Evidence for God...

by tec 251 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm

    BA: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A person being the son of god, making water into wine, raising the dead and so on certainly is an extraordinary claim and so the burden of proof rest squarely on those who accept god of the bible.

    The 4 arguments you bring forth has been shredded by philosophers and scientists; a common theme in their failure is

    (1) No evidence what they posit exist (and which --supposedly-- god alone can explain) actually exist.

    (2) No appreciation of the fact God offer a very poor explanation.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Speaking of extraordinary claims....there does not seem to be a lot of evidence written by or about the many people supposedly healed by the apostles after Jesus death...you would think there would be a big hoo haa about what they accomplished with their super powers.

  • soft+gentle

    hi to all my online friends over a very late coffee

  • bohm

    Here is some good evidence for god raising a man from the death, from a reputable source:


    Howard Murphet (chief of the British press section at the Nuremberg trials)

    One Evening Radhakrishna went into a coma and his breathing was that of a dying man. Alarmed, the wife dashed off to see Swami. The latter came to the room, looked at the patient, said, "Don't worry. Everything will be all right," and left. On the next day the patient was still unconscious. Mr. K. S. Hemchand, the son-in-law, brought a male nurse of the district who, after failing to find any pulse and making other examinations, gave as his opinion that Mr. Radhakrishna was so near death that there was no possibility of saving him.

    About an hour after this the patient became very cold. The three anxious relatives heard what they thought was the 'death rattle' in his throat and watched him turning blue and stiff. Vijaya and her mother went to see Baba who was at the time upstairs in his dining room. When they told him that Radhakrishna seemed to be dead, Baba walked away to his bedroom. Vijaya and her mother returned to the room of the `dead' man and waited.

    After a while, Swami came in and looked at the body, but went away again without saying or doing anything. That was on the evening of the second day since Mr. Radhakrishna had become unconscious. The whole of the next night passed while the three stayed awake and anxiously watched for any signs of returning life. There were no signs. Yet they still had faith that Baba would somehow or other, in his own way, save Radhakrishna, for had he not said that everything would be alright?

    On the morning of the third day the body was more than ever like a corpse dark, cold, quite stiff and beginning to smell. Other people who came to see and sympathise told Mrs. Radhakrishna that she should have the corpse removed from the ashram. But she replied, 'Not unless Swami orders it.' Some even went to Baba and suggested that, as the man was dead and the body smelling of decomposition, it should either be sent back to Kuppam, or cremated at Puttaparti. Swami simply replied, 'We'll see'.

    When Mrs. Radhakrishna went upstairs again to tell Baba what people were saying to her, and ask him what she must do, he answered: 'Do not listen to them, and have no fear; I am here.' Then he said that he would come down to see her husband soon.

    She went downstairs again and waited, with her daughter and son-in-law by the body. The minutes dragged by an hour passed but Swami did not come. Then, when they were beginning to despair entirely, the door opened and there stood Baba in his red robe, copious hair, and shining smile. It was then about half past two in the afternoon of the third day. Mrs. Radhakrishna went towards Baba and burst into tears. Vijaya too began to cry. They were like Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, weeping before their lord who, they thought, had come too late.

    Gently Baba asked the tearful women and sorrowful Mr. Hemchand to leave the room. As they left, he closed the door behind them. They do not know no man knows what happened in that room where there were only Swami and the 'dead' man.

    But after a few minutes Baba opened the door and beckoned the waiting ones in. There on the bed Radhakrishna was looking up at them and smiling. Amazingly the stiffness of death had vanished and his natural colour was returning. Baba went over, stroked the patient's head and said to him, 'Talk to them; they're worried.'

    'Why worried?' asked Radhakrishna, puzzled. 'I'm all right. You are here.'

    Swami turned to the wife: 'I have given your husband back to you', he said, 'Now get him a hot drink'. When she brought it, Swami himself fed it to Radhakrishna slowly with a spoon ... Next day the patient was strong enough to walk to bhajan [devotional singing ed.]. On the third day he wrote a seven page letter to one of his daughters who was abroad in Italy. The family stayed a few more days at Prasanti Nilayam, then with Baba's permission returned to their home in Kuppam. The bad gastric ulcers and complications had vanished forever...

    ...When Mr. N. Kasturi was a few years ago writing something about the incident of Mr. Radhakrishna being raised from the dead, Baba told him to put the word 'dead' in inverted commas. So maybe we should say here that Mr. Radhakrishna was very near to death, more than half-way through death's door, when Baba called him back to life.

  • Phizzy

    Thanks for that bohm, I had not heard of that one before, if true, it sheds light on the Lazarus story doesn't it ? and would explain why Lazarus said not a word about his experience of "death", which would have been the natural thing to do.

