by KGB 90 Replies latest jw friends
The difference between us though, Mary, is that you, and AAF, take the Bible as being the absolute word of God.
Uh, noooooooo, I never said that; I believe in God but I'm not convinced that 100% of the bible is the "absolute word of God" as I've stated in other posts. I think alot of what's in the NT is Paul's personal opinions and thoughts, not inspired by Jehovah and I don't automatically assume that everything written in the OT happened the way the bible says it did.
Gordy
Earlier it was stated that it was up to the believer to prove the existence of God. Surely if you believe God does not exist the same applies to you, provide the proof he doesn't.
I’m sorry, but I have to agree with drwtsn32 and Bradley. Your statement indicates you haven’t been reading the posts. We can’t disprove God’s existence any more than you can prove he does exist. What we can prove is that the Bible isn’t infallible, it isn’t inspired of God and Yahweh is late arriving on the scene (there were almighty gods before him).
OK, Mary, my bad. Apologies:
I believe in God but I'm not convinced that 100% of the bible is the "absolute word of God" as I've stated in other posts. I think a lot of what's in the NT is Paul's personal opinions and thoughts, not inspired by Jehovah.
So what parts do you believe in and why do you use the name ‘Jehovah’ when it has been proven to be erroneous?
Dansk
There have been several bad arguments for the existence of God in this thread. I'll try to point out some of the flaws in some of them:
hooberus (of course):
Nature is a source. The creation had a creator.
AwakenedAndFree:
Look around you, Dansk. What do you see? Who created your very own eyes that enable you to physically see your surroundings ... that is, enable you to see God's marvelous creations? How about the ability to rationalize? How about our marvelous body, and all it's amazing functions? Please meditate upon these things!
That's quite a common argument but one that is fundamentally flawed. God is used as a means of explaining the existence of the universe. "Where did everything come from? God made it". Fair enough, not a great argument but it could work. But to then use the existence of the universe as proof that the "god hypothesis" is correct, is completely circular. (Especially so in the case of AwakenedAndFree as later in the thread he/she uses the fact that our bodies don't always work that well as further proof that his/her god exists.)
JT's grandma:
"Baby dont question the LARD"
I shouldn't need to point out the holes in this one, but I've heard versions of it used in arguments on this board. Refusing to look at information that doesn't square with what you already believe will not teach you anything. It removes the option of ever changing one's mind based on new evidence, something we should all be willing - indeed, eager - to do.
gumby:
Emotions to me are I guess are a spiritual thing and I have a hard time seeing invisable emotions being something that evolved.
This is an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity. I have no problem seeing how emotions might have evolved and the very useful role they play in our lives. But then, I probably know more about evolutionary biology than you.
Mary:
This question is as old as mankind itself. I believe in God, but I cannot "prove" that He exists, just as an athiest cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I look around at creation and at the marvelous wonder that is the human body and mind and I say "I don't believe this came about by accident" whereas an athiest will say "I believe this came about by accident."
Since neither the believer nor the unbeliever of today were present when all this came about, and since God choses not to reveal Himself physically to mankind, then there's no absolute definitive proof one way or another.
The argument that since we don't know for sure either way, then both positions are equivalent, may seem sound at first. But it's not. Not all options are equally likely and to postulate an unobserved, supernatural entity where none is needed, is not the same as assuming that only things that we know to exist actually exist.
Gordy:
I've been trying to find a reference , but can't find it. But it goes like this a well known atheist went to see a Jewish theologian , Rabbi named Bauber (I think) The atheist demanded that the Rabbi prove God existed, the Rabbi said not a word, just carried on writing. The atheist thinking he had won got up to go as he got to the door the Rabbi said "Prove He doesn't exist". The atheist still does not believe in God, but he said , that Rabbi's question has been in his mind everyday for 40 years and he still can't answer it.
What a silly story! It doesn't take 40 years - hell, it doesn't take 40 seconds - to come back with an answer to that, and it's already been done here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The non-existence of God simply cannot in principle be proven if God is described in broad enough terms.
