Evidence for God...

by tec 251 Replies latest jw friends

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    wow! thats deep sooner7nc....will you be applying ALL that to your daily life...LOL

  • sooner7nc

    I already did yesterday and boy do I feel great!

  • still thinking
  • tec

    I'm skipping you for a second, Still, because I can see that someone made a comment and I will address both at the same time.

    Anyway, you say here that God might have revealed himself to earlier peoples, which unfortunately is unprovable.

    True, and a statement cannot be made about this either way. I think that was my point. Can't ask why he waited so long to reveal himself, if you don't know whether or not he did wait so long.

    Here you say people bring original truths . . . is that to say they make truth? So truth isn't constant, it changes? Maybe truth changes according to the time period and the society, as we know it does? That doesn't sound universal, or timeless.

    I meant carry truth from the source.

    Truth is constant, and does not change... but we change, and our perception, agreement, understanding of truth can change. The truth itself does not change.

    You're making an illogical assumption as well, by saying something along the lines of:
    • Humans are capable of doing good, saying moral things and applying moral principles
    • God gave humans these moral truths
    • Therefore God exists
    You jump to the conclusion God supplies our truth, yet why go so far? Why not take one step back and say that humans are responsible for their own truth?

    No, I think universal truths could be evidence that they originated from the same source... but carried and spread out, being added to or taken away from.

    Truth could also be learned as per what works and what does not work; though few civilizations actually follow the golden rule, or turning the other cheek (not repaying wrong with wrong), even though their spiritual leaders might understand these things.

    Yes, ideas of heaven vary. What I was saying is that some of them are still wrong. ie. someone sat down, thought up something new about what heaven could be like and went round telling everyone about it. Just like your idea of heaven would be wrong to a Hindu.

    Another example would be PURGATORY - which the Catholic church now admits never existed. So Purgatory was a spiritual plane that someone made up. In their head. A purely natural creature imagined a supernatural world. Are you suggesting that person had God's

    help in it?

    No, purgatory is a detail or interpretation about the spiritual. So it is not a new idea. The spiritual had already been conceived in order for someone to attempt to define it... such as in purgatory, or nirvana, or heaven - whomever's version. It is this original conception of the spiritual that I am speaking of, with no other spiritual thing or knowledge to build it upon. A completely new concept.

    The statement is simple enough - Nothing, in the truest sense of the word, does not exist. Go to any corner of the universe and you find something, even in the parts where there would seem to be nothing.

    Yes, that is a simple statement. But then why would Krauss laugh that theologians state, see, life did not come from nothing? It is the same thing that he is saying. It was conflicting. Hence my confusion.

    And look, it's easy to say things like 'God is eternal', but it's harder to prove them. And as I said before, why not take a step back and say 'the universe is eternal'? It's quite possible our universe works on a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches that follow into each other. Does that require a celestial handyman to tinker with it every now and then? To me it seems like the universe does a pretty good job of running itself.

    I actually did assume this... I thought it was what science had discovered. So then, eternal God or eternal universe was on equal footing. Something was eternal, and this concept could not be used to help prove or disprove anything. But science no longer states this, has decided that this was a mistake, at least as pertains to this universe. Instead, the universe now had a beginning, a cause. Even if there are multiple universes, one after another, that leads back to a cause for the first one. Because that seems to be how the physical world runs... a beginning and an end.

    Science needs more data, more tools, to make more statements... but the current statement is that the universe is not eternal.

    However, perhaps you are saying that the energy that forms the conditions that bring a universe into being, is eternal? (that is all I meant about the conditions being eternal) I don't know if that is any different than saying that the universe is eternal. But it will be interesting to see what new discoveries science makes during our lifetimes.

    I'd also like to hear your evidence of scientific accuracy found within these religious texts. Someone brought the question up before and you disagreed with them.

    I don't know what you mean here, though.



  • Flat_Accent

    Nice try, sooner, but you made one fatal mistake. The inkwell you left at your bureau contained within it the invisible ink which you used to write your post, in an attempt to conceal the true evidence. When Madame Bebbington came to clean your office that Monday morning she discovered the shocking truth for herself, and it was this knowldege that led to her untimely death.

  • tec

    I just wanted to comment on this statement, specifically the part about life not coming from death and that death is a form of nothing. This is not a true statement. If God or Christ told this to you, they lied to you.
    All life depends upon death. Organic matter that has died feeds the soil. This includes us. From the soil springs the plant life that supports our oxygen, food, and water systems to name a few. Without dead organic matter, we have no soil. No soil means no life.

    I said that death was a form of nothing.

    The above scenario is not nothing, however. It is still something. More like a recycling of matter.



  • sooner7nc

    She was a sneaky one that Bebbington.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    I don't mind you skipping me....or skipping with me tec....it's been years since I skipped....

  • Knowsnothing
    I'm not claiming anything, I'm defending.

    Defend away. Why do you believe, or rather, how do you know God has always existed? Please explain to me, because I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion.

