• RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 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@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          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@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 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…