External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday

    Lovely Lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of Jesus' which I think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about God's existence. She said she wanted to start another thread about proof that God exists so I figured I would. So this thread would be for actual proof of God. In an attempt to get some actual points put down here from theists and atheists alike I want to curb a couple of the arguments that will indoubtably cause a roundabout argument.

    Here goes with the list:

    Prophesies: if you're going to use them make sure they can be proven as being written BEFORE they were fulfilled. Make sure they're not self-fulfilling; as in someone purposely doing what's noted in the prophesy with the express purpose of fulfilling said prophesy. If someone wrote someone fulfilled a prophesy and had access to the original prophesy AND was writing the fulfillment of the prophesy that's not compelling evidence.

    Scientific Knowledge: If you're going to use this argument make sure it's knowledge that was CLEARLY not known at the time of the writing, and also that the scientific knowledge is the reason for it being mentioned. For instance Israelites not eating pork did not specify the reason for such was to avoid trichinosis they were just told not to eat pork. Greek scholars had theorized a heliocentric universe before the bible stated it and independent of any divine claims so the "circle" of the Earth argument might not really fly here.

    Miracles: If you're going to use these make sure they are verifiable by more than one person, and that person should not be in any highly emotional or altered state. Also miracles are not a close-calls, they are something impossible occurring when someone asks God for it to happen. As for Faith Healing please don't bring this up unless it is verifiable by more than one source and those sources cannot be in a highly excitable or altered state. Curing stuttering, demon-possession, hiccups, speaking in tongues and the like are not good evidence, if there is a story of cancer then there should be multiple examples of the person having cancer then verifiable proof that the cancer had been cured.

    Direct Manifestation: If you're going to bring this up (like Mary's appearances) make sure there are multiple witnesses to this manifestation and that none of which are in the aforementioned highly emotional state or an altered state.

    Religion: If you're going to use religion, can you avoid mentioning the growing numbers, lots of religions have growing numbers the growth doesn't mean one specifically is right and proof of God. Make sure there's not internal factions, if they can't agree on what God is why is one definition proof of God? Make sure the Religion hasn't been responsible for atrocities, not just members themselves (avoiding personal attack fallacy) but if the religion at some point had the power to commit atrocities BECAUSE of their God, they're better left out. Did they even win all of these holy wars to begin with?

    Personal Experience: Conversion stories, subjective evidence are not hard concrete evidence. Anyone can have a moment of weakness. It would be assuming that people can have completely convincing subjective experiences and not be incorrect. Since this is mostly a board of Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses we all know people can be completely convinced of something in their heart and be wrong.

    Finally if you're going to use Creationism, can we steer clear of Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski and the various other Discovery Institute's minions. If you quote one study that proves a young earth, but someone else quotes 5 studies that disprove that you'll find it hard to convince anyone here. Also when someone performs an experiment with the express purpose of proving an "intelligent designer" then the agenda is a bit skewed and can produce questionable results. Closely linked with intelligent design is the use of creation itself as the proof, which is a fallacy in and of itself, if creation needs a creator because it exists then the creator himself needs a creator because he exists. And I've seen beautiful paintings that were caused by 2 paint buckets being dropped onto a canvas due to a flood in a basement so let's avoid the painting analogy could we?

    This thread is for external (outside the bible), observable (by people who are not crazy), and verifiable (can be proved) evidence of God.

  • Open mind
  • Open mind
    Open mind

    First post was not an error.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Tuesday,

    I object to your calling my Jesus thread useless, for that is your opinion only. But we can agree to disagree and still be friends, o.k.?

    2nd I think just by the fact that you are already defining what "types" of proof you will accept, is evidence that this thread is going to be yet another useless thread on whether or not God exists.

    But that being said, I will try to explain why this ONE believer (me) feels that a God (or higher power) must exist. Although this will probably be just a useless mental excercise in the long run because you can't "prove" God does not exist, anymore than I can "prove" he does, and the "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder.

    But here goes;

    The other day I was watching a show on the history channel about the Big Bang theory. In it, a scientist said that the "big bang" was actually not proof of the "origin" of the universe but is a scientific term that describes what happened AFTER the universe was already in existance, that explains the expansion of the universe. In other words "big bang" = expansion of universe. Not origin of universe. Thus if science says the universe had a beginning, there must have been a "cause" bringing it about. Cause = beginning very simple scientific principle (causation)

    Believers say that this "cause" was God. Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". (universe)

    What say you as an athiest that if the universe had a beginning, there must have been a cause? Lilly

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Tuesday,

    I will check your answer tomarrow and have more "proof" for my view. Thanks Lilly

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    I think Tuesday's parameters were reminders of what "proof" actually is, rather than an arbitrary level that he personally would find acceptable...

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo
    Direct Manifestation: If you're going to bring this up (like Mary's appearances) make sure there are multiple witnesses to this manifestation and that none of which are in the aforementioned highly emotional state or an altered state.

