lets say for one crazy moment that I believe the bible is a factual and historically accurate document, ( which I firmly do not ), so it says he cannot lie, but then when it suited him, in the very first verses of genesis, he lies to adam and eve, that apple was never posinous, you're god is as dishonest as a common theif.

 

Does the first four letters in your screen name make you see stuff that is not there, joe?

Now, I know that this is going to be 'a bummer' for you, but my GOD, in Heaven, never told Adam and Eve "that apple was. . .posinous "; in fact, the Scriptures never tell us what kind of "Fruit" it was.

You really should read these things, firsthand, for yourself; that 'Barbershop Theology' just ain't gonna cut it anymore.

BTW, the reason that GOD cannot "lie", is because of the fact that whatever HE says AUTOMATICALLY becomes TRUTH!

 

Quite a pointless discussion if we can't even get a consensus on the definition of truth.

 

Thanks for ignoring me again, Nehemiah. I guess you really can't stand not being able to back up your arguments, huh?