prove to me that god is real

But that is more an agnostic veiw than an Atheist view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think I've seen that argument from atheists. I have seen these two:

1) I don't accept the assertion 'God' exists as true due to an absence of supporting evidence.

2) The claim of a particular religion's 'God' has existed for 'n' years without supporting evidence and the presence of continually increasing contradictory evidence (usually from science); therefore, that particular claim of 'God' is false.

Do you have children TW?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theists seem so eager to have atheists appear as dogmatic as they are. Apparently they envy our well-adjusted rationality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

god is real cause i said so.

 

Kinda hard to envy what isn't there, but go ahead and keep believing it.

 

Therefore you find that large portions of the earth's population in all times and places (despite boundaries of time, geography, language and culture) have upheld a concept of god while only a tiny portion of europe in a particular era of time by a certain class of people upheld that there were leprechauns (perhaps even less described them as hairy and invisible) - but then they never attributed leprechauns to possessing divine capacities for the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the cosmic manifestation.

Looking at that evidence objectively god becomes more credible than invisible hairy leprechauns.

 

wow! this is beyond doubt the most incredibly stupid, statement, especially coming from a supposedly educated person.
man from his emergance has formed societies, and myths and legends have been passed down, as he gradually populated the earth.

to continue, as man populated the earth he broke off into smaller groups, which over time gained there own myths and legends, some as extentions of the earlier ones and also completely new ones such as elves, orks, dragons, unicorns, etc etc...

but they did, they used to leave out milk and whisky little feasts as offerings, to these little supernatural gods.
people believed, if the did right by the leprechaun, he would do right by them.
sound familar, do a bit of studying.
http://www.altananam.freeserve.co.uk/Leprechauns.htm

 

Yet another who doesn't know their agnostic stance from their atheist stance.

The two are compatible but are NOT the same.


As for the Leprechauns, LG, - if the Word of the Leprechaun was spread as violently as the Christian Word of God then who knows what people would be readily believing in these days.

One reason that Leprechauns probably aren't worshipped or believed in as steadfastly is that belief in them wasn't at the point of a sword, or under threat of torture. But obviously there is no evidence for this. (Where have I heard that statement before???)

 

1) Can you prove you are real and are not someone else called dansufc?
2) How willing are you to find out?

Instructions for proving the existence of God:
1) Go to the top of a very high mountain at dawn*.
2) Shout out in your loudest voice "God - if you are there, show me you are real!"
3) Go home.
4) Join a religious community of your choice.
5) Await results.

Of course this will only give you the next step. The final proof may take you a lifetime, but then Fermat's last theorem wasn't proved overnight. Results will be encouraged by serious reading of any compatible religious text.

*Best days are: Thursdays for the God of Islam, Saturdays for the God of Isreal and Sundays for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Other Gods may vary.

 

What are you talking about? The only "evidence" {?} you have is that one is more popular than the other. Argumentum ad Populum... gotta hate the stupidity of it.

As an interesting side note; Pretty much every day I see someone give prayer to leprechauns: ("touch wood"/"knock on wood").

 

So what you are saying is that the idea of god was originally formed in one location or society and that it spread all over the world and became corrupted into stories of fiction. Have you got any evidence where that society was located? Have you got evidence of this original concept of god? Have you got evidence of the progress of corruption up to the level of elves and fairies? Or is the whole idea influenced by a few fictional elements also?

Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that god was originally developed in one society it still doesn't determine whether that perception was false, even is the consequent results of that perception are (fairies, elves etc)



but they did, they used to leave out milk and whisky little feasts as offerings, to these little supernatural gods.
people believed, if the did right by the leprechaun, he would do right by them.
sound familar, do a bit of studying.
http://www.altananam.freeserve.co.uk/Leprechauns.htm[/QUOTE]

People also leave out milk for their dogs, and offerings and feasts for vice chancellors and the like - does that mean that they believe dogs and vice chancellors are controllers of the creation maintenance and destruction of the universe?

 

The point is that virtually all cultures attribute god to reality whereas only a tiny fraction attribute leprechauns to reality. People attribute qualities to god that are not found in leprechauns - so all this indicates that seeking a definition of god through a definition of leprechauns is fallacious.

