Posts by Disillusioned JW

31

Is the FACT that no God/god ever communicates with humans evidence that no God/god exists?

by Disillusioned JW in

is the fact that no god/god ever communicates with us evidence that no god/god exists?

i think it is very strong evidence that no personal god/god exits, especially a benevolent god who wants humans to know him him/her/it, to obey him/her/it, and/or to love him/her/it.

since no god/god communicates to us (including those who sincerely want communication with the/a god/god), wouldn't it be sensible for those who pray to what they believe is the/a god/god to cease all efforts to communicate to a god/god?

Disillusioned JW

I think that Schellenberg's idea of the meaning the word "God" with a capital "G" is one which has the core characteristics of what Christian theologians consider the Christian God to have. Philosophers in their writings about whether or not God exists seem to be fixated on that kind God, and give very little consideration to the idea of a God who is not all-knowing or or not all-powerful or one who is evil. They also seem to give no consideration to the idea that polytheistic types of gods might exist.

Regarding the point of "It is more related to evidence for your dissatisfaction in how he may or may not communicate with you personally" my title of the topic thread claimed "no God/god ever communicates with humans" and my post claimed "no God/god ever communicates with us". By "us" I meant all humans, not just some humans. I was thus not merely claiming that God never never communicated with me, but rather was broadly saying that God never communicated with any human.

I know that the Bible and other religious scriptures and other books say God (of some kind) has communicated with some people. I also know that many people claim that God (of some kind) has communicated to them personally, but I see no proof of such, no convincing evidence of such. Parapsychologists have not conclusively demonstrated any person as having received communication from any alleged spirit being. People who have claimed to gone to heaven (while being clinically dead or near death) have not provided any scientifically testable information which proves to be kind which only a supernatural being could provide to them. By that I mean such as unambiguous detailed precise descriptions of extraordinary future events, or of extraordinary scientific knowledge (which was not discovered prior to the prediction but which was later confirmed by science to be true), or of unambiguous detailed descriptions of things buried thousands of years ago in a specific location which had not been discovered prior to the prediction but which scientists could later discover.

Regarding what pistolpete said about those believe God exists and those who believe God doesn't exist, I see much truth in that. For example, in my conversations of those who have a strong conviction that God and or other spirits exist, they sincerely (as far as I can tell) claim to have personally heard or seen God or an other spirit or to have at least had their prayer requests answered/granted, whereas I disbelieve I ever experienced such. Likewise those who strongly believe in supernatural (such as ghosts and demons interacting on Earth with people) or the paranormal, or an afterlife or out of body experience, sincerely (as far as I can tell) claim to have personally such, whereas I disbelieve I ever experienced such.

31

Is the FACT that no God/god ever communicates with humans evidence that no God/god exists?

by Disillusioned JW in

is the fact that no god/god ever communicates with us evidence that no god/god exists?

i think it is very strong evidence that no personal god/god exits, especially a benevolent god who wants humans to know him him/her/it, to obey him/her/it, and/or to love him/her/it.

since no god/god communicates to us (including those who sincerely want communication with the/a god/god), wouldn't it be sensible for those who pray to what they believe is the/a god/god to cease all efforts to communicate to a god/god?

Disillusioned JW

What do you by "existence is left-minded thinking"? Do you mean the concept of existence (not existence itself) is left-minded thinking? Do you think left-minded thinking is a false kind of thinking?

Why do you say "There is no God. There has to be some logical/scientific explanation for all things," is in itself a proof that such belief is based on faith.' ? I didn't say (and I don't believe) that in order for all kinds of things to exist there must must be some logical/scientific explanation for their existence known to us. But in the case of a loving personal god who wants people to know him and to worship him, if such a God exists then the evidence for such a God must exist, and if the evidence does not exist then the God doesn't exist. The scientist, professor, and philosopher named Victor J. Stenger (a deceased atheist of the New Atheism movement) correctly said that absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence should be there but isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis says ' David Ludden of Skeptic magazine wrote that "Stenger lays out the evidence from cosmology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, particle physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics showing that the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator." '

31

Is the FACT that no God/god ever communicates with humans evidence that no God/god exists?

by Disillusioned JW in

is the fact that no god/god ever communicates with us evidence that no god/god exists?

i think it is very strong evidence that no personal god/god exits, especially a benevolent god who wants humans to know him him/her/it, to obey him/her/it, and/or to love him/her/it.

since no god/god communicates to us (including those who sincerely want communication with the/a god/god), wouldn't it be sensible for those who pray to what they believe is the/a god/god to cease all efforts to communicate to a god/god?