  • Phizzy

    Thanks for that bohm, I had not heard of that one before, if true, it sheds light on the Lazarus story doesn't it ? and would explain why Lazarus said not a word about his experience of "death", which would have been the natural thing to do.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Now....continuing on the theme of Man not being able to conceive of the idea of spirit....

    spir·it /'spirit/
    The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
    spir·it·u·al /'spiriCHo?o?l/

    Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
    Could this be where man conceived the idea of god being love? Did we not attribute all our own human emotions to this god? Jealous, vengeful, Loving, kind, humble,forgiving, father.........then spirit taking on a whole new meaning and becoming larger than life when added to the other attributes we have given to this god....this super natural, super human god. You say time, therefore you can think eternity. You say pain, therefore you can think hell. You say strength, therefore you can think omnipotence. You say wisdom, therefore you can think infinite wisdom. Everything you see, everything you can dream of or think of has been suggested to you by your surroundings, by nature. Man cannot rise above nature; below nature man cannot fall It it that much of a stretch to have them battling with each other over our souls. Once we have taken the original meaning of soul, our sense of identiy and seperated it from ourselves and applied it to a loving father. Wouldn't it make sense that the next step would be for him not to be alone in the heavens? Wouldn't he create more souls/spirits to be with him.
    soul /sol/
    1. The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
    2. A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.

    Once we have attributed all these things to a loving father...is it that much of a leap to consider spirits a seperate entitiy? And then make them good or evil. And then blame all our woes on something outside of ourselves...sounds pretty human to me.
  • still thinking
    still thinking

    sorry for the strange formatting....I think cutting and pasting the definitions did that...LOL

  • Flat_Accent

    Morning folks.

    Certainly, the idea of god was not exclusive to the bronze age anyone. I think that was part of my point. Seeking the spiritual, a god/goddess/creator/spirit (s)... has been part of us since the beginning of us, as far as we know of ancient civilizations. I am not suggesting that at the point of Abraham or the Israelites, this was the only time God presented Himself as He truly is. Or even the first time. But people are limited. Generation to generation forget. People spread out, they bring original truths with them, even though those change as people forget and do other things.
    I think people have to be willing and able to accept Him. There are universal truths among various religions, newer or ancient. I believe those came from Him.
    As for the Hindu version of heaven, or the buddhist nirvana, these are variations of one thing - the spiritual. The details might be different, based on different understandings, but it is still spiritual. And yes, I am saying that if the 'supernatural' (spiritual is a better word imo, because I believe the spiritual is natural, just natural we have not discovered through scientific means yet) did not exist, we could not have thought of it. Not if we are purely natural (or physical) creatures. Which it would seem that we are not.

    It seems I've made a mistake in labelling your faith. As gladiator said you're like a patchwork quilt of everything sewn together. I feel like its going to be difficult to tie you down on anything here, tec >_>.

    Anyway, you say here that God might have revealed himself to earlier peoples, which unfortunately is unprovable. There are no sacred writings handed down from those times - if any even exist today - that would be beneficial to anyone. Even if there were it doesn't prove a thing, but I'll get to that in a minute. It also makes one wonder why God still chose to wait those 90,000 years before he decided to send a redeemer. 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.

    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?

    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?

    If I were to ask you what heaven is like, you couldn't give me an in-depth answer. Why? Because you don't know. What you would probably say is something relating to your feelings - happiness, bliss, contentment. What does this mean? Your concept of heaven is entirely solipsistic. Christians go to heaven to live in eternal happiness, Muslims go to 72 virgins. Doesn't that bespeak its human origins? There's no view of heaven that isn't grounded purely on human emotion and experience.

    I do not ascribe to these arguments to establish the truth of God. I also do not think these are a likely cause - on their own - of the first people leaping to a 'goddidit' response. Perhaps enough to get people seeking... but only because such a thing as the spiritual exists.

    Really if you take away your personal experience, what are you left with? 'Nothing cannot create something' - you said it yourself. In other words, 'things need a cause, yet that cause itself must be uncaused, hence the uncaused cause is God'.

    I would refer you to my confusion over the comments of Physicist Laurence Krauss, above. Many, many questions, yes.
    I mentioned how I personally know though... I heard it from my Lord.
    As for the bolded part, God is timeless. No beginning, no end = timeless. Hard to wrap our minds around that, since everything we know right now (even that sentence) has a beginning, middle, and end.

    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.

    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.

    Perhaps the 'conditions' are also timeless then, you might say? If so, what a concept for some spiritual leaders to grasp all on their own with no testable evidence! Perhaps they knew something of what they were talking about after all ;) Or perhaps they were listening to the same source. What are we doing wrong that we are just barely beginning to test and perhaps prove a concept that these men understood all along?

    I'm unsure of what you mean here, so please get back to me. 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.

  • Heaven

    - Life does not come from nothing (or death, which is a form nothing).

    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.

Share this