    Well Mary posts quite regularly on JWD and elsewhere and we've all witnessed her posts and Mouthy has met her several times and none of us were delusional or emotional at the time and we can still check her post history and its still there and...

    um, does that count?

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday

    I object to your calling my Jesus thread useless, for that is your opinion only. But we can agree to disagree and still be friends, o.k.?

    OK, I'll say we're friends, I apologize for the useless remark.

    2nd I think just by the fact that you are already defining what "types" of proof you will accept, is evidence that this thread is going to be yet another useless thread on whether or not God exists.

    The defining terms is simply trying to stop proofs that will be used that have no verifiable or objective nature to them. I tried to curb these arguments because they are used frequently and rarely actually prove anything, I didn't say you couldn't use them. You can, I (and most atheists) find them unconvincing and usually have responses to all of them.

    The other day I was watching a show on the history channel about the Big Bang theory. In it, a scientist said that the "big bang" was actually not proof of the "origin" of the universe but is a scientific term that describes what happened AFTER the universe was already in existance, that explains the expansion of the universe. In other words "big bang" = expansion of universe. Not origin of universe. Thus if science says the universe had a beginning, there must have been a "cause" bringing it about. Cause = beginning very simple scientific principle (causation)

    Believers say that this "cause" was God. Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". (universe)

    OK so the proof for the big bang if I recall correctly is that the planets and stars were observed as slowly moving apart from each other and therefore if you play the tape in reverse they must've been together and something seperated them. The problem with your statement is you're assuming there was a cause for all of it. There's a theory of Matter (which the name escapes me now but was brought up in the Rational Response Squad's debate with Kirk Cameron) which states that matter/energy just always existed. Science says the universe has a beginning from the big bang but the matter for the universe always existed. Your next comment I'm sure will be something like "Well then what created the matter?" The answer is nothing, it was always there. Which the next comment is "Everything has a beginning?" Which my next comment is "Then God had a beginning, and he must've had a creator...and so forth and so on..." If God didn't need a creator to exist, neither did the mass that was burst apart to create the universe. Just because the matter broke apart doesn't mean it needed a cause for it to happen, I drop a hammer on my foot, it doesn't require a cause it just happened. (this is actually why I included it in my initial list of things to avoid using when trying to prove God, because this is essentially using creation as the reason, because it exists it must have a beginning. I said that I and many atheists would already have an answer for it.)

    If someone can get me the name of that theory I'd be appreciative.

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    I think your conditions for scientific evidence are flawed.

    Science is, by nature a developing of knowledge and theory - true the laws are always there, but not all fully known at any one time - therefore to cite your example about not eating pork - they might not have then known about the parasites which were present - their scientific knowledge told them that a) pork doesn't stay fresh for very long in warm temperatures and b) it goes off quickly (no refrigeration back then lol), c) for 'some reason' it can make you pretty sick!

    So, they make a law saying it's 'unclean'.

    Nowadays, we do know about the parasites and the need for refrigeration of pork - through scientific development and we can take appropriate precautions.

    The same for shellfish - they can't have known that these creatures are essentially vacuum cleaners of the seas/rivers, they just knew that you can get sick eating them - so they were banned as 'unclean'

    What better deterrent was there than potential 'punishment' (ie sickness/death) supposedly from God for eating 'unclean' foods?

    And who's to say that scientific knowledge won't one day develop enough to prove the existence of a creator? There is still so much we just don't know yet.

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday
    their scientific knowledge told them that a) pork doesn't stay fresh for very long in warm temperatures and b) it goes off quickly (no refrigeration back then lol), c) for 'some reason' it can make you pretty sick!

    So, they make a law saying it's 'unclean'.

    Nowadays, we do know about the parasites and the need for refrigeration of pork - through scientific development and we can take appropriate precautions.

    The same for shellfish - they can't have known that these creatures are essentially vacuum cleaners of the seas/rivers, they just knew that you can get sick eating them - so they were banned as 'unclean'

    What better deterrent was there than potential 'punishment' (ie sickness/death) supposedly from God for eating 'unclean' foods?

    That argument is actually saying that through the eating of pork and getting sick people then invented the law that eating pork was unclean. That was in the Mosaic Law which was given unto Moses. No where does it say that you will get sick from eating pork. Your argument is actually proof that man used God to explain things he didn't understand.

    - Man gets sick from eating pork

    - Explination: God must've made pork unclean to eat.

    Remember this is external, observable, verifiable evidence. Man learning something from trial and error then attributing the mal-effects to God isn't really evidence of God, or even God knowing more about anything than man. You've actually proved my point towards pork far more than I could've. I don't really think the Scientific Data provision is really flawed there, I'm saying that the reason "God said this way back when and now it turns out it was bad for you" isn't really proof for God because as you deduced in your post Man could've figured out that it was bad and attributed the effects to some unknown reason put in place by God. If there's real observable, verifiable evidence that God mentioned something that was later revealed through science specifically I'd love to hear it.

    Thanks for the post though, I find this rather interesting.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit