I couldn't care less what your academic credentials are.

To begin with, your total and utter misrepresentation of evolution and what science supposedly knows does not "prove" the existence of the Abrahamic God anyway.

Moreover, what you call a discussion of "character" I see as being relavent FACTS.

The Abrahamic mythology is based on the premise that mankind brought sin, imperfection and death into the world. Yet, scientific observations have confirmed that this is not possible because imperfections and death had been a natural part of life long before mankind ever came onto the scene. So clearly the very basis of the Bibical myth is caught red-handed in a lie. It's obviously a story that was made up by men who simply didn't know any better.

End of story.

So not only can the mythology not be proven, but it can be shown to be utterly false, just like Greek Mythology.

So the answer to the question in the OP is "No", the Biblical God cannot be proven to exist, because just the opposite can be shown to be true. It's clearly a man-made fable. No doubt about it.

I'm just giving my view from my life's experience and knowledge.

If you disagree with that, fine. But your comments about evolution don't serve to prove the existence of any Biblical God at all. On the contrary it only goes to show your utter misunderstanding of what science actually knows about evolution.

Now if "God" is defined and described as an individual sovereign entity that got creative and somehow engineered Adam and Eve, then he (or she) must exist somewhere in this universe or in the next universe.

If you believe this to be true, I have a few questions.

1. Does he have a body similar looking to ours?
2. If not, what does it look like?
3. Where and how does it live?
4. If this God does NOT have a body, describe him/her/It please.

I think you may be confused regarding the meaning of one of those two words.



I was so breif, and yet you missed that fact that I pointed out your use of a straw man? And highlighted that the center of one of your arguments was something as idiotic as "periodicity implies deity" ?



And you are also aware that this is thought to have happened extremely gradually, from the point of view of an individual - with the slight variation of genes from one generation to the next? If you know this, then you can see for yourself why one of your arguments simply didn't make any sense at all.



That is an excellent question! I salute the people (science literates and science illiterates) who pursue an answer to that question, rather than throw up their hands and say 'couldn't be!'.



Thank you so much! While the history channel, as an entertainment company, has their own history of making misleading and wrong claims, I won't argue with the idea of a 5% tolerance; sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and not the least bit incredible.



Do you honestly think this is relevant to the conversation?



I absolutely presume, on occasion, to be more reasonable and rational than some scientists, preeminent or otherwise. Scientists are people too, we all have our blind spots. Oh, and yes I have found myself at times being more knowledgeable than the scientists I have met in everyday life (obscure, bottom tier scientists)....cool thing about these people, if you can justify your claims they will listen.




Did someone say it did? Is one of us lacking in reading comprehension?

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and exercises domain over man and all of creation.

I'm glad someone else stepped forward to say this. I completely agree.

To say that it is imagined, is not to say that it is wrong; it is simply be literal and accurate regarding my perception of the limitations of our knowledge. I think that evolutionary theory is severely flawed. Not as head-up-the-*** wrong as creationism, but still quite flawed.



Not me! There is a great deal we can't prove, this doesn't render all non-proven propositions equal.

WTF? Bigfoot???

Alright, I'm gonna take alot of heat for this...

1. No, and I'll paraphrase the Bible where it says that God (from our perspective) is unknowable, unfathomable and man cannot look at the face of Him.
2. (see #1)
3. God is everywhere and everything.
4. (see #1) but I will say that I have my theories. Before matter was formed, there was nothing(ness?). That is God.

From who? Other Christians, who prefer their particular interpretation?

That's the problem right there. Even religious people argue about God.



Sounds like Eastern Mysticism to me. I'll agree with that one.

So where's Satan then?

If God is everywhere and everything that doesn't leave any room for Satan to get around much.

The Bible describes God many different ways, but also says that God walked in the garden of Eden with Adam, and it says that man was designed in God's image, which means that God looked quite human.

There are as many descriptions of God in the Bible as there are everywhere else. Nobody really has one, so nobody can say God exists if they can't describe him.

If God is unknowable then what use is he? (she or it) ?

There are several accounts in the Bible where God speaks directly to individual humans. God spoke to Moses directly, God also spoke to Job. God spoke to Abraham, and as JB mentioned, God spoke with Adam, and Cain.

Also, in the New Testament, Matthew writes that God spoke to the crowd at the river when Jesus was batized by John. God's voice came from the sky and said, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well-pleased".

I might add that Matthew is the only author to write his, and Matthew wrote a lot extreme stuff that appears nowhere else in the Bible. For example, Matthew is the only gospel that states then when Jesus rose from the dead so did many saints who even went into the Holy City and appeared to many people. Funny how there is no account about that from anywhere other than the Book of Matthew. Me thinks Matthew liked to make things up.

In any case, clearly there are many accounts where the Biblical God is conversing with or speaking directly to humans. So the story is just plain inconsistent in what it claims about its ficticious god.

it is a metaphor. god walking with someone can be taken to mean that god "was with" that person in some unspecified way. that the descriptions vary is an expression of the different expressions of the various elements of god. "in god's image" merely expresses that aspects of god may be found within humankind - it is silly to interpret these religious writings literally as a direct physical resemblance.

see my earlier post. god can be described and known - depending on the definition of god - but there are several definitions i cite a page or two back which are completely consistent with pretty much all religious concepts of god.

so, choose your religion. it is the same god. which myth you read and whichever observances or rituals you follow are irrelevant to god. just be nice. everybody agrees that god wants you to be nice....

Except radical Islam

that's why i said..."be nice"!

There are many people who most certainly DO take everything written in the Bible literally.

If you want to call the Bible a "metaphor" then people should stop trying to call it a history book. If the Bible stories are metaphor, then they can be translated any way one chooses to translate them. Even the savior himself could be treated as a metaphor for a state of consciousness. The Christ consciousness is our savior, and it is a state of grace and love that we all aspire to. There was no real man who walked the earth, died for our sins etc. It was all a metaphor.

You can't have it both ways.

The Bible makes no sense as a historical text.
It is metaphor. It is a story.

The principal value of the Bible is its use as
a starting point in discussing religion, philosophy
and ethics. Nothing wrong with that.

That does not settle the question of whether
Jesus really existed or what he may have really
been like, or the nature of god. But merely
represents some of mankind's early (inspired)
attempts to understand these issues.

god can simply be discussed independently of the
bible or any specific religion in this way:

http://www.mingle2.com/topic/show/257613?page=26

A starting point?

I don't think so. The whole point of the Bible is that it's the LAST WORD. Hardly a "starting point". Disagree with the Bible and you are a HEATHEN!

That's a major theme of the story. "I am a jealous God! Thou shalt not have any other Gods before ME!"

That's hardly a 'starting point' for discussion. That's a proclaimation that this book is the FINAL WORD!

And that's what makes it so dangerous. And, of course, this also holds to for the Torah and Quran since the Bible is just a spin-off of those previous myths. All the Abrahamic religions are based on the idea of a single jealous God who won't tolerate rejection of "His Word".

This is the very mentality that led to the cruficifixion of Jesus who clearly did not agree with all the moral values that had been written in the Old Texts.

Thanks S1owhand

I like the way you think.