• JackGreenEarth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    107 months ago

    The default position is that we don’t know if a specified thing exists. To prove or disprove it, you need evidence. I can prove that the Christian God doesn’t exist, as it is logically impossible, but it’s possible that some other version of a god might exist, I don’t know. I don’t have evidence either way.

          • @RGB3x3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of something. It’s on those who believe in god to prove its existence.

            And the Bible doesn’t count as sufficient evidence because that would be like believing Harry Potter exists because JK Rowling says so.

            • daddyjones
              link
              fedilink
              37 months ago

              Unless you claim, as OP did, that you can actually disprove it.

              I agree that the Bible is not sufficient in the sense that it proves anything or sews up their arguments, but to suggest its historical value as evidence is the same as modern day fiction is absurd.

          • JackGreenEarth
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 months ago

            For example, omnipotence is a self-contradictory term, as you have a dilemma - if a being is all powerful enough to give itself limits, it is not omnipotent as it wouldn’t be able to do the things it limited itself to do. Whereas if it can’t self-impose limits, it’s also not omnipotent as it isn’t able to self-impose limits. Another example is that suffering exists in the world, which would be a contradiction if an all-powerful being that wanted to end suffering existed, since it should, but it isn’t.

            And these are just contradictions within God’s character. If you want to look at the things he actually claims to have done, you’ll find numerous more in the Bible. Just as one example, Jesus’s last words are different in almost every gospel.

            • daddyjones
              link
              fedilink
              -1
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              None of this is new or hasn’t been thought about, written about and deflated for centuries. I doubt you have any theologians shaking in their boots.

              The meaning of omnipotence as it translates to Good has always been nuanced. There have always been things God can’t do - sin being the obvious example. You could debate whether he can, but just never would because of his character, but it amounts to the same thing and has been orthodoxy for centuries.

              The apparent contradictions on the Gospels (especially synoptic) have been done to death. Debated and answered more times than you’ve had hot dinners. There is no serious theologian or biblical scholar who would hear that argument and be at all concerned by it.

              Honestly the same applies to the idea of a good god and suffering.

              • JackGreenEarth
                link
                fedilink
                English
                27 months ago

                Just because people think they’ve put forward an excuse doesn’t mean it’s a good excuse. None I’ve heard have convinced me yet.

                • daddyjones
                  link
                  fedilink
                  27 months ago

                  And that’s fair enough. Claiming you can definitively disprove the existence of the Christian God and having some objections that you haven’t heard a convincing response to aren’t the same thing though…