Evidence for God...

by tec 251 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  raxxxx

  I am really sorry for what you are about to read... I was going through the forum... and I just could not help but notice being drawn to this topic... and here is my reply to the evidence provided by tammy....

  '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.

  '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.

  '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?

  Evidence for God, the Father of Christ (theism? Really?)

  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?

  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 Ru le? 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...

  In 300 BC we have ' This is sum of duty. Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you' in Brahamanism.

  'Hurt not others in ways that you yourself could find hurtful' in Buddishm.

  And my favourite.

  Around 500 BC 'Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do NOT unto others that you would NOT have them do to you'' in Confucionism.

  And I personally find the negative 'DO NOT' far more superior that Christ's 'DO'. I mean... think about it. Do unto others as you would want them do to you.... what if you are a sadist? Or what if you simply have a bad taste? :)

  And that is just one example of how... unoriginal Christ's teachings were? And let's take a look at Jesus... he was contradictory, had fits of anger, supported slavery by incorporating it in his teachings, was disrespectful to his mother.... and his teachings were neither original nor that great...

  Personal evidence

  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? Or would they be dismissed as simply speculations and creations of someone's imagination? Would they be taken into consideration? Or rather... should they?

  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?!

  The Spirit of Christ speaks

  I will be honest I did not read the whole text of this part of the post. But allow me to quote late Christopher Hitchens.

  '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!'

  Thanks for reading and hope I did not offend anyone

  RAM
• 

  tec

  Tammy this is a discussion you and i have had before.... Im still at at a loss to understand how you know christ. You dont think the bible infalable, yet we only know christ through the bible. You express personal revelations that have revealed christ to you... Fair enough.

  Two things here. A document does not have to be infallable in order to be meaningful or useful. Infallable seems to be a label someone gave it to grant the book more authority than it has. The bible is like a pointing finger. 'there he is... that's the one... go get to know him'

  It is that that we must do. Go TO Him. If you are trying to find Him, then don't keep searching the scriptures to do so. He is alive - this seems simple as a teaching, but I think that few people actually accept and believe it. He IS alive. He can hear you, and He does speak. But hearing the spirit is something almost no one teaches, or teaches lies about, and so we have a hard time with it, because we tend to be creatures who walk by sight. The bible is a sight tool. The Spirit is of faith. Some of us listen to the spirit without knowing or recognizing it.

  But if henwanted people to know him then why not reveal himself to everyone that way?

  He speaks to everyone. We do not all know how to listen, or even think it is possible, or even want to hear him due to what he would be saying. He speaks Truth, and we don't all want to hear the truth.

  Most of us need to be trained as well... those who do want to hear and are knocking... so to speak. Put a little faith in Him, see that faith answered, then put a little more, see that faith answered as well... etc, etc. Once you learn to recognize his voice, it becomes easier and easier to hear.

  Why the bible at all?

  It is a tool of men, for us... probably them trying to help us according to what we need. Because most of us need sight. Most of us cannot walk by faith. Not without something to 'see' first. The problem comes in when you learn so thoroughly to rely only on sight, that it sort of cripples you toward walking by faith.

  Its like saying god protect the bible but couldnt protect his name in the bible. You cant cite scripture to prove christ then not accept it when scripture dosent agree.

  I hear what you are saying! Which is why I don't get this 'infallable' business. We know men can alter it.

  How would a native american know christ without the bible.... How a second centry oriential person? Were they not worthy?

  From testimony. From the spirit... though they might attribute that to something or someone else. I don't think it has anything to do with worthiness. I think it has to do with faith, and who will hear Him.

  Its all so random from a god who claims to want people to him, but fails to reveal himself, except through some indefinable means of personal revilation that noone can prove seem to convey in a meaningfull way...

  People are random.

  This whole discussion seems to center on a man who claimed to the human son of a desert god.

  Just because he was heard by desert people does not make him a desert God.

  You ever been to a desert? All that wide open space and sky and sand, empty and desolate, and yet such stark beauty. People in such places have had a tendancy to 'feel or sense' God. Or at least become attune to the quiet, and 'something more'.

  Really..... The human son of a desert god who had to send him to earth to die for us because its the only way he could forgive our "sins"..... Sigh......

  This is more religion speaking, though, than the Spirit.

  Peace EE,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  You realize from an athiest's point of view that your personal testament is not sufficient. Your feeling and knowing is virtually indistinguishable from delusion. I know, because of my chequered life I have rubbed shoulders with the mentally unstable. I've chatted with the modern incarnation of Mary Magdalene. There were moments when her face glowed with an inner holiness. Then she got tired of the hospital ward and had a cranky phone call with her family.

  I understand, of course. But it is all that I have to give, and so I give it. People who don't believe in any of it, aren't going to pay the personal stuff any attention anyway. They'll focus on the other 'evidence'.

