External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Tuesday

    So I guess this might be the final post on the subject, which might be for the betterment of the sanity of believers and non-believers on this board. I'll use my usual quote heavy response.

    The main reason why people like me continue to believe in God is this;

    We are ALIVE and LIVE in this universe that current science says "had a beginning", if it began "something" caused it to begin. Because science says there must be a "cause" if there is a beginning. I know we are going in circles on this, but this is a main point for believers, what was this "cause?". Science readily admits, it does not know.

    You may argue that energy was always here, but that still does not explain what set this energy in motion (expansion of the universe),which is "cause and effect" Nor, what harnessed this energy for use in bringing forth the abundance of different types of living forms that now exist on our earth. The chances of this happening on its own are astronomical, and science agrees "life cannot come from nothing" (or nonliving matter). This "evidence" points to some type of cause and "intelligence" really behind all living things.

    I don't argue that energy was always here, I site a law of science which I'm sure I could produce the studies if necessary that prove this is law. My argument is and has been God doesn't have to be the cause of anything, it could be a plethora of other reasons none of which involve a super intelligent being that decided to create us. I also need to point out, you are using scientific principles to prove the universe needed a creator but then throwing them out when the same is applied to God. Then when I use a scientific principle to show that things can always exist you apply that to God. If the universe needs a cause to be in existence because it is an existing thing which has a complexity to it then God needs a cause to be in existence because he/she/it is an existing thing which has complexity to he/she/it. The scientific principle either applies all the time in your argument or not at all. You can't have it both ways. If energy was re-arranged to make the universe then energy had to be re-arranged to make God. There's no getting around this, if the universe needs a creator due to these scientific principles then God needs one too. You stated here "the chances are astronomical" but there is a chance. And regarding Abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) science doesn't agree that life cannot come from non-life, I site Stanley Miller's expiriments which show that organic compounds can be generated from non-organic compounds.

    And when you look at living things and how they are made, you cannot wonder about the intelligence in their design. If even a simple structure (say a house) must have a designer, how can a more complicated "thing" such as a human body not have one?

    Some say this intelligence is in Nature, not God but then again, nature acts too within "laws of nature". Someone had to create laws for humans, so "who" or "what" created laws of nature? Since we need "intelligence" behind our laws, and we see intelligence behind natural laws, how can we think they came about on their own?

    I can believe they came about on their own easily, there's no proof of a creator creating it. The thing with your example about a house needing a designer is all well and good, but I can call the designer, I can look up who made the house, I can look in the official records, I can talk to people who were there, I can look up the original building permits. Many things come about spontaneously. If you want me to concede that because nature has "intelligence" in it's design and attribute that to God then I can also attribute the facts that we have twice as many nerve endings to feel pain as opposed to pleasure, nature is full of examples of kill-or-be-killed, nature is red in tooth and claw, everything is designed to simply survive and if their surviving is based upon the need to prey upon other animals they are (excuse the wording) perfectly designed to kill. There is nothing loving about nature if you look at it from the bottom of the food chain, or even if you look at it from our perspective. What's so "intelligent" about a shark attack, a bear attack, or a lion attack? And please don't use the Bible's account of the Garden of Eden because this is external for reasons I have listed in various previous posts. There is no proof that bears, sharks or lions were ever herbavores, or any proof that every animal at one time were herbavores. If God created it then he sure enjoys creating things that were specifically designed to kill the other things he created.

    The biggest proof of God is everything around you; Paul used a similiar point to the men in Athens;

    Romans 1:20

    For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    So forgetting the Bible for a minute, the ultimate proof of God you are seeking is in his creation. But since you do not accept "creation", God cannot nor will ever be proven to you. So we will just go back and forth on the same few points. However, Please think about this one thing, if you will and I will happily admit my defeat that I could not "prove" God to you.

    I will forget the bible as long as you stop bringing it into the conversation.

    This intelligence, or "cause", behind all living things and the universe, you are right to say May not have been God of the Bible. Although believers firmly disagree, you are entitled to your view also. But since science has never been able to fully rule out God, how can you and your fellow athiests, rule him out completely?

    I rule him out because there is no proof for him. Just because there is no proven answer doesn't mean that you can insert anything into it. I can't fully rule out God, just like I can't fully rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Allah, or Zeus, or Odin, or The Great Spirit. I'll gladly concede the point that I cannot fully rule out God if you also concede you can't fully rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Zeus, Odin, The Great Spirit, Hera, Hercules, The Smurfs, Green Cheese. If you're saying you don't know the answer, then you don't know it, you can't rule out any of those. I know for a believer it seems crass to suggest that any of those crazy creator possibilities, but in the end you're basically asking me to do the same. Because I cannot site a specific proof ruling out God I have to accept that it could be. The same turns around, you cannot site a specific proof ruling out any of those suggestions (externally of the bible of course) so you would have to admit you cannot rule them out completely.

