External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday

    Alright folks sit down and get comfortable because I'm responding to 2 posts here by Lil. I apologize to anyone in advance who doesn't like reading long posts.

    First I'll state this post was to show "External, Observable, Verifiable" evidence of God existing. No where in the post was I saying that I would be dis-proving the existence of God. I know Theists will love hearing this, Atheists don't prove anything we just disprove the proofs for God. So let's go into the response to Lil's responses YAY!

    First of all, you admit in your post in response to mine that the universe "had a beginning", but you say I am assuming that if it had a beginning, something caused it? Well, my friend, I am not assuming anything. I am using a basic scientific principle which is "cause and effect". Since science teaches that the universe had a beginning, it must have had a "cause".
    Again, the big bang theory only explains the expansion of the universe or how it grew to the point it is now. Not how it originally came into being or existance or what caused the universe to begin.
    So the scientific principle that to have a beginning, there must have been a cause, (cause and effect) has to stand.

    OK so your argument is cause and effect, I'm assuming since you basically said that if something had a beginning something caused that beginning. You ascertain that God has no beginning I ascertain the Universe had no beginning, you state the law of Cause and Effect anI state the First Law of Thermodynamics which states "All matter and energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed". There are tests for this, I'm sure you can look them up if you so choose. Basically if a building is in existence and I blow it up, it doesn't dissapear the matter which makes up that building is still around it's just in a thousand different pieces (or more). Also I cannot conjure up a building out of thin air, the materials to build that building have to be around for me to use them in order to build that building. So according to the First Law of Thermodynamics God couldn't have created the universe from nothing, he would've had to have had the materials available to build it from.

    Now, my evidence stands unless you can contradict it. Since you are the one putting "on trial" my view, the burden of proof falls on you to show evidence that proves otherwise. You simply cannot do that at this time because to do so you will first have to contradict the scientific principle of "cause and effect" which is my first evidence.
    By saying "nothing caused it", is not enough. Because science says this is impossible. Again, to have a beginning, you MUST have a cause. Now, you must disprove that scientific theory. Until then, this case is closed. Peace, Lilly

    I cannot disprove the scientific principle of cause and effect, but can you disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics? Your argument is the appeal to ignorance, since we don't know what created the big bang or in a larger sense we don't know what caused the beginning of the universe we insert something into it. I'm simply stating that due to the First Law of Thermodynamics no matter can be created or destroyed, therefore it always existed. Once again the post is "External, Observable, Verifiable" evidence that God exists. It is not "Since there is no answer I insert God". I don't know if you have ever heard of Occam's Razor, it's from a philosopher in the 1400/1500's which states "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best". The simplest thing to say is "The universe has always been in existence" I don't need to conjure up some omnicient being that had to have caused it and created it.

    So that's the first post; on to the second one:

    I just went back and read your reply to me and I must say it is the worst reasoning I have ever seen against "cause and effect". Here is my point. You said this;
    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.
    I assert that dropping a hammer on your foot does indeed require a cause - the "cause" was you let go of the hammer. If you do not let go of the hammer (cause), it could not drop and hit your foot.

    I don't recall trying to "disprove" the principle of cause and effect in my response, simply that matter always existed and the big bang itself did not need a specific cause. But if you want to spout theories (like God caused the matter to break apart from the big bang) I could say a milenia of friction from all matter rubbing together caused enough dynamic energy to blow it apart. There I'm using the scientific principle that "every action causes an opposite and reaction". I'm sure you would say "what caused them to rub together"? We can play this theorizing game all day if you want, in the end it comes down to you "Think" God is the cause for all of it, I'm stating he isn't. This thread is for "External, Observable, Verifiable" evidence. Inputing God in for an unknown is still appealing to ignorance "I don't know what the answer is so I say it's God".

    So you admit that some "things" can always exist and have no beginning?
    Then I can rightfully assert that God is one of those "things".
    This is my favorite and actually makes a good case for God. You say;
    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.
    Tuesday, What IS God exactly? No one really knows. But, there are many scriptural texts that try to describe God, which is virtually impossible. But he is often discribed as a "brightness" never before seen, or "glorious bright light" that we cannot see or we will die. Anther verse calls him "an abundance of dynamic energy". So "God" could very well be the "energy" you say always existed.
    The same goes for matter. Matter is what makes up everything and is in everything correct?
    Ephesians 4:6
    6one God and Father of all, who is over alland through all and in all.
    What exactly does it mean to be in all and through all?
    I don't really know but if God exists (and I assert that he does) he must be made of some kind of matter and the Bible says he is "in all, and through all". Again, you claim that some matter and energy always existed. I say I agree and that this matter and energy that always existed is "GOD" And since NO ONE knows what God "IS" exactly, because peole have only seen God in the flesh, as the person of Jesus Christ, and not "him" in his original form, we cannot rule out this possibility. Peace, Lilly

    With your opinion of God you're admitting that things can have no beginning, you can't have it both ways. Cause and Effect is the argument you're using, you can't say "The matter exists so it has to have a cause and that cause is God" and when I answer with "Matter always existed it cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed" you use that to prove that "God always existed and doesn't need a cause". You have to stick to one argument here, either cause and effect is true about the universe in which case EVERYTHING needs a cause to exist (which would include God, he exists therefore he needs a cause). Or the "Matter cannot be created and cannot be destroyed" which means that it always existed and needs no God explination it can just exist like God can just exist. God doesn't need a creator, neither does the universe.