  And not everyone here is an atheist.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Shoot, my bad. I said purgatory but I actually meant limbo. Just noticed now.
• 

  tec

  I would love to believe there is an all-knowing all-powerful God who created us all out of love and knows us personally and loves us and will give us eternal bliss.

  Unfortunately, no offense to you Tammy, I'm a realist (mostly a cynic) and I just don't see that being true. I would like to think, if there is a God, he would understand why I would be skeptical and would applaud me for using my brain to use reason and logic.

  He may well do so. He understands more than any of us. That is between you and Him.

  Science and God just don't seem to be able to coexist. I look at evidence is something that is verifiable. If you run enough tests you can either prove something is not the case, or bolster the argument for it. The problem is that the evidence for God is not verifiable. There aren't any tests we can run to prove he exists.

  Well, they can co-exist. But if i understand you correctly, they simply might be in different 'realms'. Science does not speak as to God, one way or the other. Science speaks as to what is testable, using current understanding and tools. We have no tools or means to test the spiritual, yet.

  What you have listed is good evidence... for a believer. It is perfectly fine that you believe in God. You are one of the most tolerant Christians I know and you always keep a level head during these types of discussions (which I know how hard it can be). If only more Christians acted in your manner, we would probably all be much better off and it would make for much better debates about this subject.

  Thank you for that.

  I think the same about ANYONE who shows respect and tolerance toward other beliefs and ideas, even if not agreed with. Heated debates do well also, sometimes even better... even though people might need to back off and cool down sometimes. Because disrespect, insults, superiority...these can doom any hope of a beneficial exchange. Some people won't listen or engage.

  Maybe you have touched on it before and I've missed it but I think this point relates to the topic at hand. Do you think the idea of creation should be taught in schools? If so, why should it be? I'm interested to hear what you have to say on it.

  In a faith school perhaps, though I think it is a strike against our children if they do not get to at least hear about the scientific theories as well. In a secular school, no. Though I would not be against a specific class (taken by choice) that also teaches about the various faith positions on creation. That could well teach tolerance and understanding of something (faith) that is very much a part of the world they live in, and in the people they must interact with.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  I love the Ingersoll quote, Still. His words are poetry, and convey so much better than what I tried to say about man not being able to think up something outside his reality, experience, sight, knowledge.

  But to have this seeking for the spiritual... this conception of the spiritual... from a purely physical species?

  Though I do admit that the physical can and does help us to understand and envision the spiritual. But I think the spiritual is there, for us to seek it, desire it, think of it. Perhaps the physical is a tool that we need, all part of learning.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Tammy have you considered the fact that "Atheist share the burden of proof too!"? Each side must bring proof to their group, otherwise the game is rigged!

  Perhaps. I'm not really into proving or convincing. Just want to share what I see, and understand. Because others have helped me to look at somthing completely new, or consider a different route, by doing the same.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  I think Tammy you would benefit from reading some of the excellent books that deal with the evolution of the mind, they show how various methods of thinking evolved slowly, and once in place allowed various concepts to arise.

  Perhaps. Might you recommend one?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Good story Bohm. I have to agree that it would be something that some would not want told; and I believe one of the gospels makes mention that the authorities were after Lazarus as well.

  There are many things we do not understand, that science cannot explain (yet), but that does not make them true. There are some who understand these things, without science giving them the thumbs up first, and understand how to manipulate things most of us think are impossible.

  Christ understood these things.

  Peace,

  tammy

  (and I am off to work. Flat, I loved your post, and am eager to continue our discussion. Tonight though.)
• 

  InterestedOne

  tec wrote:

  Every single culture that we know of, even those that develop in isolation, has had a belief in god/goddess/creator/spirit (s). From as far back as we can trace the beginning, this has been shown to be true. Explanations have been offered that mankind assigned to a 'god' what mankind could not explain. But I cannot see this as being possible. How can a purely natural species conceive of the spiritual/the supernatural?

  - Humans have a fantastic imagination. This is true. But I have never known a single person who can conceive of something that has not been built upon previous knowledge, or observation of the physical world. For instance, conceiving of aliens is easy. There are many planets with various conditions; we know that life exists on planets because we exist upon this one; so there could also be various forms of life suited to the environments of other planets. That is a simple leap built upon established knowledge; it is not a new conception.

  People do think of new concepts. For example, I, and I'm sure others, sometimes wish I could be in two places at once. The concept of being in two places at once is not built upon previous knowledge - no one has ever been in two places at once, and yet I thought of it. How can the fact that people have thought of something, in your case god, be considered evidence that the thing actually exists? People engage in wishful thinking all the time. Although reality inspires wishful thinking, people add their own made-up ideas to it. Superheros have some connection to reality, and the creators add all sorts of far-fetched attributes to them. The fact that people have conceived of these made-up attributes is not evidence that those attributes, or the characters, are real. Similarly, the fact that people have thought of a god is not evidence for its existence. Why do you disagree?