External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

lovelylil

spook,
You say in your post there are natural explanations for what we see in the world around us.......I do not disagree that many things can be explained by nature. What I Q is how nature conforms to "natural laws" which imply an intelligence behind them? Also what Natural explanation do you say Science has for living matter (life) appearing out of non-living matter? As far as I know, science concedes "it does not know how life began". And it "does not know how the universe began". Although they have "theories", they do not know in the absolute sense.
About your arguements about 'diety", you are referring by your own admission to the JW's idea of God. I do not accept their idea of God. Also, we don't have time here but virtually ALL the arguements you make against believing in God, have been refuted. All anyone has to do is do a search on the internet and they can find information about naturalist view of life, cosmological arguements, etc. That is how I found out about thermodynamics, which is a term Tuesday used. And HE STILL does not understand that the 1st rule is that "something cannot come from nothing". So this does not discount God at all. Current science does admit that the universe had a beginning, and if ANYTHING has a beginning, it has a cause. Absense of what that cause is, my claim it is God is as good as any.
Tuesday,
I hope for your sake you do not have any children, and I do not wish this in a mean way. I would think with your cynical view, your poor kids would be scared to death to live in this world. Those "bugs" that are eating us inside/out are necessary for food digestion and our immune system. I personally take L. acidophillus myself daily to help with life long intestinal troubles. Dr's wanted to remove my colin when I was only 19. But in looking at other therapies, found in nature, I was able to cure my ailment just by eating yogurt!
Since we never got passed arguement #1 which is what is the "cause" behind the universe and life, we cannot go onto any other arguements about God's existence. Because your mind is totally closed to ever accepting that the cause could be God. If you could only accept the fact that God has not been ruled out by science, then more information could be given you to show he exists. But as it stands, we will stay stuck on this one point.
About the killings, rapes, etc. I've been into this before on jwd. It is no use argueing this point with non-believers. Its not like you are going to read these accounts in the bible in thier context, or look at information in bible commentaries, or even look up the meanings of words and how they applied in OT times, so what is the use? Are you going to take my word for it since I did the research and can refute your view? No, so I am not going to waste my time presenting it.
Anyway, I'm glad we go to chat. Peace, Lilly
Tuesday

I hope for your sake you do not have any children, and I do not wish this in a mean way. I would think with your cynical view, your poor kids would be scared to death to live in this world. Those "bugs" that are eating us inside/out are necessary for food digestion and our immune system. I personally take L. acidophillus myself daily to help with life long intestinal troubles. Dr's wanted to remove my colin when I was only 19. But in looking at other therapies, found in nature, I was able to cure my ailment just by eating yogurt!
I have a four month old daughter. I think I've posted that before. I tend to disagree, I'd rather have her know the natural process for things and that life will continue on than hearing about how the world gets worse and worse and can only be solved when a supreme deity steps in to stop it. I want her to have power over her environment, if she has a question I want her to be able to research it and find the answer, I hope for the sake of human kind she will not stop with the God of the Gaps, if scientists stopped at that people would still be praying to cure polio instead of erradicating it with a vaccine. The world is the world, it's a natural thing. Because I state the more horrific things in nature doesn't mean I have a cynical viewpoint per say. I know there are predetors to curb population growth, there's a reason for it I know, it doesn't make it any less horrific. I fail to see beauty in things being eaten to death, whether there is a purpose for it or not.
Since we never got passed arguement #1 which is what is the "cause" behind the universe and life, we cannot go onto any other arguements about God's existence. Because your mind is totally closed to ever accepting that the cause could be God. If you could only accept the fact that God has not been ruled out by science, then more information could be given you to show he exists. But as it stands, we will stay stuck on this one point.
I stated several times the cause could be God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, little green leprachauns, Seth McFarland etc. If you can concede that any of those options could be the answer as well I'll gladly concede that it could be God. I've stated this several times. I've also stated several times it COULD be isn't good enough for me. I need concrete evidence.
About the killings, rapes, etc. I've been into this before on jwd. It is no use argueing this point with non-believers. Its not like you are going to read these accounts in the bible in thier context, or look at information in bible commentaries, or even look up the meanings of words and how they applied in OT times, so what is the use? Are you going to take my word for it since I did the research and can refute your view? No, so I am not going to waste my time presenting it.
Don't be so sure I haven't already. Once again, we've come from the same orginization. I was in for the first 20 years of my life. I've done alot of research, and as we've clearly established I don't take anyone's word for anything, I need to see the proof. If someone went and searched the meanings of words, the context it could've been used in, the social contexts as relating to the people involved in Uncle Tom's Cabin to prove slavery wasn't an abomination you'd probably call them a racist looking for an excuse to explain away their prejudice. I don't see the difference.
In conclusion (as I am truly sick of the topic since I continually bring up the same points which continually go ignored to point out a point I have already quoted and responded to) Lil, I bring you back to my original post on this topic as things I wouldn't accept as proof.
Finally if you're going to use Creationism, can we steer clear of Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski and the various other Discovery Institute's minions. If you quote one study that proves a young earth, but someone else quotes 5 studies that disprove that you'll find it hard to convince anyone here. Also when someone performs an experiment with the express purpose of proving an "intelligent designer" then the agenda is a bit skewed and can produce questionable results. Closely linked with intelligent design is the use of creation itself as the proof, which is a fallacy in and of itself, if creation needs a creator because it exists then the creator himself needs a creator because he exists. And I've seen beautiful paintings that were caused by 2 paint buckets being dropped onto a canvas due to a flood in a basement so let's avoid the painting analogy could we?
This thread is for external (outside the bible), observable (by people who are not crazy), and verifiable (can be proved) evidence of God
This was my first post on the subject stating more or less the exact arguments you have been using for the past 3 pages as something that is not considered proof. Almost sentence by sentence you can go through the creation paragraph and point out a sentence that states something that Lil has used to prove the creator. Lil, you even used the exact wording "Intelligent Designer" which I used exactly in that paragraph. I also said "External (outside the bible)" which you continually used. If the original post was a ground rules of the boundaries of the discussion, every single one of the arguments (with the exception of Sirona) has been outside those boundaries. I have also stated several times why these were the boundaries and they were ignored in basically every argument.
A-blee-a-blee-a-blee-a-blee That's all Folks!
lovelylil

