Does "god" exist?

by yalbmert99 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • yalbmert99

    Here is a short analysis of that question and a video at the bottom of the page with Stephen Hawking, physicist, who said "There is no god".

  • JWOP

    If there is no God, then all things must have come about through evolution.
    Evolution requires a series of small changes over a long period of time which develops an organism.

    If evolution were true, I'd like to know how to explain this:

    A caterpillar grows, shedding its skin along the way as it grows.
    Question: How did the first caterpillar survive shedding its skin before the secondary skin evolved?

    Upon the last shedding, said caterpillar's final shed reveals a headless, legless case. It is the chrysalis. Inside there are no organs, it's just a bag of thick, DNA goo. In two weeks this goo assembles itself into a butterfly.
    Question: During the lengthy process of evolution, how did this creature survive the "goo phase" and procreate before the DNA learned to turn into something else?

    Since caterpillars can only come from butterflies, but butterflies couldn't have been around to start with, how could all this be?

    Ergo, I believe in God.

  • bohm


    Question : How did the first caterpillar survive shedding its skin before the secondary skin evolved?

    Sorry, you have been lied to, thats not how evolution work.

    if you simply look at the range of development processes amongst currently living insects you can see insects being "born" (or hatched) as miniature adults over to something like a butterfly which undergo a complicated metamorphis where the first stages look nothing like the adult and lots and lots of animals with development cycles which fall between those two extremes.

    So the theory of evolution does not require some butterfly millions of years ago to shed its skin and then "evolve" its secondary skin while lying around in an vulnurable stage, that is ofcourse redicilous and only something a creationist would imagine. Contrary, it only require the butterfly to go through successive stages of more complicated development plans similar to those actually found in nature in currently living animals.

    It is akin to saying: "how did the first human survive with only a hand before its arm evolved?". Its not how anyone think evolution happened, not even creationists, they just like to tell the lie.

    With regard to your second question:

    Question : During the lengthy process of evolution, how did this creature survive the "goo phase" and procreate before the DNA learned to turn into something else?

    Same fallacy as above. Also there is no "goo phase.".

  • Jeffro
    Question: How did the first caterpillar survive shedding its skin before the secondary skin evolved?

    Much as bohm as already pointed out, before "the first butterfly", there was something very similar to a butterfly, and that thing already had a process of metamorphosis. Going back further, an earlier ancestor of butterflies had a slightly simpler process, common to a wider group of insects. Etc. Creationists like to imagine that a process such as butterfly metamorphosis (or any complex natural process) 'must' have been 'created/designed' because they imagine that the process was an ultimate 'goal' rather than one of various possible results of an undirected process, wherein organisms with changes that are beneficial are simply more likely survive. For every beneficial change that might eventually result in a new 'feature' (or a new species), there are any number of detrimental changes - but those features usually aren't passed on, because the organisms are more likely to die. On the other hand, there are also detrimental features that are passed on, sometimes as a side-effect of other advantageous features; for example, humans are more prone to choking than other apes because of the layout of organs for speech.

    Creationists like to 'romanticise' the process, quietly ignoring the many negative, detrimental, or cruel things in nature. For example, they seldom espouse how 'wonderful' it is that their 'loving' creator supposedly 'designed' parasitic wasps that lay their eggs inside living insects so the larvae can feast on the living host from the inside. Praise Jah.

  • Fernando

    The "God of Abraham" exists and can be found by ANYONE following the map known as the full and true "unabridged gospel". According to this map God IMPUTES a right and clean standing to ordinary fallen sinners as a "free gift" by "unmerited favour".

    The "god of religion" (Satan) exists too, and can be found by following the map called religion. This map promotes supremacist self-righteousness supposedly earned by following the "right" rules (legalism), moral codes (moralism), doctrines (ethnocentrism) and knowledge (Gnosticism). Jesus called this "whitewashing graves", "cleaning the outside of the cup", "gnat straining" and "camel gulping". Ray Franz likely was the writer of the only Watchtower library article that mentions "legalism" and describes it as a "denial of Christian faith".


  • bohm

    fernando: So whats your best evidence for gods existence?

  • Fernando

    Hey bohm!

    I guess one would be my observation that those who find and follow the map all seem to be meeting the same person and learning the same things from him, independent of each other. They are not coerced and are left to describe their personal experiences in their own words - not orchestrated, no propaganda, no visible synchronism by human hands, no passive following of human leaders.

    At any rate I was merely invited to follow the map, at a time in my life when I was receptive - there was no coercion.

    I have ended up with a totally new identity and worldview - one that I can connect with and am happy and passionate about.

    Although I am no one special, I now can see or discern many things beyond the five physical senses, things beyond "normal" space-time boundaries. I am also experiencing deep inner healing (regeneration), liberation and awakening of my human spirit after decades of deprivation - being fed on the poisonous "dry husks of religion".

  • konceptual99

    This is the sort of reasoning that makes Witnesses look like morons when talking to anyone with any kind of understanding of how evolutionary natural selection theory works.

    If you read a book like The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins you would get a compeling, reasonable and scientifically justifiable explaination of how natural selection works.

    Of course, not all "evolutionists" (to use a broad term) agree with everything that Dawkin's proposes but that does not change the overwhelming concensus on natural selection as being a scientific fact.

    I would also say that it is possible to argue a Witness friendly view of most of Dawkin's views - I don't see them as mutually exclusive - but not on "chicken and egg" type arguments, just as claiming evolution must be false because we still have monkeys shows a complete ignorance of the science.

    If you are going to argue for the existence of God and for a creative process in harmony with the Genesis account then you have to use reasoning that is based on logic that fits with generally accepted science.

  • JWOP

    There is a goo phase -- I know because I accidently broke a chrysalis open when I was a kid (yuck!). It was gross!

  • EntirelyPossible

    There is a goo phase in making babies too.

Share this