Proof God does not exist

CassinoChips

Get out.
Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
3,521
Gil
5,002
Gold Points
15
Community Tokens
0
Death of the first-born child: It could have been due to God, or it could have been due to the fact that the eldest child gets the largest rations at dinner. Maybe the food had turned bad.
Swarms of locust: Again, it could have been God's work, or maybe there was a sudden break in the ecosystem through some elegant shift in nature that caused locusts to swarm through the desert in monstrous swarms.
Agreed. But you have to take the whole chain of events into consideration. i.e. All 10 plagues.

1) Nile turns to blood: Toxic algal bloom, similar to what we know as red tide. Physteria literally dissolves still living fish.

2) Plague of frogs: No fish means nothing to eat frog spawn. Leads to overpopulation. The toxins in the water force the frogs (and toads) away from the river.

3) Plague of lice: Egyptians referred to over 100 species of insect as "lice." With the frogs and other amphibians carrying the toxins out of the water, they die quickly, leading to a reduced number of natural predators for insects.

4) Plague of flies: Millions of dead fish and amphibians attract flies.

5) Livestock deaths: Most likely blue tongue for the cattle, and African horse sickness for the horses, both of which are spread by a particular louse.

6) Boils: Glanders, which is a bacterial infection spread by stable flies.

7) Hailstorm: A natural event. Even today there are hailstorms in the Middle East.

8) Swarms of locusts: Again, a natural occurrence.

9) Darkness: Sandstorms. Or an eclipse.

10) Death of the Firstborn: The grain was harvested after/during the swarms of locusts, so there was a significant amount of locust droppings on the harvested material. The grain was stored in a grain house, and covered in sand, making a hot and humid environment, perfect for the growth of bacteria and fungus. A mycotoxin grew on mold that developed on the grains.

In Egyptian culture, the firstborn get an extra helping at meals, which gave them, and only them, a lethal dose of the toxin.

But the thing that gets me is this: All this happened over a short period of time. It was so dramatic, that Egypt lost their slaves,, they even found chariots at the bottom of the sea.
The story is being re-told, so the timeline may have been condensed. But it probably did all take place within either one growing cycle, or one year.

As far as the chariots... not really. The Hebrew text was translated incorrectly (The Bible? Mistranslated? Get outta town. Get right outta town.) to Red Sea, when it should have been Sea of Reeds. As in the marshes that dot the delta of the Nile. Also, there is no hard evidence that anything resembling a chariot was found at the bottom of the Red Sea, and even if it was, there's nothing to make it certain that it was specifically from that particular event.
 

Sum1sgruj

Banned
Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
763
Age
30
Location
Virginia, USA
Gil
847
Gold Points
0
Community Tokens
0
It's scientifically beautiful, but there are flaws in that theory. If the toxic algae had flooded the Nile, it would've gone into the irrigation systems that supplied water to the crops and therefore produced toxic runoff into the grain. When they were harvested, they would have then been exposed to what you said: bacteria and fungus.
The grains would've been highly toxic to anyone, but lethality: what about the pharoah and everyone in those royal circles who ate just as well? Or the very young and very old who would've also died from consumption of those grains? There would have been no punctuation on the 1st borns that met the eye. Many more would've died to.
Hail, sandstorms, and eclipses aren't exactly mega-million lottery occurrences. They wouldn't have been fooled by natural happenings, at least not in relevance.
The splitting of the sea is something that cannot be explained reasonably. The chances of any major natural phenomena occurring with the sea right as they fled Egypt are astronomically slim. In fact, if I was an atheist, I'd start seeking deeper truths of the universe rather than trying to find one on this planet>

Like me :D, I'm torn if there is actually a thing such as 'divinity'. A higher power, of course, but to put it bluntly: mankind is still wayyy far behind to assume anything is divine_
For example: If an ancient Egyptian saw a TV, he would foolishly, yet wholeheartedly believe it to be divine

Food for thought. I love saying it :awesome:
 

CassinoChips

Get out.
Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
3,521
Gil
5,002
Gold Points
15
Community Tokens
0
It's scientifically beautiful, but there are flaws in that theory. If the toxic algae had flooded the Nile, it would've gone into the irrigation systems that supplied water to the crops and therefore produced toxic runoff into the grain
Egyptians used floodplain farming. There was no irrigation. If the algal bloom happened in June, during the flood season, and set off the chain of events, it could/would have dispersed by the time growing season, let alone harvest season began.

The grains would've been highly toxic to anyone, but lethality: what about the pharoah and everyone in those royal circles who ate just as well? Or the very young and very old who would've also died from consumption of those grains? There would have been no punctuation on the 1st borns that met the eye. Many more would've died to.
Adults were less susceptible to disease than children. The very young, as I said, unless they were the firstborn, did not get those extra helpings, which would not have given them a lethal dose of the mycotoxin.


Hail, sandstorms, and eclipses aren't exactly mega-million lottery occurrences. They wouldn't have been fooled by natural happenings, at least not in relevance.
On their own, no. But on the heels of the six previous plagues, that's a different story.

The splitting of the sea is something that cannot be explained reasonably. The chances of any major natural phenomena occurring with the sea right as they fled Egypt are astronomically slim.
So we're accepting that as an accurate re-telling of events? And not a nice story to tell the kids?

But I did find this article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/science/la-sci-red-sea-20100921
 

Sum1sgruj

Banned
Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
763
Age
30
Location
Virginia, USA
Gil
847
Gold Points
0
Community Tokens
0
Alright, alright. I see how they could have been distraught by so many natural phenomena occurring at once. But the theory on the sea splitting is not something to be taken abroad by winds and fluid dynamics.
Such an insanely rare series of events seems a little shaky when you consider everything, does it not? Unless science can make a more concrete theory which broaden the chances, it can't be totally cut out that it wasn't the work of God. After all, those rare occurrences paved a way for an exodus,, at the same exact moment Moses decided to try the Pharoah.
If Moses lived today, I daresay he'd win the mega-millions 10 times in a row. :D That's gotta be around the same odds.
 
Top Bottom