    Lil, you read my points about what arguments are not proof, I said External (outside of the bible) which you contiually use to prove your point. "God created the heavens and the earth" that's fine and well but the Bible says God did, the Qu'ran says Allah did, Egyptian tablets say Ra did, Oral tradition says that many other Gods did, there's even another version of the bible that says the Flying Spaghetti Monster did. There are many "holy" works that say some divine being "created" the universe. The burden is EXTERNAL of this. The second thing I said is Observable, you're using Cause and Effect and I'm using the First Law of Thermodynamics. The argument is I haven't seen anything that doesn't have a creator, but you haven't seen anything appear out of thin air (actually in the Universe's case it wouldn't even be air yet). Black Holes pop up here and there in space, they're made up of the matter that makes up space but there's no disernable reason for them appearing, I say they have a cause, I don't know what that cause is. Does that mean God did it? Sure, could be, God could be creating Black Holes left and right throughout the whole universe, who knows? But Allah could be creating them, Martians could be creating them, Bill Gates could be creating them, The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be creating them. Saying you don't know what the answer is and that's the reason why it's God does not PROVE your point, it just proves you don't know the answer and choose to fill that gap with God. Finally the last thing I said was Verifiable, the only thing you've verified is the principle of cause and effect. Yes it exists, and yes it is correct, in which case it applies to everything (even God). Once again you can't use Cause and Effect to prove the universe needed a creator and then use the First Law of Thermodynamics to prove that God didn't, if the First Law applies in God's case it also applies in the universe's case.

    All of your arguments are essentially arguments from ignorance, since "no one knows" what God is he could be matter, since "no one knows" the cause of the big bang it could be God. Since "no one knows" what something is doesn't mean it exists, "no one knows" for sure what is in the dead center of the earth, no one has been there, it could be a large white unicorn, or a demon, or a magical elf named Mike. Since "no one knows" what God is he could be matter, he could be energy, he could be limberger cheese. I can't disprove that God isn't matter, and you can't disprove that he's limberger cheese "no one knows". I could write a book tomorrow claiming to be inspired by God that states he's actually a moving puppet made of blue cheese salad dressing that enjoys watching people change into black underwear, in 2000 years it could become gospel. It doesn't prove anything.

    External (OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE), Observable (Able To Be Seen), and Verifiable ("no one knows" therefore it could be doesn't fly here, verifiable through evidence).

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    journey,

    I agree with a lot of what you said. We do not have the answers to everything. I believe in a "GOD" that brought the existance of everything into being (was the cause of all). He is a much higher intelligence than we are. Other than that, I cannot explain exactly "what" God is. I only know he is not a human like us.

    Like you said, we have debated this many times and there is no way to "prove" either side to other one's satisfaction. Because the evidence is in the eye of the beholder. But Science has never conclusively ruled out God, and that is a fact.

    I only entertained this thread with Tuesday to show him that Science has NEVER concluded that a "GOD" absolutely CANNOT exist, so since he puts his faith in science, niether can he. Peace, Lilly

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Tuesday, I've been sufficiently convinced through the circumstances in my life that God exists and he cares. Like I say, I am not intending to prove to you that God exists, so my testimony will not be sufficient for you according to your criteria. I would correct you on one point of your assessment. My children, specifically, will tell you that our little family is where it is today because of God's intervention in our lives. That's three witnesses.

    Here's a small example of God's intervention. After Ieft my husband, he tracked me down and took my toddler son from me. After my son was in his custody for about a month, I noted evidence of bruising on our son's face during a counselling session. I confronted my husband about it, and he took off. I reported the incident tot he police and I prayed. The police found his apartment abandoned.

    The next day I get a call from the Edmonton International Airport. Was xx my son, and xx my husband? Was my son missing? Would I like to come pick him up? My husband had one-way tickets to Montreal. The only reason my husband was apprehended is that he chatted up his bus mate out to the airport. His bus mate immediately reported his odd behavior to the authorities at the airport.

    Here's the miracle part. The bus mate just happened to be the British High Commissioner of Canada.

