Perhaps I should try harder to understand God.

by nicolaou 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nicolaou

  Well fair enough. But if the 'no-god' option is correct then you are wrong. As I recently said to Shining One;

  "I'm prepared to say that I might be wrong. There could be a god. The bible might have been inspired by that god and Jesus could have been his son and the messiah. These would all be such powerful and momentous truths if they were proven but if sufficient proof were supplied or, if conclusive proof were lacking, if the simple weight of evidence was in their favour then I could accept it.

  How about you? Are you humble enough to concede even the possibility that you might be wrong? That god does not exist? That christianity in all it's forms is mistaken? That Jesus was just another man"?

  Nic'
• 

  AuldSoul

  Nic,

  Yes. If the 'no-god' option is correct then I am wrong. I have yet to see kid-A's admission . However, I am reminded of Terry's very astute observation on a previous page of posts in this thread.

  Consequently, it would seem prudent and logical and intellectually honest to simply live a good life and leave a place open for some reality of "god" to find a home should evidence present itself.

  Would such evidence have to meet the standard of laboratory proof? Such will never be forthcoming. Would religious texts have to be infallible as part of the proof? Without any question, I answer, no.

  Could personal experience provide me with proof (evidence of sufficiency to indicate the acceptance of God's existence as fact)? I answer, yes. Would that authorize me to start judging others as deserving of life or death? Without any qualification, I answer, no.

  Should my personal experience as proof in any way sway your conclusions on the matter? I answer, no. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  kid-A

  Yes. If the 'no-god' option is correct then I am wrong. I have yet to see kid-A's admission .

  Auld, I think the problem is, we are left with the admission that being 'wrong' or 'right' is merely a matter of subjective opinion.

  I cant prove there is no god, you cannot prove there is a god. The hypothesis itself is untestable. I dont really understand what the alternative is to looking 'inward'? I believe we did agree on another thread that all of us are limited to our subjective realities. If that is the case, where do you propose we look? I would also like to know about this alternate reality you are proposing that exists beyond our nervous system and how you would demonstrate its existence beyond the faculties of your own perceptions? We both know this is an impossibility with at least the current stage of human evolution. I'm not saying it cannot exist, but if it does, we must limit our awareness of it to the confines of our own consciousness and perceptual faculties. Dont get me wrong. I admire imagination and creative thinking, in fact, I would not be in my chosen field if I did not. However, I am a reductionist and materialist first and foremost and have enough basis understanding to realize that our subjective realities are neuronally created theaters that are highly malleable and subject to distortion, misperception and perceptual errors. Emotions drive our motivations and provide filters for every idea, concept, memory and belief that we entertain. In this internal universe, right and wrong are subjective constructions, nothing more, nothing less, regardless if some "truth in itself" may exist in the phenomenal world.