    I guess its because not accepting God is a belief, that is as firm as the belief I have in accepting him? Anyway, since both sides are firm in their own belief system, the is there a God/ is there not a God is just an intellectual exercise. Since both sides are based on "faith" that what we believe is true, niether can provide any absolute evidence to convince the other.

    Once again I don't see how mine is a "faith", I don't fill in answers I don't know with a supreme diety. I say I don't know the answer, you don't know what the first number is and neither do I, we can both say we don't know the answer without making up a number that is the first. I don't have "faith" there is no creator, I simply say the proofs there (the bible, the environment, personal expiriences) are not enough for me to conclusively say there is a God. All examples are subjective in a way, as I think I proved in our various perspectives, you see a miracle and I see a coincidence (unless it's something spectacular like restoring lost limbs through prayer, moving mountains, parting the ocean, etc.), where you see a beautiful environment designed perfectly I see an environment full of killing, keen at every opportunity to inflict pain, and where you see a perfect holy book full of all the answers in the universe I see an inconsistent mish-mash of myth and folklore full of rape, animal mutilation and mass genocide. To each there own. You might have faith in God, I don't have faith in anything, prove it to me conclusively and I'll believe it, otherwise I won't. I don't have a firm belief there isn't a God, as soon as some undeniable evidence is provided I'll gladly believe in God, it would be nice to know I hadn't wasted the majority of my life talking to the wall.

  • Sirona

    Just one little point:

    I believe in god but not necessarily an entity with a singular consciousness. So arguments like "he doesn't tell us he exists" don't make sense because "he" doesn't say anything at all.

    However, if we are to assume GOD or GODDESS is a spirit, I can say that one reason I believe is because I've experienced interaction with spirit beings. These interactions have sometimes been when I've been alone (and are therefore subjective and unverifyable). Sometimes I've had spirit interaction where the spirit has given me a very specific message and this has later been proven to be the case - and the information was something I could not have known previously. Therefore I conclude that the spirit being did actually communicate with me (or I got the information by some extra sensory means which is currently not proven by science and I accidentally assumed this was from a conscious being).

    I have also experienced spirit contact in group settings, where members of the group experienced the same thing at the same time.

    I've had messages from spirit beings which I communicated to complete strangers, and the stranger has confirmed that this was correct.

    Therefore, for the spirit world to exist and communicate with us, I can logically expand that to include a universal spirit (or energy). I do not see God as the god of the bible.


  • lovelylil


    Where and when did I ever say the Bible is "full of ALL the answers in the universe?". I do not even believe that is true. The Bible is a faith book and answers faith Q's, while it does give simple explanations of life and creation, It is not a scientific book and does not answer ALL Q's about life and the universe. I never said it did.

    I think you are basing this assumption on your past JW experience. Only legalistic church systems claim the bible has an answer for ALL questions and they will tell you they know what it is. Most of mainstream christianity understands that many things in this world cannot be fully answered by the Bible or by belief in God. Just for future reference, you may want to learn what other Christian groups outside of the JW's believe about God, creation, evolution and the Bible. You may be surprised actually.

    I am glad I do not have the pessimistic view you have about life and the world around you. How can you not see any beauty in our world?

    For another day; I can see you have a very distorted view of the Bible. Almost everything you stated such as God condoning rape, mutilation of animals for no good, mass killings etc. is based on incorrect understanding of the Bible. Again, you are taking a literal narrow interpretation of it. That is why you are believing God condoned things he did not. This has to be a topic left for another day.

    Lastly, I will stand by my view that if you can look around in our world and not see any intelligence behind it, but rather believe that it just appeared out of nowhere one day then that is a BELIEF system. It is the exact opposite of my belief system which is that the universe and all life in it was created by a God who is far more superior in intelligence and power than we are.

    In order for you to keep your belief system, you must have faith in it that it is true. Same as me. Being an athiest does not mean you are totally free from belief systems. Everyone in the world has a belief system, and yours is unbelief in God.


    I like your views that "spirits" in the world can interact with us. I agree with you. Lilly

  • Tuesday

    Well folks, if Sirona can prove she wasn't in an altered state when speaking to the spirit beings, and her witnesses were not also in an altered state she has in fact come up with the most compelling evidence.

    *standing ovation*

    While it doesn't prove exactly there is a God, it is certainly very compelling circumstantial evidence. If she can prove that she was not in an excitable state or an altered state, and her witnesses weren't then at least we can conclude spirit beings exist and because spirit beings exist there could be a Godly spirit being.