 

No, it's generally just to stop the dog going thirsty. There is however a slight difference between dogs and gods/leprechauns. Interestingly enough, drink and food is quite often left out for supernatural entities - from santa to elijah and so on.

It could certainly point towards a common ancestor.

As far as god beliefs go, you can easily see the extent of beliefs spreading - from Sumerians -> Babylonians -> Akkadians -> Jews -> Christians/ Greeks -> Romans etc.

In the words of Dire Straits; "first came the churches, then came the schools.." Once a belief was formed, it would have been impossible for it not to spread and mutate/evolve.

 

Same problem. Argumentum ad Populum.

What's that got to do with anything? People also attribute qualities to leprechauns that are not found in gods. What's your point?

What are you talking about? I said gods can exist, as can hairy invisible leprechauns - but there's currently no evidence to suggest they do. You then claimed that "looking at it objectively, there's more evidence (lol), for gods" which is utter codswollop. The only argument you've made is that there's more evidence for gods because more people believe in them than leprechauns, (or hairy leprechauns).

In saying, I didn't "seek a definition of god through a definition of leprechauns" other than to say both are possible, neither have any evidence.

 

What archeological record do you use? The fossil record? The timeline guaged by linguists? Or the time line guaged by monitoring estimations of tribal shifts? What era do you place the Sumerian era? What about other parts of the world, like India for example? Do the members of Dire Straits examine these questions in their spare time? What evidence do you have that the (apparant) original perception of the sumerians was false or a product of imagination? What actually is the original idea you are referring to? What evidence do you have that it mutated? What evidence do you have that the same (apparently) original idea did not appear simultaneously in other cultures?

Anyway i could go on and on but there are quite a few assumptions built into your presentation - I guess the main one innvolves the summerians as the source of all religious thought in the world.

 

With regards to ancient texts there are several methods that can be employed - material and implied. Of course a date on the manuscript can also help a bit, (although tends not to occur).

Well, generally speaking:

Early village settlements, Samarra culture, Halaf culture, Ubaid culture, Gawra culture, (about 4,000 - 8,000 B.C.E. "BCE")
Uruk culture (3,000 - 4,000 BCE), late prehistoric period (2,750 - 3,300 BCE), Early Dynastic II - II periods (2,334 - 2,750 BCE)
Akkadian Dynasty (2,154 - 2,334 BCE) including Sargon (2,279 - 2,334 BCE)
Rulers of Lagash & Uruk, Third Dynasty of Ur, First Dynasty of Isin, Larsa Dynasty (1,763 - 2,155 BCE)
First Dynasty of Babylon (1,595 - 1,894 BCE)

("Mesopotamia" Julian Reade).

Perhaps, you'd have to ask them.

None. All hail Marduk. I have in no way in this thread disputed the possible existence of gods, (or leprechauns for that matter).

What I'm saying is that you can clearly see that cultures have taken ideas from other cultures and adapted them to fit their own.

Chinese whispers and story mutation happens. Interview with the Vampire is a mutated version of old vampire mythology, the early portions of the OT are a mutated version of older Sumerian texts, (Adamu -> Adam. Even "Eden" is Sumerian in origin meaning house of purity), the flood, (utnapishtim -> noah) and so on.

Certainly.

Where did I say any such thing? I was giving an example of how stories from cultures spread to other cultures. Zoroastrianism most certainly predates Sumerian beliefs.

 

I don't think he's being exact in his timeline - and is using it merely as representative of how things can, and might have, spread.

You must have realised this? Afterall - you don't really seem concerned that he put Christianity before the Romans?? He also didn't mention Pagans, Mayans, Aztecs, Aboriginees etc.

So please try to see it for what it is, not as a statement of fact.


As for where the concept of God was first developed - who actually cares if it was one person/society or whether it was a number of them.
The concept of wearing clothes.... where was that first developed? One society or a number of them at around the same time? My point is that it doesn't change diddly. There is still a lack of evidence. Multiple sources does NOT add any credence to the subject of the belief.
Nor does the number of people who now believe it - which is an "Argument from Popularity" logical fallacy.