Disillusioned JW

Is the FACT that no God/god ever communicates with us evidence that no God/god exists? I think it is very strong evidence that no personal God/god exits, especially a benevolent God who wants humans to know him him/her/it, to obey him/her/it, and/or to love him/her/it. Since no God/god communicates to us (including those who sincerely want communication with the/a God/god), wouldn't it be sensible for those who pray to what they believe is the/a God/god to cease all efforts to communicate to a God/god? I believe so.

Some people make the claim that God, a god, or some spirit being has communicated to them and/or to some ancient people, but they have no proof of their claim. But, others disagree with that conclusion of mine. Personally, when I was on the verge of becoming completely convinced of atheism I prayed to the concept of God (both to the biblical Jehovah God, to Jesus Christ, and to the concept of an unknown god) asking that he/she/it/them provide me with evidence of the sort which God (if God exists and is all knowing) knows would convince me of God's existence. I never received such evidence despite searching thoroughly to see if such evidence exists. I thus became convinced there is no God - no personal god/God at all and very very probably no non-personal conscious God either. Even though I am now a convinced atheist, I still on occasion examine and study purported evidence that the/a God/god exits, but I still see no convincing evidence of the existence of the/a God/god. I see no more evidence for a Christian Trinity, Yahweh Elohim (Jehovah God), or a supernatural Jesus Christ than I do for any of gods (including goddesses) of ancient (or current) paganism. But, I do see scientific evidence that not even the creator god of deism exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief says the following.

"An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument that asserts an inconsistency between the existence of God and a world in which people fail to recognize him. It is similar to the classic argument from evil in affirming an inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that would exist if God had certain desires combined with the power to see them through.

There are two key varieties of the argument. The argument from reasonable nonbelief (or the argument from divine hiddenness) was first elaborated in J. L. Schellenberg's 1993 book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. This argument says that if God existed (and was perfectly good and loving) every reasonable person would have been brought to believe in God; however, there are reasonable nonbelievers; therefore, this God does not exist."

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-hiddenness-argument-philosophys-new-challenge-to-belief-in-god/ contains an article called "The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God". It discusses J. L. Schellenberg's book called The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God, published by Oxford University Press, 2015, 142pp., $35.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780198733089. The article says the following.

"J.L. Schellenberg's book is an attempt to spell out his well-known argument from divine hiddenness against theism patiently and systematically so that anyone can understand it. ... I think it is largely successful. The average person on the street can pick up this book, and a trim 142 pages later, they'll understand what the hiddenness argument is and why it is for many an important piece of evidence against theism.

Since the exact terms of Schellenberg's argument (though not the spirit) have changed a bit over the years, let's begin by quoting the version given in the book.

If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.
If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
If a perfectly loving God exists, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists (from 1 and 2).
Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
No perfectly loving God exists (from 3 and 4).
If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
God does not exist (from 5 and 6) (Schellenberg 103)"

To me, the atheistic argument of divine hiddenness is a stronger philosophical argument against the existence of a personal god, than the philosophical argument from the existence of evil.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

jhine (Jan), regarding what I posted previously about Bible Churches notice for example that Sea Breeze in his so-called "List of Not So Old Things" included a link to https://kgov.com/list-of-shocked-evolutionists . [By the way, most all of the links in that list are to sections of the kgov.com website, which is a very conservative religious website. The other links are to sections of the rsr.org website and those automatically redirect to sections of the kgov.com website.] The about page of kgov.com site (which is at https://store.kgov.com/about-bob-enyart-live/ ) says its website creator is Bob and it says that "Bob trusted in Jesus Christ as his Savior in 1973 and since January 2000 pastors Denver Bible Church." Notice that the web site's author is the pastor of what is called a "Bible Church".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_church says "Bible church is a type of Christian church which emphasizes the Bible as its standard, and focuses on the original inerrancy of scripture. It is typically a type of evangelical Protestant church.[1] Bible Churches can be non-denominational or affiliated with a denomination, such as the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches, Bible Missionary Church or International Fellowship of Bible Churches. This dictates whether a particular Bible church would be committed to a certain catechism, Statement of Faith and theology. The International Fellowship of Bible Churches, for example, adheres to Wesleyan-Arminian theology.[2] Nevertheless, many Bible Churches hold to a few commonalities."