    I might have been defeated...

    I'll await the proof that I stated, but there's a chink in the armor. This is not using the bible so it's external, she saw them and others too which makes it observable, and if we can verify they weren't altered in any way get a time and place we at least have External, Observable, Verifiable evidence. It wasn't God talking to her, but at least she's on the start of a good circumstantial case.

  • daniel-p

    I can hardly think that someday there will be a conclusive, universal understanding that there is a definable, literal God, and also a conclusive, universal understanding of what it wants us to do. In fact, I'm coming to believe that this would be a destruction of spirituality, and by extension, humanity itself. I do know this: that when I walk in the woods, climb a mountain top, look in the eyes of a wild animal, feel the surface of a boulder, view a valley from a high vista, or peer into the minute detail of a flower with a bug resting on it, I can feel something. I'm not sure what exactly it is, but what I see and hear and feel is the same that I sense in myself. There is no substantial seperation between the near infinite iterations of life. Someday I may be called to honor and worship this Source, but as of yet I'm happy with discovering my own spirit(uality). May each of us do so in peace and tranquility.

  • Tuesday

    Lil, I love you but you might be missing the point of my posts. I don't believe OJ Simpson killed his wife because he wasn't convicted, I don't say that he isn't a good suspect because the circumstantial evidence is there, I just don't believe he DEFINETLY did the crime because he wasn't convicted of the crime and the lack of a smoking gun so to say. No one accuses random people of a crime because they don't know who comitted it and someone said that they did it. That's hearsay, the person wouldn't even be charged if there was no evidence. Can you imagine the police arresting you on the charge "Jim Bob Jones says you comitted the crime because he interpreted it from Moby Dick, clearly someone thought about the murder and planned it because of the way it looks to have had a method to it, and since we don't know who did the crime it might as well be you." It's just an evidence thing with me, it's not a belief structure I don't base my whole life upon the belief there is no God. It can't be proven to me so I don't believe it, that's all.

    I am glad I do not have the pessimistic view you have about life and the world around you. How can you not see any beauty in our world?

    I'm glad you don't either, it's my view of the world. I said why I don't see beauty in the world, I've seen shark attacks, bear attacks, lion attacks, I've seen hunters and prey, I know Praying Mantis females eat the males after copulation, I know of larva that gradually eat the insides of caterpillars, the pain they feel must be excrusiating. Lions, Tigers and Bears (oh my!) are all cute and beautiful until they try to eat you. Imagine someone looking at you and saying what a beautiful creation you are and how serine you are meanwhile tiny bugs are inside your body eating you alive from the inside out. There's a good chance that's happening when you're talking about the beautiful trees. If fish could talk you would stick your head in the ocean and all you would hear was "Sh*t, I thought I looked like that rock".

    For another day; I can see you have a very distorted view of the Bible. Almost everything you stated such as God condoning rape, mutilation of animals for no good, mass killings etc. is based on incorrect understanding of the Bible. Again, you are taking a literal narrow interpretation of it. That is why you are believing God condoned things he did not. This has to be a topic left for another day.

    I guess it would be better left for another day. I don't know how you can metaphorically condone the mass slaughter the Israelites comitted in the Old Testiment. I don't see how I can misunderstand he wanted animal sacrafices, Israelites to kill their neighbor but keep the virgins who had not known a man, it's really not my interpretation of what they did I'm just reading the things they did. But this thread isn't a bibical thread, if you want to debate if God is evil and those horrible acts the Israelites committed to their neighbors (with God commanding them to do so) were completely justified, you might want to open another thread. If you're looking to validate God is all-loving, and all-good through use of the Bible, many here know the bible better then I do, you'll probably be very disappointed.

    if you can look around in our world and not see any intelligence behind it, but rather believe that it just appeared out of nowhere one day then that is a BELIEF system.

    Once again it's not a belief system I'm not saying it came from nothing, when I apply Law of Conservation of Energy stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed it's the most logical conclusion I can come to. It's not a belief because if evidence that is conclusive is presented to me I'm more than willing to change my view. I don't think the same can be said for Christians, no matter what principle is brought up to show that things can't be created, or against the global flood, or showing organic materials can be created from non-organic materials they will find an excuse to still believe.

    Good luck to you though, I have no doubt you'll continue on with your beliefs and debates about the creator. If he does exist maybe we'll share a good laugh at my judgement, if he doesn't exist then it won't really matter because we'll both be dead.

  • Tuesday

    *double post*

  • Spook
    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)

    I've found that it's always necessary to get the believer to define what it is they are affirming. That seems only reasonable in the atheistic argument. Atheism in it's strict sense is not sufficient for advancing the arguments often taken under the umbrella of positive atheism (which is why I prefer to argue that religion is evil and we should be glad there is insufficient evidence for it). To cut to the chase before considering the cosmological argument presented, I'll outline the following: The believer can say...

    1. Theism is true based on the truth of a set of propositions (claims made about reality). A weaker form of this argument shows up many times as the deist justification with William James argument about the will to believe. You could nutshell this one as "It's a good bet there's a deity and we should all do our best to find him." This can be likened to an excuse for universal Pascal's Wagerisim.

    2. Theism is good. This one works on the attitude that religion is somehow necessary to people or cultures. Further, the "evidence" that it's good constitutes "evidence" for the truth of the proposition.

    3. Atheism is equally as "faith based" as fundamentalism. I need say no more on the vast depths of tautaulogy beneath the feet of these arguers.

    Now, on to the cosmological argument. I think anyone using this as a basis for their faith is barking up an invisible and consequently wrong tree. I've had at least one high level astral physics course and can tell you most of the occurances of this argument (such as Creator by the JW's) totally misapprehend the basic science of the argument. Furthermore, several aspects are left out. To undermine this argument you can challenge:

    1. The causal chain. The causal chain arguments fail to account for systems analysis. This is much like the false Thermodynamic Arguments which have been discredited since at least the 70's with the nobel prize for dissipative thermal systems. The problem arises in thinking in terms of "proximate causes" versus entailment phenomena of complex adaptive systems. To summarize: The universe can not be analyzed as a "closed system." Even localized systems of analysis are now being studied with techniques of cybernetics, non-linear dynamics and systems theory.

    2. Misapplying big-bang cosmology. The big flaw here is to say "Because all things we can observe were once very dense, God exists." That might strike some as dissembling the point, but it really is the truth. The same scientists who tell us that red shift means we had a singularity also tell us there is a singularity at the center of every black hole. Lee Smolin and other cosmologists are chiming in on these discoveries to deal with the causal nature of black holes which contain planar aspects of space time, and present the argument that black holes are always making universes. That brings me to the last problem: Time.

    3. We can no longer speak of mass and energy so much ass mass/energy. The same holds for space/time. Time does not exist as some metaphysical watch-winder in the sky. Time is a materialistic product of the universe and there was no "before."

    The huge flaw in this logic is to state that because we know very little about the cause of the universe there must be a creator. I think these people are taking the problem from the wrong side. I work at it from the front back, as do many atheists.

    1. We know a great deal about the world right now around us. There is a reasonably satisfying natural explanation for everything most people experience. From an objective standpooint, the 3rd party extraordinary faith experiences of individuals can be dismissed from those identical experiences of others as logically and evidentially incompatible and indescernible. In other words, faith experiences do not constitute evidence because the same data obtain with equifinality for all theistic and atheistic arguments.

    2. Working backwords from the present, we can again see naturalism as the best explanation for the course of history.

    3. Arriving at the difficult topics such as the big 3 (Consciousness, abiogenesis and the early history of the cosmos) we can be confident through provisional consent that there are some satisfactory natural theories that are in line with what one would expect to be able to deliver as evidence given the ancient nature of the event. This is different than faith because it remains open to new information. (Ironically, the most difficult thing I still grapple with as an atheist isn't any of the big 3. It's bipedalism in homonids! That's just me, I guess.)

    To base your faith on some version of the big 3 challenges in science is an undignified last ditch god-of-the-gaps stance. It seems to me to be advertising a willingness to hold on to unrealistic ideas until the last possible moment. I think former JW's can do well to take the lesson of getting while the gettings good and not forgoing life decisions on shaky grounds.

    This leaves out all the arguments of philosophy which include theodicy and divine hiddenness. While these arguments cannot logicall prove non-existance I've found they always have the effect of changing a theists concept and justification of God toward a deist position.

  • Spook
    I guess its because not accepting God is a belief, that is as firm as the belief I have in accepting him? Anyway, since both sides are firm in their own belief system, the is there a God/ is there not a God is just an intellectual exercise. Since both sides are based on "faith" that what we believe is true, niether can provide any absolute evidence to convince the other.

    I can't let this one pass. Faith is not applicable to the lack of a belief. You could only analyze affirmitive propositions in this way. Don't tapdance with the common use of language. What you can actually prove is that if you don't accept annecdotal evidence in the form of presuppositionalism and foundationalism, you can prove that faith is irrational.

    1. Faith is believing in something in greater proportion than the evidence.

    2. Provisional consent is the holding of partially satisfying explanations for topics which are by nature currently difficult to asess or have not reached a point of empirical consensibility.

  • Tuesday


    You stated far better than I the reason I tried to omit these arguments in my original post with far fewer words and far more syllables.

    Thank You.

Share this