This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty
    You are very concerned with problems of the material world.

    Yes. So was Jesus. "Do unto others..."

    We judge others as good or otherwise depending on how they treat real people in the material world.

    I made a lot of points in my OP. So far you have addressed none of them.

  • Saethydd
    Saethydd

    God will remains a mystery because we are in a kind of test.

    In this time we need free will. Free will needs total privacy. That's why nobody can read our thoughts.

    Now in heaven nobody has free will because they saw God directly. At the time you see God there's a transformation and you can't be a human anymore.

    There's no free will if you can see God. Like if you have to choose between a marble palace or a piece of chalk.

    Jews say that the existence of God in this universe it's like the subtle flavor of wine left in a glass. That's enough for the game of life.

    God can be reached through philosophy or/and intuition.

    God is not a scientific experiment.

    Search your intuition and you will know.

    Try to develop your intuition doing some art.

    Do you have an objective basis for any of this, or are pulling all of this out of your own... head?

    Especially the part about what happens in heaven. Have you been there? Have you spoken to somebody from heaven? Have you read about from a reliable source? What makes your views on heaven any more insightful than a random person on the street?

    The problem with basing something on pure intuition is that it can not be verified or examined outside your own head. It cannot possibly be objective, therefore it cannot be rational.

    I can also make a logical argument about the following part of your statement.

    Now in heaven nobody has free will because they saw God directly. At the time you see God there's a transformation and you can't be a human anymore.

    There's no free will if you can see God. Like if you have to choose between a marble palace or a piece of chalk.

    This makes no sense at all, even in your own illustration. There may be a reason to choose chalk over marble, for example, if you desire a writing tool, chalk would be the superior choice.

    Additionally, why would you ever want to worship a being that will strip you of your free will?

  • cofty
    cofty

    The OP is not intended to be a knock-down argument against theism. I am making a very simple point....

    The evidence for theism just doesn't fit the facts.

    If god created the world then it would not be as it is. If he revealed himself in scripture it would not read as it does. If he answers the prayers of his children as he promised, then that would undeniably be the case.

    The obfuscation and special pleading we have seen in this thread is testimony to the veracity of my argument.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Why could God not have created the world as it is, the Bible as it is, and answer prayers as he sees fit? I understand you would prefer that God made a world without predators, a Bible with clear prophecy, and prayers with consistent answers. But beyond mere preference, what has this actually got to do with the existence or otherwise of God? Can't God be God as he chooses to be God rather than how you would choose him to be?

    What is your actual argument?

  • cofty
    cofty

    It has absolutely nothing to do with my preference.

    I judge the god of christian theism - the god and father of Jesus - by his own words, and by the claims of his followers.

    But you knew that already.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    The Bible acknowledges a world with predators and suffering, I don't know where in the Bible it promises clear and specific prophecy, or scientific and ethical insights ahead of its time. And there are parts of the Bible that describe God as acting and answering humans at his own choosing and as he sees fit.

    In particular the idea that the Bible should be, in some sense, "ahead of its time" seems to be a very culturally conditioned view of the sacred text, situated within a Protestant/enlightenment conception of progress, and what the sacred text is and should be like in relation to it. I don't know if the text itself that promises this.

  • Saethydd
    Saethydd

    Yes the Bible acknowledges death, predators, and natural disasters, but it does so by invoking victim blaming (sin), and basically saying it is our fault. This, however is inconsistent with a God that claims to be the embodiment of love. Because compassion and forgiveness are pretty important attributes of love, and they are not readily visible in the world around us.

    Additonally, if the Bible truly came as a result of being inspired by a benevolent and all knowing being, then it would inevitably be scientifically, and prophetically accurate. So either God didn't inspire the Bible to the degree that it can be used as a guide to determine his will, or God is not all-knowing and is therefore a liar.

  • cofty
    cofty

    SBF - Feigning obtuse has become your preferred debating technique. If you can't be bothered to try harder I can't be bothered to respond.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I am asking a perfectly straightforward question. You said for example:

    The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.

    I said this was an example of your preference and asked why should God satisfy your preference.

    You responded it was nothing to do with your preference, but that it's what the God of Jesus "by his own words" must be like, if he exists.

    So the simple question is: where does the God of Jesus promise to be a God who provides "useful information that people could not have known at the time"?

    Very specific question. Any chance of an answer instead of insult and obfuscation?

  • cofty
    cofty

    A book written by an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal deity would not sound exactly like it was written by ignorant Iron Age goat herders who knew absolutely nothing that every other Iron Age peasant knew as well.

    It's a very simple common sense observation. One of many such simple observations in the OP.

    I never obfuscate by the way. I just really dislike having to interact with you. I am convinced of your intellectual dishonesty and can't be bothered with your insincere nonsense, so sometimes I just ignore you.

Share with others