İt is impossible to prove the denial of God

[Peter_Plato]

It is perfectly possible, and it can be done directly from the Bible.

The proof is by contradiction. I shall show that the statement, “God exists” is false.

Let G = “God exists”. We do not yet know whether G is true or false.

Let A = “King Ahaziah was twenty-two when he came to the throne” (2 Kings 8:26). A is true because the statement is found in the Bible.

By standard logic of an implication (if … then): G → A. This is always true, whether or not G is true.

Now we reverse the implication, again using standard logic: ~A → ~G

Looking in the Bible at 2 Chronicles 22:2 we see that King Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he came to the throne. Hence A is false and ~A is true.

If ~A is true than the previous reversed implication, ~A → ~G, tells us that ~G is true. If ~G is true than G must be false. QED.

Hence we have logically proved that God does not exist.

rossum

So, let’s get this straight…

Your argument amounts to: If God exists (G) there would be no spelling or numerical errors (A) in any copy of the Bible.

You do understand that 42 instead of 22 is widely considered a copyist error, since Ahaziah was noted to be the “youngest son” whose brothers had been killed off shortly before. To be a youngest son at 42 seems odd, and supports the younger figure.

So your, If G → A, conditional amounts to “IF God exists then there would be no obvious copyist errors (such as 42 written in the place of 22) in any version of the Bible.”

Okay.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Every effect needs a cause, if it is not finite it does not need a cause. So what preceded the infinite? Since we know that the physical universe is both finite and contingent it therefore requires a cause.

God comes to mind.

 

[rossum]

God comes to mind.

Or Vishnu, or the Multiverse, or a transient cause that no longer exists. There is still the requirement to show that a particular triune God is the cause rather than, say, the Jewish non-triune G-d.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So, let’s get this straight…

Your argument amounts to: If God exists (G) there would be no spelling or numerical errors (A) in any copy of the Bible.

No. My argument is a standard logical argument from a contradiction. Given two contradictory premises, A and ~A then any arbitrary statement G can be shown to be false. Hence any arbitrary ~G can be shown to be true.

You do understand that 42 instead of 22 is widely considered a copyist error

Considered so by human scholars, and hence their consideration is subject to human error. It also shows that God has not given a special protection from error to what is allegedly His own book. The fact the there are contradictions and omissions in the Bible shows that there is no God around to correct those errors and to preserve the text of what is allegedly His book from human error.

For example, the original ending of Mark is missing. How do we know what was lost there and whether it was of any importance? How about, “Eleven: You shall not eat butter on a Wednesday,” perhaps?

Any error at all in a sacred text tends to show that the attached god(s) do not exist and are not specially protecting it from human mistakes.

rossum

 

[Partinobodycula]

Every effect needs a cause, if it is not finite it does not need a cause. So what preceded the infinite? Since we know that the physical universe is both finite and contingent it therefore requires a cause.

With all due respect to Aquinas et al, I would direct you to any of the recent threads started by KingCoil, as an indication of the futility of trying to use this argument to prove the existence of God. At best it presents only a “possible” proof, but by no means a definitive one.

As a point of fact there is no unambiguous manner in which God could ever prove His existence. It’s simply impossible. It’s not that He won’t, it’s that He can’t. Which seems quite contradictory if you presume God to be omnipotent. Rather strange for an omnipotent God to not be able to prove His own existence. But that’s the ultimate truth, God must always and forever remain an article of faith.

Ah, but perhaps God proves Himself to the individual through the indwelling of His Spirit in that person’s heart. But that then begs the question, which God? And indeed, are there any absolute truths at all, or only relative ones?

It’s easy enough to deny this fact, that God cannot prove His own existence. People deny facts all the time. The harder part is to accept it, for it destroys all illusions of logic and reason to which the devote may appeal. Leaving one thing, and one thing only upon which to rest their beliefs…faith.

The question then becomes, do you have faith, or don’t you?

So perhaps the more important question isn’t, where is the evidence of God, but rather, where is the evidence of your faith?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. My argument is a standard logical argument from a contradiction. Given two contradictory premises, A and ~A then any arbitrary statement G can be shown to be false. Hence any arbitrary ~G can be shown to be true.

Considered so by human scholars, and hence their consideration is subject to human error. **It also shows that God has not given a special protection from error **to what is allegedly His own book. The fact the there are contradictions and omissions in the Bible shows that there is no God around to correct those errors and to preserve the text of what is allegedly His book from human error.

For example, the original ending of Mark is missing. How do we know what was lost there and whether it was of any importance? How about, “Eleven: You shall not eat butter on a Wednesday,” perhaps?

Any error at all in a sacred text tends to show that the attached god(s) do not exist and are not specially protecting it from human mistakes.

rossum

Perhaps the original ending of Mark being missing is the intention of God. Perhaps minor textual errors likewise serve a purpose that you are completely unaware of. To say what appear to you to be ‘errors’ could not be intentional and for a purpose is to assume you know the mind of God completely. I’m not clear you can make that claim.

Yes, I know ‘special pleading.’