    As you know, Tuesday, I am a fan of reason. I dislike religious arguments based on false assumptions and bad reasoning. I undertand completely where you are coming from in that there is no external, verifiable, irrefutable evidence of God that can convince an objective observer. This may disturb some believers, who think their beliefs are based on irrefutable facts. They are not.

    Belief is a matter of faith, and it must always be individual. I think being a reasonable Christian demands more faith than to be an apologist. Because I have admitted that the foundation of my faith cannot be proven by any objective means.

    Big Tex, here's a fourth option I've considered (4) God is compassionate but he is not all-powerful and cannot intervene in all circumstances.

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday

    A couple of points to make quickly.

    I only entertained this thread with Tuesday to show him that Science has NEVER concluded that a "GOD" absolutely CANNOT exist, so since he puts his faith in science, niether can he. Peace, Lilly

    Once again this thread is for External, Observable, Verifiable evidence of God. This is not a thread to input imaginary beings into the answers for the unknown. Science hasn't disproven that martians, cat litter, a giant sea turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or Kevin Spacey created the universe. Since they can't DISPROVE it that doesn't make it true.

    I don't put my faith in science, they can prove laws to me, they can show me evidence. There has yet to be one shred of actual verifiable evidence on this thread for the proof or existence of God. Filling in the gap of the unknown is not verifiable, observable and external proof.

    Here's the miracle part. The bus mate just happened to be the British High Commissioner of Canada.

    You have a very nice story, it's nice to hear your expirience. However, while this was a high inprobability it wasn't an impossiblity. Parting the Red Sea was an impossiblity, a pillar of fire guiding Israelites through the universe is an impossiblity, me meeting John Cena is a high improbablity yet it has happened. It was a high improbability that I would meet up with an old friend of mine from high school on the road from Rhode Island to Kentucky at an exit I never planned to stop at when we were going 2 seperate places. I wouldn't say it was a miracle, once again you have to define miracle. It was a beneficial coincidence, but there's no external proof or even verifiable proof that God was intervening to make this happen. Many people are quoted in Watchtower articles stating that certain things were miracles that converted them to become Jehovah's Witnesses.

    My children, specifically, will tell you that our little family is where it is today because of God's intervention in our lives. That's three witnesses

    This is again the gap complex, explaining away the unexplainable. Beneficial circumstances, but still a possiblity of coincidence. You're a highy logical person but this is still explaining away the unexplainable with the divine.

    Belief is a matter of faith, and it must always be individual. I think being a reasonable Christian demands more faith than to be an apologist. Because I have admitted that the foundation of my faith cannot be proven by any objective means.
    That's kind of what this whole thing boils down to. Lil has faith the unexplainable is explained through God, she stated she is certain. There's a thread that was posted that was "external" evidence that Jesus existed which is where this spawned off of. I don't care if people think that God exists, I don't mind if people want to talk about their faith, I'm actually encouraged with people trying to lead better lives. I don't like people being dishonest with me in saying that through Science they can prove God, or Externally of the bible they can prove God. At best Science proves that there are some unanswered questions in the world, I can accept they're unanswerable I don't fill in God with the answer. If you have Faith that God is there that's fine, faith is not External, Observable or Verifiable.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Tuesday,

    I am sorry but I have to stick to scientific principles. One is that the universe had a beginning and therefore must of had a cause. The program I was watching agreed with me. And I am no scientist but it makes sense, since "cause and effect" applies to everything in our universe and is one of the "laws of nature".

    On the program it said the "big bang" explains the expansion of the universe only but not how the universe came into existence to begin with. Science simply does not know the "cause" of the universe beginning. Therefore, I am sticking by my last post and saying again that since science does not know for sure what the "cause" was, you cannot conclusively rule out God as being said cause.

    You wanted proof and I have kept it to science. It is a verifiable, external and observable fact that 'cause and effect" is a universal law and that if science says the universe had a beginning, which they say it did, then it must of had a cause.

    I am not letting you get out of this that fast. Now, you must either 1) disprove the law of cause and effect 2)prove beyond a doubt "cause and effect" cannot apply to our universe and its beginning (something science does not even do, because they admit they do not know) or 3)prove that the unknown "cause" could NOT have been God.

    Peace, Lilly

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    jgnat,

    I liked your story. So glad prayer worked for you and you were reunited with your precious son.

    I agree that ultimately belief in God IS all about faith. Athiests of course hate that answer and accuse us of using the "faith card". But it is, what it is.

    However, I do firmly believe there is evidence in the universe that points to a God, and that God did this on purpose. I also believe that if non-believers would just let their guards down, just a little, and look around, they will see it too. Of course, having come out of a cult like the WT, many people never take their guard down again.