Gordy again:
At the church we attend I have seen peoples lives changed by God. Drug addicts, alcoholics etc changed. Even those with no problems like that have had lives changed and its effected others around them. A lady became a Christian last November, her mother came to see what had made such a change in her daughters life. The daughter went from being a "right misery" to someone full of life and happiness. The mother has recently become a Christian also.
This is an argument from personal experience. It goes something like this: "People's lives change when they start to believe in my god. Therefore, my god must exist." In fact, all such a change proves is that, in some circumstances, belief in certain deities may have a positive effect on some people. It says nothing about the existence of these deities.
Since neither the believer nor the unbeliever of today were present when all this came about, and since God choses not to reveal Himself physically to mankind, then there's no absolute definitive proof one way or another.
Well that's true. However, I found several envelopes in my mailbox this morning. I have two theories:
1) The postman delivered them.
2) The Starship Enterprise timewarped back from the 23rd century, transported them from their source, and then Lt. Uhura stashed them in her ample cleavage and beamed down to my mailbox to put them in.
Now, since I wasn't there when the envelopes arrived, and since Lt. Uhura hasn't chosen to reveal herself to me (damn!), there's no definitive proof either way. But, which is more likely? Because I can't prove either, are they both as likely as each other, or does one option fit the available evidence better?
Expatbrit
Because I can't prove either, are they both as likely as each other, or does one option fit the available evidence better?
Two words: Ockham's Razor.
And it is just plain cool when people use Star Trek when illustrating something. 5 extra credit points for you!
I think it was the demonz that put the mail in your mail box . Further proof of the existence of God .
funkeyderek,
Excellently put, I must say! I agree with you on almost every point that you made, but I was a little disappointed, if I could diverse a little,
that AwakenedAndFree was unable to elaborate upon, and put forward a stronger argument for,
What do you see?
Disappointed to say the least: I may do so myself one day (when I've got the time!)
Spanner
Gordy,
At the church we attend I have seen peoples lives changed by God. Drug addicts, alcoholics etc changed. Even those with no problems like that have had lives changed and its effected others around them.
I meant to post this in reply to yours earlier:
Many drug addicts have attended counselling sessions for their addictions, the same for alcoholics (such as AA) and still others by talking to a therapist. Obviously, these type of specialist "help sessions" don't work for everyone - but does religion work for everyone? No!
My point is, many people who have attended these sessions HAVE been helped without having to read a single page of scripture or without hearing a single sermon. Religion, I daresay, does work for a lot of people, but it is by no means the definitive panacea.
Dansk
Gumby made this statement regarding KGB::"All within a week he said this after apologizing twice in the same week.
Dear Gumby,
I believe KGB is a Christian because he has said so.
You stated comments with regards to his past behaviour of resorting to name-calling and making threats to people here on this board. Well, it's very unfortunate that that happened. He APOLOGIZED for what he did!
I hope that he learned that resorting to name-calling is unacceptable behaviour, specially when he considers himself a Christian.
With regards to the Scripture I quoted KGB, that is , 1 Corinthians verses 4:12,13, please use discernment.
1 CORINTHIANS 2:15,16:(15):"However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.(16):For" who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him? But we do have the mind of Christ."
Christian Love,
AAF
Funkymeister,
This is an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity. I have no problem seeing how emotions might have evolved and the very useful role they play in our lives. But then, I probably know more about evolutionary biology than you.
Amen my friend. I need to learn more on my journey out of dubdom/Christianity.
It hasn't been that long ago I learned the truth about the Bible and it's true worth. To rush into evolution for me wouldn't be fair to the knowledge I now only have. I suppose A little more science in my life will be the next read for me and probably a new discovery for me as I already feel I'm not far from that thought..........that being evolution.
Question for you.
How could "matter" .....the things in our universe come about? It is composed of material. Material comes from something. Any idears?
Gumby
