Evidence for God...

by tec 251 Replies latest jw friends

  • Finkelstein

    Evidence for God has finally been found, all should rejoice !

  • Giordano

    We invent our gods according to our needs....... it's not rocket science. The gods we invent serve us and in return we pay lip service to them so the less intelligent among us will bow down and be obedient. A god's accomplishments or legend is based on handed down camp fire stories greatly exaggerated. It's best if a god is fearsome but cute.

    As the times change we update our most cherished gods with selected historic writings, oral traditions, published books and tracks and the sermons of hyper excited TV evangelicals. There is even a man in Rome who wears pointy red slippers and pontificates on the role of women in our society and I am told he is never wrong.

    We empower our gods with the knowledge that our collective culture has. However our gods are never able to possess more knowledge then man has at the time of their creation. This is one of those facts that does not change. If we didn't think it up neither do they. But from time to time new ideas and information has to be added to the god soup. Our gods never learn more or better until we know more or better and share it with them. Man is both the driver of the god and the brake.

    We give our gods life but when we stop worshiping them they die. Ask the Egyptians, ask the Greeks ask the Romans where their old gods are now. So it was, so it will always be.

    Who invented the Hebrew god? The Hebrews did....... they built him from some older gods then wrote out rules that no other gods could come before their god. Unfortunately they have been stuck with him all these years. Unfortunately God's chosen people turned out to be very bright and well educated so there has been a lot of effort to get their god reeducated and relevant.

    Who invented the Christian god? Jesus did with help from his followers. They needed a new god for a new time. Jesus wanted to be the Messiah but the Jews wouldn't have him. Since the Hebrew god wasn't light of foot nor very generous to non Jews Jesus decided he wanted a forward looking god instead of all that looking back stuff. He wanted a more loving god, no more stoning or multiple wives (though that got screwed up over the years). So they took the Hebrew God and retro fitted him with some new universal ideas. Paul the marketing guru helped put the finishing touches on the new Christian god and opened him big time. He was a hugh hit with the Greeks and Romans who really needed a god back in their lives.

    The Christian god unfortunately was an underperformer but had great personal appeal. So much so that everyone wanted one for themselves. He escaped from the Catholic Church. He just floated away and divided into thousands of gods so that everyone could have their own. And for a long time mankind didn't have to invent a new god.........but then..... Muhammad came along and finding a good prospect in a slightly used moon god he retrofitted him thinking....... since it worked for Jesus...........

    And on it goes.

  • Finkelstein

    Here are some personal viewpoints by people including Richard Dawkins about the belief or evidential existence of god.

    If god is only to be found within the human imagination, would it not behoove us to imagine the best possibilities of what god can do and will do ?


  • tec

    Home from work :)

    I am going to respond to everyone, I hope none of you mind this.

    I would suggest dear Tammy that the evidence you present is enough for you to believe, and many more like you around the World.
    It is not of sufficient quality for those of us who are not "believers", by "believer" I mean someone who accepts as true a proposition or idea without testable proof backed up by tested facts.

    I understand this.

    On your kind of evidence it would be possible for you to believe in any god.

    On some of the evidence presented, perhaps... but on all of it together, there is only one God I can believe in.

    Just because a belief has been held by many people for millenia it does not make it true.

    Agreed. But you don't think that is what I was saying though, do you?

    I do not believe in anything, in the sense I give above, I think such belief is both pointless and foolish.

    I understand this as well, as pertains to you. We all have our own criteria that needs to be met before we consider or accept something.

    I only trust that which is True, something is not "true" unless evidence of high enough quality is available, the kind of evidence that would satisfy a Court whose Judges come from a scientific background.
    On that basis there is no evidence for God.

    On that basis there is no evidence for God that is enough for you. I understand. But there is evidence. It just depends on what evidence is enough for you, and how you weigh that evidence.

    Peace Phizzy


  • biometrics
    Life does not come from nothing
    If the above is true, then who created God?

    God hads no beginning or end. God also created our sense of time and the reality we perceive. Therefore your point is moot.

  • Flat_Accent

    I'm glad you can state these things with such certainty, biometrics.

  • NewChapter

    God hads no beginning or end. God also created our sense of time and the reality we perceive. Therefore your point is moot.

    Easy Peasy!

  • tec
    what is your boundary for life? For example is a virus life? Is a single cell life or must it be in concert with other cells before it gains that status (i.e. a body)?

    Life is anything living. It does not have to be sentient or self-aware or to have emotions or any such thing to be living. In this manner, I understand the universe to be living. But the universe is not 'a life'.