 

you cannot be serious surely.
for gods/god myths, go here http://www.godchecker.com/

nobody said it was, the idea/myth behind a god was formed in these societies.

to the societies at the time it was'nt false( for instant a sun god, it brings warmth and light, makes food grow on trees) to man at the time the sun was a god, which in turn developed into something more over the eons.

yes and devils, demons, angels, unicorns, dragons, talking serpents, etc.......


you may wish to go here http://www.talkorigins.org/ it will help you find out about mans time on this planet. also check out the history sites they will help show how man passed information to others before the advent of the written word and if your interested in the oldest writings you could go here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

then again this could be a waste of time for you, if you believe we've only been on this planet for 7000 years and we were popped here by a god.

 

The point is that it is not clear what your approach to god is - of course you are saying it is an idea as opposed to an accurate perception of an objective phenomena.

Like for instance your time line of the influence of the "god idea" is very sketchy - but then archeology is very sketchy premise to begin with - its very contentious issue - for instance archeologists say that what we have in the way of culture has all developed in the last 10 000 years - but linguists who have a view of history by the corruption and influence of language say such a short period doesn't account for the linguistic variety we perceive - I am not saying one is right and one is wrong - I am just indicating that there are many faults intrinsic to the empirical pursuit of history. Like for instance archeologists have just uncovered a human settlement dating back to 9500 BC off the coast of India - where does that leave the summerians at 8000BC? I guess its time to rewrite the books (again)....

So its not clear what exactly you are saying that the current view of history reveals about the the truth/untruth of the perception of god - like for instance

"Chinese whispers and story mutation happens. Interview with the Vampire is a mutated version of old vampire mythology, the early portions of the OT are a mutated version of older Sumerian texts, (Adamu -> Adam. Even "Eden" is Sumerian in origin meaning house of purity), the flood, (utnapishtim -> noah) and so on."

the logic behind this statement is that once a particular culture at a particular time held that vampires exist - this idea has influenced a variety of fiction writers who write books not with the view for dilineating reality but entertaining people.
Also if you play a game where the object is not to speak clearly or pass information on in a reliable fashion, it is not uncommon for the original message to be garbled.
Amongst the many scriptures of the world there is a scripture from a particular culture amongst the many cultures in the world that made references to incidents in ancient history - In this scripture there are words that bear similarity to a culture from a more ancient culture - All this is overwhelming evidence of - (I'm not sure even what your conclusion is - that they inaccurately perceived an objective phenomena? That they imagined the whole thing?) and therefore all religions from all times are fallacious just like the before mentioned vampires and fairies and scripture is like the work of influenced fiction writers.

I guess you might want to begin by addressing how even non fiction writers are subject to influence. Even writings in science are subject to influence. Why does influence suggest fallacy?

 

My position concerning gods was made clear a good long while ago - just like leprechauns they might exist, but given that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they do, I have no valid reason whatsoever to believe in them. (Please note that "loads of people believe/have believed in gods" is not evidence).

For the second time, (and even pointed out by someone else), it was not intended to be an accurate guide to history, but an example of how stories, (whether perceived as real or not), are taken and ammended from earlier stories.

The books need not be rewritten. Nobody but the bible claims that Sumerians were the first homo sapiens on the planet.

Not at all. The statement was to show that old ideas get 'borrowed' and added to - whether you then perceive those later stories as fiction or not.

No games in progress. Seems my message was understood, just not by you.

Let it be said that your only argument thus far is that gods have more 'evidence' because lots of people have believed in them. It is twice now that I have had to point out the error in such a statement, (and indeed others have also had to point it out to you), but you don't seem to catch on - instead seemingly happily just missing the whole point.

How many times? The conclusion is as it always was: Cultures borrow from other cultures. Whether the original writers imagined what they wrote, or wrote reality is of no consequence.

Wrong again. I didn't call anything fallacious, indeed I have stated that it's possible that even hairy invisible leprechauns exist. Vampires, fairies, leprechauns, gods.. they all might exist.. there is currently NO evidence to suggest that any of them do.

Of course they are. Journalists are "non fiction" writers, and yet you'll see a massive difference in articles between say the Mirror and the Sun - one being labour, one being conservative, (or used to be).

Never said it did - However, someone doing a later version of a previously written account can never get that account as accurate as the original, (unless they were to copy it word for word).