by theMartian 121 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
If he did exsist why wouldn't he help his follower in making this unwinable argument.
Ummmm, because God is no fool?
Luk 7:31-32 KJV And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.
Isn't the really important question, would a god care if we believed in 'Him'.
We have some logical situations:
God exists but doesn't care whether we believe.
God exists and does care whether we believe.
God doesn't exist so it matters not what we believe since no-one is listening.
For the purposes of 'what matters' we only need to ascertain whether a God who 'cares' exists. If God does exist (and in this logic branch He does and He cares) we have to then decide on the consequences of that and we are again presented with some logical options.
God is passionate and punishes or rewards behaviour according to a whim.
God is not passionate and punishes or rewards behaviour according to rules external to Him.
God is both passionate and governed by external rules.
A purely whimsical God not bound by law is no better than chaos (on a good day you sleep with your daughters and its great on a bad day you pick up sticks and fry) so can be discounted for what we care about (since it doesn't matter what you do it matters more what God's mood is when he notices you.) So we are left with two options that matter and both require a limited God (i.e. at least partially governed by external rules so that we can introduce some level of predicatability.)
Now - even if God is still passionate and has certain leeway within the external rules we rae still left with the one bit we should possibly care about - the external rules (since that is the only basis for a repeatable - understandable relationship with deity.) The problem with those external rules is that by their very definition they are godless - they require no God. The very concept of rules outside of God is an errant apostacy for many religious dogmas since it subordinates God to a product of the universe rather than the universes creator. Ironically though this - bound god - is the only one we can logically care about worshipping. So now with these two scenarios that from a logial point of view are worth worshipping:
What evidence therefore do we have for a non - passionate bound God who is the product of the universe rather than its source?
1/ The universe proves itself at every level it can be seen and tested (i.e. we have our external rules.)
2/ God doesn't intervene on a global scale ever ( we can show that the flood was local not global for example.)
3/ God doesn't intervene on a localised scale in the experience of most sane people no matter how much they desire it.
4/ Human knowledge has matched and surpassed most of all currently recorded miracles. In other words miracles are no more than application of external rules that are no more special to God than they are to smart humans.
What evidence do we have for a passionate but bound God? All the above and...
1/ Prayers are rarely answered (and that is debateable.)
2/ Loads of different religions with God apparently having no favourites since non have 'won'.
3/ All the religious texts ever written have a basis in faith rather than provable fact - God choses to prove himself by avoiding mass consumption evidence.
4/ Since we are realising god's powers on a daily basis then we are 'gods' and will become 'God's' (at least as described by the bible in terms of knowledge and capacity to act.) - we are of course passionate.
And finally we end up with the big factor that matters in all this - us. Only a god in OUR image bound by external rules is of any interest to us - that god may indeed be us in a few 'years'. God himself - if 'He' exists will have to make Himself known because on current evidence we've got us and external rules - if God wants to make us 'care' about 'Him' then 'He' has to make 'Himself' known to all. If 'He' doesn't 'He' doesn't exist or 'He' doesn't care.