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I could never understand the denial of God. There are laws in the universe, laws which science acknowledges. To deny the existence of a Lawgiver after acknowledging the existence of laws, just never made much sense to me.

:twocents:

 

[rossum]

Perhaps the original ending of Mark being missing is the intention of God. Perhaps minor textual errors likewise serve a purpose that you are completely unaware of. To say what appear to you to be ‘errors’ could not be intentional and for a purpose is to assume you know the mind of God completely. I’m not clear you can make that claim.

How about the Wicked Bible, the one with the unfortunate typo?

“Thou shalt commit adultery.”

An omnipotent God could easily have corrected such an obvious human error.

Yes, I know ‘special pleading.’

Indeed.

rossum

 

[Lynxdk]

Or Vishnu, or the Multiverse, or a transient cause that no longer exists. There is still the requirement to show that a particular triune God is the cause rather than, say, the Jewish non-triune G-d.

rossum

Hinduism only has one God, the aspects, or attributes, of which are represented, just make it look like that have so many of them… like people saying “God is Love”, or Mercy, or any other attribute Christians see God as “also being”. Just mentioning that, since you brought Vishnu into it =P

In Genesis, Originally, the way it was originally written that you don’t see much in modern Bibles, is that Yahweh uses Plural pronouns, before kings and queens did, which is why I expect they tried to make that assertion, as a power grab, and was part of the reason Why they made that into “the royal we”… add to that, words from Revelations, and I can see it this way:

They created Us in Their image, The Most Masculine(Alpha) and The Most Feminine(Omega), made us Male and Female… and given the relationship Y’shua had with Yahweh, being Jewish, himself, with Being In The Father (nothing exists without God) and The Father in Him (via the Holy Spirit, I take it) That represents a very intimate Triune relationship that Jesus asked for us to know, not just for Himself:

John 17:20-21
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."

In Hebrew, the Neshamah, the soul, is a Feminine Breath of God, so that seems to put us all right in the middle… Which could help to explain the reason why it’s better “not to marry” so as not to distract from that relationship with Them (Yahweh):

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?
referring to Psalm 82:6

Can also be a statement made to be Both Possessive (we belong to God) and descriptive (What we are In and With God).

The proof is in the pudding, though, I guess. How can we know, if we always doubt? By trial and error, maybe?

 

[Lynxdk]

Since we know that the physical universe is both finite and contingent it therefore requires a cause.

God comes to mind.

Not disagreeing with you, exactly, but we actually ~don’t~ know that the Universe is finite, because we can only see so far… so far

 

[rossum]

Not disagreeing with you, exactly, but we actually ~don’t~ know that the Universe is finite, because we can only see so far… so far

That depends on what universe we are talking about. The universe that started with the Big Bang is finite in time at least. However the philosophical universe, the “All That Exists” universe is rather different. If God exists then the ATE universe is eternal and does not have a cause. Indeed it cannot have any cause that exists, since then that cause would already be part of the ATE universe.

rossum

 

[Lynxdk]

That depends on what universe we are talking about. The universe that started with the Big Bang is finite in time at least. However the philosophical universe, the “All That Exists” universe is rather different. If God exists then the ATE universe is eternal and does not have a cause. Indeed it cannot have any cause that exists, since then that cause would already be part of the ATE universe.

rossum

That’s still debatable. What if the Universe “we’re in right now” is just a constant… seriously… series of “Big Bangs” from a center point (or more than one) that is forever expanding, and is infinite in Time and Space? Aionion.

We still can’t see that far yet.

But we could call it the Multiverse, since I understand that concept, and all that exists.

What was there “before things were organized” to the extent that we have this current universe we’re in, to exist, to be? Chaos? Void? Pudding? =)

 

[Peter_Plato]

How about the Wicked Bible, the one with the unfortunate typo?

“Thou shalt commit adultery.”

An omnipotent God could easily have corrected such an obvious human error.

Indeed.

rossum

So you are claiming that “inspired” means that every time a printer or copyist outputs a version of the Bible, a hand of God will descend from Heaven and make editorial fixes as needed?

You may want to brush up on the Catholic doctrine of inspiration and what it means to be “written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,” keeping in mind that the assurance also means that “…To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.”

The doctrine means that "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.” In other words, there is room to doubt that the “same Spirit” would necessarily place as much importance on copyist errors as you do, i.e., reading Scripture is not an exercise in picking nits or finding copyist errors.

My faith is not about to be shattered because God did not prevent the printer of the NAB RE large print 2011 edition from misspelling ‘whoever’ as ‘whever’ in the Gospel of Matthew - which amounts to essentially your point.

 

[rossum]

So you are claiming that “inspired” means that every time a printer or copyist outputs a version of the Bible, a hand of God will descend from Heaven and make editorial fixes as needed?

No. I was responding to your post:

Perhaps minor textual errors likewise serve a purpose that you are completely unaware of. (emphasis added)

What I showed was not a “minor textual error”. It shows that God does not specially protect copies of His book from either minor or major textual errors.

rossum