    Science simply does not explain everything. Science has never proved a God cannot exist and cannot prove it, anymore than we as believers can use the bible to disprove science. Peace, Lilly

  • diamondblue1974
    diamondblue1974
    External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

    Which God? Are we merely referring to a male God or is this discussion to include external, observable, verifiable evidence of divinity as a whole?

    Why does this debate always relate to the judaeo-christian God?

    Gary

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday
    I am sorry but I have to stick to scientific principles. One is that the universe had a beginning and therefore must of had a cause. The program I was watching agreed with me. And I am no scientist but it makes sense, since "cause and effect" applies to everything in our universe and is one of the "laws of nature".

    Yup and another one is the First Law of Thermodynamics, I don't see you trying to disprove that. The First Law of Thermodynamics makes sense to me, matter always has and always does exist.

    I am sticking by my last post and saying again that since science does not know for sure what the "cause" was, you cannot conclusively rule out God as being said cause.

    and I'm sticking to my last post in saying that it hasn't conclusively ruled out Martians, Kitty litter, a giant sea turtle, the flying spaghetti monster or Kevin Spacey created the universe. The Gap clause is not a proof, it just means it's an unanswered question. If we don't know the answer it is not OK to stick any conclusion. You cannot conclusively disprove my statement that matter was in existence and through a milenia of friction broke apart and caused the universe to come to be.

    You wanted proof and I have kept it to science. It is a verifiable, external and observable fact that 'cause and effect" is a universal law and that if science says the universe had a beginning, which they say it did, then it must of had a cause

    That's not entirely true now is it, the concluding points in all of your hypotheses always ended in a scripture didn't it. If Matter always existed which science said it did, then prove to me that it was created by God. You can't do that either, I'll disprove cause and effect when you disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics.

    I am not letting you get out of this that fast. Now, you must either 1) disprove the law of cause and effect 2)prove beyond a doubt "cause and effect" cannot apply to our universe and its beginning (something science does not even do, because they admit they do not know) or 3)prove that the unknown "cause" could NOT have been God

    And the first post of this was me asking the Theists to prove External, Observable, Verifiable evidence of God. I have given you an alternate theory in which Matter through friction had exploded apart, I have stated another scientific law the First Law of Thermodynamics which goes along with the point that matter cannot be created or destroyed which works in conjunction with my theory. For God to have existed and create the universe then he had to have created matter and disproved this Scientific Law. So for me to disprove God I need to disprove cause and effect, but for you to prove God you have to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics. Once again your proof is that we don't know what caused the big bang therefore it was God. That's not scientific evidence, I state that a giant sea turtle is the cause of the beginning of the universe. To disprove this you have to disprove the law of cause and effect, prove beyond a doubtthat cause and effect cannot apply to our universe and it's begnning and prove that the unknown cause could NOT have been a giant sea turtle. The God of The Gaps principle is great in arguments because someone can't prove it's not true, but the theory can't be proven either. You have faith that God is the cause, I don't have faith that it was. It could've been a number of different reasons none of which involve God and we can postulate all day. I'm comfortable in saying that matter always existed and it burst apart to create the universe, I'm comfortable in not having an explination for it. It seems to me that theists HAVE to have an answer for the question. Once again as I said in a previous post Atheists don't prove anything, we just show why the proofs for God are not proofs. Because a cause is unknown doesn't make it God anymore than it makes it a giant sea turtle.

  • jgnat
    jgnat
    Lovelylil: I agree that ultimately belief in God IS all about faith. Athiests of course hate that answer and accuse us of using the "faith card". But it is, what it is.

    Here's an example of the misuse of the "faith card" that grits my teeth. An apologist will try and prove the existence of God using the bible, and summarily gets his reliance on the bible accounts trashed. He then pulls his faith card to forestall any more arguments. But his faith is misplaced. He neither proved the existence of God, proved the bible reliable, or supported his arguments.

    An apologist should at lease have the wherewethal to admit his claims are baseless.

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    I am sorry but I have to stick to scientific principles. One is that the universe had a beginning and therefore must of had a cause. The program I was watching agreed with me. And I am no scientist but it makes sense, since "cause and effect" applies to everything in our universe and is one of the "laws of nature".

    I wouldn't try to use scientific principles to explain God's existence. By doing so, you are undermining your own argument that God is 'all about faith', which is the most reasonable principle to stick to from the believer's perspective. So, when you say God is the cause of the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1), God is 'dynamic energy' (rendition of Hebr. 'onim' which lacks any connotation of 'energy'), you try to reinterpret ancient texts with their unsophisticated terminology in light of contemporary scientific insights. If you want to play the 'science card', you have to play it all the way. Thus, by saying God is the cause of the universe, you imply he participates in his own creation, thereby removing the gap between creator and creation. This is quite hazardous from your perspective because it implies God would be bereaved of all properties making him God, for instance perpetuity.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit