Does God REALLY exist? (An Attempt at an Online Bible Study)

by theMartian 121 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  timetochange

  AlanF,

  All this is pure speculation, of course, but it's really no worse than speculating that some super-intelligent entity far more complex than our universe has "always existed" or never had a beginning.

  I agree. But I would add neither is it any better, imo. If we are merely products of evolution then our lives are not that different from the various fish in the sea which go about their business of ensuring the survival of their species by propagation which in turn only exists to ensure the survival of the species. Producing children to ensure the survival of mankind becomes the only true reason for our existence. That's an awful waste of time invested in evolving brain power and talents which really are not necessary to that task. Is seems then that the fish do it much more economically and proficiently. :)
• 

  icyestrm

  For all the Canadians here, remember the MacLean's cover 'Is God Poison?' a few months back? Here is the article online: http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070416_104182_104182
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  If we are merely products of evolution then our lives are not that different from the various fish in the sea which go about their business of ensuring the survival of their species by propagation which in turn only exists to ensure the survival of the species. Producing children to ensure the survival of mankind becomes the only true reason for our existence.

  But what is the true reason for our existence if god DOES exist? ("Be fruitfull, become many and fill the earth" comes to mind... what's the difference.)

  Personally I chose my own purpose in live. And I choose to be happy. That's my purpose, and without god, you can choose your own purpose too.

  Lore
• 

  AlanF

  theMartian wrote:

  : I have read many "Creation" accounts of the ancient cultures: Babylonian, Sumerian, Accaidian, Ubaidians, and Egyptians- and they are easy to find, now, online. NONE but Genesis make any real sense, and only the Genesis account is backed by science (barring the church dogma of 24-hour days being the Creative Days).

  I beg your pardon, but Genesis makes no real sense either. The notion of 24-hour creative days is not mere "church dogma" -- it's what the Bible specifically teaches. Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11 together clearly state that the six creative days involved the creation of everything from "the beginning" through the creation of man and woman. No one reading Genesis in ancient times would interpret these "days" as anything other than literal 24-hour ones. Genesis 2:2,3 along with the account of God cursing the ground on Adam's account proves that the 7th creative day ended withing the time span covered by Genesis 1. Since God blessed the 7th day and made it sacred, ithe ground could not have been cursed on that day -- otherwise God's handiwork could not have been called "blessed" and "sacred". Thus a claim that the 7th day extends to our day is wrong, and provides no solace to those who would make the creative days 7,000 years or hundreds of millions of years long. But even if we allow, for argument's sake, that the creative days were long periods of time, Genesis still has the events all jumbled up with respect to the paleontological record. Furthermore, there are two mutually contradictory creation accounts in Genesis: Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:4-25. So even if one claims that Genesis is right and science is wrong, the claim that "the Genesis account is backed by science" is simply wrong.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  DunceCap: Anyone who respects the opinions of learned men worships them.

  EvilGambler: Nonsense!

  AlanF
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Why doesn't God help all the little children?
• 

  AlanF

  timetochange wrote:

  : I agree. But I would add neither is it any better, imo.

  I think that goes without saying. And I'm glad to see that you, in contrast with certain rabid Fundamentalists who have simply ignored this important point, have thought about it.

  : If we are merely products of evolution then our lives are not that different from the various fish in the sea which go about their business of ensuring the survival of their species by propagation which in turn only exists to ensure the survival of the species. Producing children to ensure the survival of mankind becomes the only true reason for our existence. That's an awful waste of time invested in evolving brain power and talents which really are not necessary to that task. Is seems then that the fish do it much more economically and proficiently. :)

  Perhaps that's true, but so what?

  All life up and down the line is in the same boat. Bacteria, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals -- "all kine sem ting." Even the Bible agrees with this, right?

  Your comments bring up something that I think is very important to religious people -- the desire to have some sort of "higher purpose" in life. I'm not sure that such people really think about why this ought to be important. After all, they have no problem with the notion that animals have no higher purpose, right? Have you really examined the question deeply?

  I think that most Christians would answer the question, "What is the purpose of life?" with something like, "To worship, love and honor God." But then, what's the use of that? Other than showing such emotions, such people still do exactly the same thing as people who don't show them do: eat, sleep, reproduce. Can you really give a good answer to the question of why worshiping God is somehow better than just producing children? Please note that to properly answer this, you have to define what you mean by notions like "better".

  AlanF
• 

  frankiespeakin

  AB reader,

  The big question is when? When will he finally speak up with his thunderous voice to silence all doubters? Dream on, or should we say have faith, it will happen, some day, when? nobody knows but in the mean time have faith.

  John 12:27-30 27 “Now my soul is deeply troubled. Should I pray, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But this is the very reason I came! 28 Father, bring glory to your name.” Then a voice spoke from heaven, saying, “I have already brought glory to my name, and I will do so again.” 29 When the crowd heard the voice, some thought it was thunder, while others declared an angel had spoken to him. 30 Then Jesus told them, “The voice was for your benefit, not mine.

  I dont think it will be any different for those without faith today, people are stubborn, arrogant, and the lack of faith is evident since the beginning of time.

  Lots of assumptions used as factoids.

  You use 2000 year old "hear say evidence" to clasify people as stuborn and arrogant if they don't beleive. Why should persons be clasified that way based on assumptions so weak and lacking creditable evidence. You call it lack of faith if a person doesn't believe, when it is just healthy skepticism. You are following the same trick the bible writters used in thier appologetics, namely the villification of those who are more reasonable, and know you can't beleive every thing you read.

  It seems that the older a writting is the more some believe it to be true.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Agreed with those that have said God's existence should be so unequivocally obvious, that debate is not needed.

  We don't debate the existence of realities, though they be invisible.

  God's silence only serves to perpetuate this debate.
• 

  timetochange

  LtCmd.Lore,

  But what is the true reason for our existence if god DOES exist? ("Be fruitfull, become many and fill the earth" comes to mind... what's the difference.)

  To live a life which puts our mental and physical abilities (which by far surpass all animals on earth) to good use either towards the earth or towards our fellowman. To use our reasoning abilities, to acquire insight about ourselves and why we act as we do. To do good. Evolution has nothing to do with these things, the doing of good is not necessary to the survival of the species on the contrary to give a young life for an old man or woman who are no longer able to reproduce or to help an infant born with a genetic defect are actions which do not serve the bottom line purpose of evolution: the survival of the species and/or the fittest. Mankind does not fit the evolutionary model, we act in ways that are contrary to the very process many claim gave rise to life on earth. Not good. ;)

  Ironically, a scientist can one day tout the factualness of evolution and the next promote the development of a vaccine for bird flu, yet evolution would require that no vaccine be given in order that only those who have the strongest immune system go on to produce a population resistant to bird flu. When it comes to belief in evolution most scientists in the medical field have faith but no works. They in fact work against their evolutionary beliefs. Their actions are more in line with the doing of good from a moral standpoint and not their evolutionary theory. But what role does morality play in the evolution of the fittest?

  Which then adds another question to this discussion: How does evolution not only explain the origin of matter but also the origin of moral behavior. Or do only the strong get saved of man and beast?