  • tec

    'Humanity has shown a need to seek out spiritual'
    From the deistic point of view that is not really a great argument. The idea of Deism is to believe in a creator...who created and them most likely left us to our own devices or ceased to exist. Lets take the meaning of the word 'spiritual' in that sentence. It seems to me that this particular word has changed his meaning over the thousands of years. We used to associate spiritual with such evens as thunderstorm, earthquakes or hurricanes. And that was simply because of our lack of knowledge. Since then we gained understanding of such things and we know that they have got nothing to do with Zeus or Thor or Posaidon. We accept a logical and a more naturalistic explanation... so I think it is safe to conclude, that 'spiritual' in your... what could be only described as an assertion and a very rich generalisation, is simply 'something that we do because we are yet to understand why'. And as always... keeping to our habit we label it with a god. An argument from ignorance if you will.

    Why would a purely natural species develop a need for something that does not exist? Why not a natural explanation? Why leap to the spiritual, or supernatural?

    'Humans have fantastic imagination'
    Yes... you are correct... but surely... that is not an argument for your case is it? It suggests that we are more likely to be superstitious, gullible, afraid and most likely to make something up based on what someone said, or 'what we thought we saw'. Example of aliens is especially unfortunate. You, yourself said that you 'have never known a single person, who can conceive of something that has been built upon previous knowledge, or observation of the physical world'... that is why for example god is a man in the bible... man has power.... it's all about men... because it was written by humans! And I would say that you are quite unfortunate to not have known anyone with quite an abstract mind.

    It was not an argument for my case. It was: 'humans have a fantastic imagination', but...

    But not so fantastic, as to conceive of something with no basis.

    'Life does not come from nothing'
    It's simply an expansion of 'How out of nothing you get something'... well if life does not come from nothing then how was God created? He lives … right?

    God lives... and always has. No beginning, no end. Living being = source of life = bring to being more life.

    You stated that Christ is the basis of your entire faith and from what you wrote it seems that you do believe in him... but you state nothing about God? Unless they are the same person?

    Christ is the basis of my entire faith... IN... God. Hope that clarifies that better :)

    You also make a statement or more of a claim that you can see the truth in Christ's teachings. Which ones in particular? Golden Rule? Lets have a look at just that one teaching of his “All things, therefore, that YOU want men to do to YOU, YOU also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean''(NWT) Seems like a good thing, right? But... I am sorry to say it's neither original nor unique... nor that great to be honest! Let's look at alternatives...

    The only conclusion I draw from Christ speaking truth in words and deeds... is that He spoke truth and not lies. I do not believe some things He taught, but disregard that He also knew from whom He had come, and who had taught Him. I am aware variations of the golden rule have run the gamut through religions, ancient and modern, as well as being taught by spiritual leaders/teachers. Perhaps they learn from the same spirit, but did not come from God (son), and so do not make such a claim.

    And let's take a look at Jesus... he was contradictory,

    I see none of this.

    had fits of anger,

    Any man, including a righteous man, can get angry. There is only one instance of him really showing that anger - the market made from the temple.

    supported slavery by incorporating it in his teachings

    Used analogies the people would understand. Golden rule and love for one another decries slavery. Plus, looking at his deeds... he owned no slaves. He served instead, and I am sure there were all number of people willing to serve him, rather than be served by Him.

    was disrespectful to his mother....

    How so? By ensuring that all people mattered to him, and that he had no bias?

    and his teachings were neither original nor that great...

    Oh, I think they were pretty great, and most spiritual teachers/leaders would agree. Such as Ghandi.

    Imagine if we were in a court right now. Would any of the personal evidences or even testimony contained in gospels stand on their own?

    On their own, no. But in a previous discussion which prompted this thread, I mentioned that circumstantial or testimonial evidence needs to be backed by other evidence. Nor is this a court of law. Hearsay and written statements are allowed in some instances though... and in some countries, hearsay is allowed to be presented, and then simply weighed more carefully.

    Gospels of the new testament are the only evidence of the existence of Christ. Which is unusual, taken that there were a few historians active during the time, when he supposedly has lived (We have a mention of a Christ in form of a movement supposedly named after him). He never wrote anything himself (allegedly). So we are truly just left with the gospels... but how can we take them as evidence taking that they are contradictory(I mean they can not get the year of Jesus' birth right!!) and contain information not synchronised with the true historical events. How can anyone take that as evidence?!

    There are gospels outside of the NT as well. Gospels that were not chosen to be part of the canon. Still makes for a lot of witnesses, even without those not included though. And as the testimonies were written down much later, and as most people see different details in a person or happening, it is not surprising that some details are different. Some details would be different even if you were alive to have interviewed each person who personally knew him.

    'I would like to be next to you, when if you were walking down the street someone would run up to you shouting 'I CAN HEAR THE VOICE OF GOD!!!!' Would you throw your arms around him and say 'YOU TOO?! WHAT LUCK!'

    I would probably ask the person what God was saying to him. Because words and teachings and messages can be tested... the heart and mind of another person... not so much.

    Thanks for reading and hope I did not offend anyone

    You did not offend me :) Thank you for joinging in.

    Peace, tammy

Share this