Tuesday,
Congrats on your daughter! That really is good news. I have 2 children myself, they are teens now. Sorry to tell you this my friend but your daughter will ask tough Q's one day and the answers just will not be found in a naturalistic view. I know, I was raised by non religious parents myself. As a matter of fact, for most of my life, my father opposed Christianity. But close to his death conceded that he may have made a mistake.
About the flying spaghetti monster, Leprechans, pink unicorns, Santa etc. being God. There is no way any logical person can concede that any of these could be God. Why? 1 ) Because we know these are all man made inventions, none of which claimed to be around during the origin of the universe 2) None of these have ever claimed true diety. On the contrary, the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorns are admitted inventions to poke fun at God and religion in general.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (also known as the Spaghedeity) is the deity of a parody religion [1] called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its system of beliefs, "Pastafarianism". [2] The religion was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution.
In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. [3] He furthermore calls for the "Pastafarian" theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms. [4]
Due to its recent popularity and media exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used by atheists, agnostics (known by Pastafarians as "spagnostics"), and others as a modern version of Russell's teapot [5] and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
So, there you go a "parody" religion, not a real one. So none of these, unlike the God of the Bible ever claims to be the "cause" behind life and the universe. That pretty much excludes them in the onset as being such.
About researching the Bible as a jw, you may as well have just burned all their research books, cd's, magazines, etc. because all of it is pure rubbish! The only good use for it is to keep warm on a cold day. Their explanations of God "allowing" Genocide and rape are ludicrous. They do not have an inkling of understanding of scripture. So if this was your only resource of investigation and study of the Bible, I would highly recomend you get a second opinion.
Peace, Lilly
inrainbows

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but before you start asking for evidence of god isn't it a good idea to define god?
I know my definition of 'god' exists, but I can also describe myself as an atheist for a given value of 'theos' - not my 'value of theos', but certainly one many would ascribe to.
Many theists would be thought of as atheists by any right-thinking polytheist, or as close to being an atheist as makes no difference.
After all, isn't a theist just a sloppy atheist (i.e. someone who has concluded all but one god doesn't exist?).
Without defining your parameters debates like this start of meaningless and get worse.
Tuesday

Congrats on your daughter! That really is good news. I have 2 children myself, they are teens now. Sorry to tell you this my friend but your daughter will ask tough Q's one day and the answers just will not be found in a naturalistic view. I know, I was raised by non religious parents myself. As a matter of fact, for most of my life, my father opposed Christianity. But close to his death conceded that he may have made a mistake.
She's great, always smiling and happy. I hope she does come to me with questions, that's why I do the research.
About the flying spaghetti monster, Leprechans, pink unicorns, Santa etc. being God. There is no way any logical person can concede that any of these could be God. Why? 1 ) Because we know these are all man made inventions, none of which claimed to be around during the origin of the universe 2) None of these have ever claimed true diety. On the contrary, the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorns are admitted inventions to poke fun at God and religion in general.
OK, then use ones that have. Allah, Odin, Zeus, Ra, etc. The bible could be just as wrong as any of these texts. If someone truly believes that The Flying Sphagetti monster created the universe, you wouldn't be able to convince them otherwise, there are texts and so forth. Just because something "claims" divinity doesn't make it divine. Whatever, there's no headway. If just one choice, Jehovah/Yahwey vs. Allah vs. Zeus they all claim divinity whatever. It COULD be any of those, it doesn't mean it was. It is still inserting something in place for an unknown answer no matter how you slice it. An ancient book written by man is no more conclusive than another ancient book written by man.
About researching the Bible as a jw, you may as well have just burned all their research books, cd's, magazines, etc. because all of it is pure rubbish! The only good use for it is to keep warm on a cold day. Their explanations of God "allowing" Genocide and rape are ludicrous. They do not have an inkling of understanding of scripture. So if this was your only resource of investigation and study of the Bible, I would highly recomend you get a second opinion.
I really wish you would stop assuming you know everything I have researched and read on subjects, I'm really growing tired of it. You're basically saying "The knowlege I have researched is right and the knowlege you have researched is wrong" without knowing anything I have researched. I have gotten 3rd and 4th opinions, 7th and 8th opinions. For the record my research on the bible really included nothing from the JW religion after I left. If you're looking for a reason to justify the things in the bible you'll find the right apologist, I have no doubt in that. So this brings your arguments pro-God to officially God of the Gaps and using creation as the reason which I outlined in the first post would not be considered proof, then the Bible which is no more proof of God creating the Earth than the Qu'ran is proof that Allah did and was also asked to be avoided in the initial post, then finally in the last posts putting my views of the world as being incorrect and also my research of the bible being incorrect which is a fallacy of "Personal Attack". The last part especially has nothing to do with the argument, just an attempt to discredit my arguments without using the arguments themselves and questioning the presenter.
I'll admit in disproving God, I have not done so. I can't disprove God, but this wasn't the point of the post. No where in the initial post did it say "and I will attempt to disprove God". It was asking for External, Observable, Verifiable evidence of God. I have no issue with people saying they have faith that there's a God, I really only take issue with folks saying they can unequivocally prove the existence of God. Usually it ends as it has here with the presenter for the proof of God appealing to the unknown, copius use of the bible as proof, and finally the last ditch effort is attempting to discredit the opposing presenter.
I hope you enjoyed folks. The actual theist debate is really over now, as the next post will probably be something along the lines of how the research done on the bible somehow shows it was more valid then the Greek myths about Zeus or the Qu'ran, then trying to show there was no attempt to discredit the opposing presenter.
lovelylil

Tuesday,
You are right about one thing; No one can absolutely prove God to an athiest, anymore than an athiest can disprove him to a believer. I am just happy knowing Science which is considered one of the higher "Gods" of this world, concedes that it does not have the answers to the "origin" of life and the universe and therefore they must conclude that it certainly could have been the God of the Bible.
Anyway, nice intellectual debate. Thanks again for keeping it civil. Peace and wishing you a happy life with your precious daughter. Lilly
Sirona

Well folks, if Sirona can prove she wasn't in an altered state when speaking to the spirit beings, and her witnesses were not also in an altered state she has in fact come up with the most compelling evidence.
*standing ovation*
Thanks Tuesday.
It depends what you mean by altered state. It is possible to be in some sort of altered state whilst watching TV!
I need to make the following points:
1. I think that there is a specific state which one has to be in, in order to receive spirit contact. Just purely being in an altered state should not disqualify the experience, if there are other ways to verify. Therefore if I say I met a pink unicorn who spoke to me, someone could say I imagined it. If I say I met some spirit being whose description exactly matched that of someone who has died (or matches the experience of others see point 2) and who gives me information which I couldn't have known previously (see point three) then whether I was in an altered state or not becomes a moot point.
2. If individuals are in that "altered" state of awareness, in a group setting, and they all see a spirit, they would need to separately confirm what exactly they saw (with no previous communication to influence the others).
3. If there is a group situation or not, the spirit being needs to provide some information which could not have been known previously. This is a difficult one because we pick things up subconsiously. Also there is the question of what is specific and what isn't. In my case, cutting a long story short, I saw an image of a gift which had not been given (in detail) which I had never previously seen or heard about and which was discovered in someone's attic hundreds of miles from my home. How I knew about this gift I can only put down to the experience of speaking with my (ex) husband's deceased grandma who told me about it and showed me an image of it.
Sirona
Sirona