    How do you feel about the concept that the human body is made up of many different lives without which we would cease to be able to function (bacteria digesting food in your gut for you) - in fact while there are roughly 10 trillion human cells in your body you are carrying 100 trillion microbial cells along for the ride, in other words you are 'legion'?

    I see a difference between a life... vs... living. A human cell is part of a human body, and it does not survive on its own (without some sort of labratory interventin) Bacteria is living...not inanimate or lifeless. But living things that do harm or good, depending.

    Why do you suggest that a plank of your life argument is that life doesn't come from nothing? This is pretty much a given on both sides of the debate. Rather it is the bible that suggests that dirt was the foundation of life which odly enough may well be the closest that science ever gets to agreeing with the bible 'facts'.

    Is it a given?

    Laurence Krauss stated and wrote a book something along the lines of 'Nothing isn't really nothing'. He stated that there is energy within that 'nothing'. But then he later went on to laugh and shake his head at theologians, when they say, 'but then that's not nothing.'

    I had hoped that someone would question him on this seemingly conflict, but no one asked during that part of the talk. So I am left unceratin of what he was trying to state.

    In any case, I believe I tried to stress that life comes from the living... rather than from nothing.

    What do you mean Jesus' statements are true? I can see several that aren't open to the dichotomy of true or false but must be contextualised( render unto ceaser for example - sometimes you have to rebel against a tyrant). I can also see several that are false (All things you ask in prayer , believing, you will receive). There are even some statements that are simply dangerous (turn the other cheek - not a valid instruction in most cases.) Jesus didn't speak on several critical issues (slavery, homosexuality, women's rights etc.)
    How do you know what he feels about those topics?

    I do not think that his teachings on specific instances were exclusively black and white. We are meant to reason, and we are meant to act out of love for others. For instance, there is a man slaughtering people... you fight against him, perhaps even kill him, but you were driven solely by compassion and love for the innocents being slaughtered. The killing is wrong, imo, and against the teaching of Christ. But 'love covers over a multitude of sins.' Consider something less severe such as stealing. Stealing is also a sin, but perhaps you stole to feed your child or your sibling, who is dying of starvation? Again, love covers over a multitude of sins. We would not think such a person deserved punishment for that, and God can see even deeper into us.

    I think prayer is true... believing in who would be a pertinent question to ask yourself as to prayers gone unanswered, as well as "if you do not doubt", being another pertinent question. Peter sank the moment he began to doubt. Christ seemed unable to heal those who doubted him. Very few people have a faith that does not doubt, at least at time.

    I do however think turn the other cheek is valid in most cases. We've had plenty of eye for eye, and well.. here we are. Wars, feuds, anger, lack of forgiveness, general hurt all the way around. Turn the other cheek really boils down to do not repay wrong with wrong. Though Christ asks that we go even further, such as doing good to our enemies, or those who wrong us. Healing though forgiveness, mercy, and love.

    Everything He feels on those topics is summed up two things: love one another - not only as we want to be loved, but as he loves us; and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Plus, he doesn't seem to have a problem talking to women... not when he was in the flesh, nor in the spirit.

    I used to think that the Spirit told me things as well and could point to several times when I received promptings and scriptures etc. My ability to generate thoughts and then ascribing those to an external entity was a simple skill I learnt early on at the prompting of my mother. Realising that I wasn't receiving one to one communication was a big step in exiting faith.

    I know. I've read your descriptions. I think you did hear. I could be wrong, but reading some of your posts, I think you did once hear and have faith. I hope that doesn't come off as arrogant. I just want to be honest. And it is possible to lose or walk away from faith... for whatever reason.

    Thanks for the effort though - always helps to explian ones motivations.

    Thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Good questions. Would certainly love to know more about what Krauss meant.

    Peace Q,


  • John_Mann

    {God hads no beginning or end. God also created our sense of time and the reality we perceive. Therefore your point is moot.}

    Wow! Do you use that same logic to buy a used car?

  • tec
    A believer will site all their reasons for believing and then look at the atheist camp, confident that they've made a powerful argument for believing. But the atheists will just shrug because none of it is convincing or powerful to us. Then the atheists respond feeling the same way about their arguments against believing, but the believers are just as unimpressed. It's often the same way with evolution versus creationism, too.

    I have noticed this as well. As you say, there seem to be two very different ways of thinking. I think sometimes the two simply cannot understand or agree.

    I don't think this post will convince anyone who doesn't already believe that they should. Not that this was necessarily your goal.

    It is not my goal. I cannot convince anyone of anything. I can simply give my understanding and testimony. What others do with that, how they might weigh it, is not in my control. Also, sometimes a discussion helps both parties to see something outside of the way they normally view the world. This is worth discussion.



Share this