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

jhine (Jan), if I recall correctly you live the United Kingdom. I am correct? The percentage of Christians in the USA who consider evolution (specifically that which is called macroevolution) to be a fact is far lower than that in the U.K. (the kingdom in which Charles Darwin lived in). In the USA it is much more than just the LDS, JWs, and and deep south Baptists which reject evolution. It is also the SDA, and theologically conservative baptists in other states of the USA besides those in the deep south, and it is theologically conservative Lutherans and theologically conservative Presbyterians.

Furthermore, in my area a number of the congregations identify as nondenominational and it seems that all of those churches make extensive use of the Bible in their Sunday sermons and in Bible study classes taught in their congregations. A number of those congregations also identify as Bible churches - even the word "Bible" is included in the name of those congregations. Such churches tend to read the Bible literally and thus teach that evolution is false.

I meet a number of Christians who identify their religion as simply Christian - namely people who claim to have no denominational name for their church (and often times they are people who classify the Catholic church as not Christian) [many times they don't even known the name of the specific congregation of which they attend]. When I ask them if they believe in evolution they say 'no, I believe in the Bible'. Sometimes they will also say 'I have no religion, I have a personal relationship with Christ'. To some of those who say such, Christianity is not a religion. In regards to saying that Christianity is not a religion, to me they sound like the JWs from the Rutherford area.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

Correction; In my prior post when I said "... atom of any element can" I meant to say "... atom of any other element can".

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

Vidqun, in the lab nature has often been observed forming complexity out of simplicity - simply from a combination of the laws of nature (and it forces), randomness, and the presence of a little energy. For example, complex molecules have been observed coming into existence from very simple molecules under simple environmental conditions. This is largely due to the electric charges of the atoms of various elements, which only allow certain elements to bond in certain configurations with certain atoms. As an illustration of this concept, see the video from PBS show called "Genius by Stephen Hawking" at https://www.pbs.org/video/genius-stephen-hawking-how-atoms-are-created-magnet-experiment/ . The nature of the carbon atom allows it to form complex molecular chains - far more so than the atom of any element can. Scientists discovered that organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon based molecules.

To me abiogenesis is a strong possibility, so much so I am convinced it happened more than 3.5 billion years ago. I am even surprised that scientists haven't yet seen it happen in their simulated environments of their labs.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

waton, are you saying you believe a god exists and that the god is a female, or are you saying you believe in pantheism (of the kind which says that the universe/cosmos really is a god or is the God), or something else? I believe in scientific naturalism - no supernatural beings at all. I also believe that of everything which exists, and of everyone who exists, the universe/cosmos comes the closest to fitting the definition of the word "god". That is because it exists everywhere that something exists, and it contains within it all of the power and all of the knowledge that exists. As such, it comes the closest to being a 3 O (omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience) type of god.

In addition knowledge of the existence of quantum entanglement and of what is called the "fabric of the universe" adds support to the idea that universe is one entity (in some ways like a living organism/being) made up of many interconnected parts - even when the interconnections are invisible to us.

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

In an article from 2014 Bill Nye (see https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/in-undeniable-bill-nye-speaks-evolution-directly-to-creationists.html) makes the following excellent point.

"My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever. By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot."

The WT literature definitely hindered my ability (by causing me to suppress my common sense in some areas) to draw the correction conclusion that evolution is a fact and that there is no Jehovah God and no heavenly Jesus Christ. If only I had become convinced of evolution during my preteens, then I would never had become a baptized JW and never a baptized Christian and my life would be better off as a result! Even now, despite being an atheist, I still study religion (though it is now from an atheistic mindset).

86

Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW in

is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

Disillusioned JW

Anony Mous, had the word "created" in quote marks, suggesting it was not really created by humans but that humans merely created a favorable environment for nature (undirected by any intelligence) to bring into being the various chemicals.