About the flying spaghetti monster, Leprechans, pink unicorns, Santa etc. being God. There is no way any logical person can concede that any of these could be God. Why? 1 ) Because we know these are all man made inventions, none of which claimed to be around during the origin of the universe ,
Lil, your first point about all these others are created by man is not a very good one because the God of the bible was created by the minds of men and there is absolutely nothing you can say to prove otherwise. You simply cannot say that other gods who have been written about are created by men but your god who was written about in the bible was not. It doesn't make sense.
2) None of these have ever claimed true diety. On the contrary, the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorns are admitted inventions to poke fun at God and religion in general.
I have to say this because its been bugging me all through this thread. It isn't diety its deity.
Also you are wrong that other gods have not claimed deity. They have! So have spirit beings who were getting ahead of themselves.
Sirona
Caedes

LL,
Perhaps it would help to clarify what the first law of thermodynamics is, the first law is an application of the principle of conservation. The conservation of energy principle states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can be changed into other forms of energy however.
The first law of thermodynamics states that the change in internal energy of a system is equal to the energy added minus the work done by the system. This law is how the principle of conservation applies to heat and fluids.
However the point others were making is that there is an equivalency between matter and energy as shown by E=Mc^2 so if you assume conservation applies 'pre' big bang then matter cannot be just created without using vast amounts of energy.
You cannot automatically assume that scientific principles were the same 'before' the big bang including conservation or causality. Since there is no empirical evidence (at least to current science) that survived the big bang science can do nothing more than make mathematical models of the 'pre' big bang singularity. It is fallacious to assume that this gap in our understanding can then be automatically filled with 'god did it' Although science cannot preclude a supernatural explanation for the cause of the big bang that is because science is not interested in a supernatural explanation of anything (try looking up intelligent falling) , the supernatural is outside of sciences remit. That is because the supernatural cannot be used to make any sort of prediction about the world around us. whereas naturalism can.
Even if science never answers the question, the natural answer (as opposed to the supernatural) is just as good an answer that has occams razor in it's favour. You stated earlier that it is up to science to prove you wrong, no it is up to you to prove your argument. Science is willing to stand up and admit where we simply don't know enough to be sure (abiogenesis and the 'pre' big bang singularity are just two examples) The fact that these gaps in our understanding are there doesn't lend any weight to a supernatural explanation of either.
You concede that man made inventions cannot possibly be the 'cause' of the universe and yet you fail to recognize that your god (and every other god) has at it's root a man made invention i.e. the bible or other holy book.
You may feel that a naturalistic explanation of the universe cannot answer the tough questions, but the supernatural explanations I got from my parents failed to answer my tough questions too. I however wont be making the mistake of grandly claiming that my philosophy has all the answers.
The simple answer is that there cannot be scientific, empirical evidence for a supernatural god, unless of course you wish to limit your god in his powers!
lovelylil

Sirona,
I never said people have not claimed their Gods were true ones. There are other gods named in the Bible, even Jehovah himself says this is true. But just because the Bible admits people worshiped other gods, this does not mean that either Jehovah or his followers ever thought these "gods" had any real power. And the scriputures support this view as being so.
What I did say was this; the flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorns, etc. are a parody of religion and those who made them up never really said they were the true God who created the universe. The creators of these "gods" clearly state they are not real but made up to poke fun at religion. That in itself would eliminate any of them as being the cause or origin of life and thus the true God.
I disagree of course that the God of the universe was an invention of mankind. That is what we are discussing in this thread. I agree though that in the Bible, man tried to communicate "what" God is by using human terminology. As if they could communicate any other way. And I will admit that it is impossible to really say "who" or "what" God is. We simply cannot fully describe him in human terms. But just because man tried to do this; do not mistake that for man making a God in his own image. He certainly did not.
Think about it; had man made God in HIS image and likeness, why would the God of the Bible be so Holy and Perfect that the Bible writers admit "no man can attain to his glory?". That would not make sense. Peace, Lilly

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

Share this