Struggling with the concept of a "God"

by littleblueuk 50 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Gopher

  It's okay to "not know", in fact it's more honest. The atheist merely takes things one step further and says, based on the preponderance of evidence available, that there isn't enough evidence to be a believer.

  Gopher,

  Do you have any idea how utterly ignorant that statement is? .... I mean, based on the perponderance of evidence?

  Please, please tell us what your perponderance of evidence is for your position of "there is no God".

  Two people can look at the same evidence and come to vastly different conclusions. All I meant was that the atheist takes into account the evidence for and against, and is not convinced that the evidence in favor is good enough for them. I outlined my reasons for doubt earlier , to recap: -- (1) the problem of evil in the face of claims that God is all-powerful and/or all-loving, and (2) that it's a leap of faith for the believer to assume that an infinitely complex creator could have popped up out of a vacuum.

  If you don't want to accept my reasoning, there's no reason to try to insult me. I won't go down to that level with you. If you feel you are better off for believing, fine. I'm not here trying to convince hard-core believers to change.

  The thread was started, not by a believer, but by someone who has good reason for serious doubts about the concept of God, and so I offered my arguments to back up such doubts.
• 

  BreakingAway

  Perry preaches a message of hate and damnation, no wonder he's so obsessed with the God of the Bible.It's what he wishes he could be.
• 

  BreakingAway

  Littleblueuk, Many of us here have struggled with the concept of God and the "allowance" of suffering.In fact, I started a thread not too long ago about how this goes right back to God's dealing with Adam and Eve and their unborn children.A lot interesting contributions are contained within the four pages of the thread, perhaps it will help to take a look at it...

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/158732/1.ashx
• 

  Perry

  All I meant was that the atheist takes into account the evidence for and against

  Gopher,

  The atheist doesn't have any evidence....remember? Read your Dawkins. The atheist makes the statement that of course he doesn't have any evidence for the non existence of unicorns, etc. So, how can YOU claim a preponderance of evidence supports your claim "there is no God".

  This is maddening and may I suggest you were indoctrinated into thinking in terms of "having it both ways"?

  For instance, a typical JW will adamently declare, "I am a Christian". He believes this inspite of publically rejecting Jesus each and every memorial, by doing the opposite of what Jesus commanded. Also, Jesus clearly taught that a person must be born again (receive a new spirit) to enter the kingdom of God. But the JW will proudly claim that he is not born again....only the leaders are. This of course in spite of Romans 8: 9 -

  Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

  So for the JW he gets to have it both ways. (1) He gets to reject Jesus and retain his imagined autonomy and (2) He gets to imagine that he is a Christian by simply ending his prayers: we-ask-all-this-in-Jesus-name-amen.

  You are pulling the same routine here.

  Do you fully grasp what I'm telling you here? The JW isn't necessarily ignorant, his statements are. Likewise, I didn't say you were ignorant, just that your statement was.

  The atheist merely takes things one step further and says, based on the preponderance of evidence available,

  The atheist posits the statement "there is no God" not based on the evidence, but to his mind the lack thereof. You on the other hand boldly claim that you have evidence of "there is no God" .

  So, lets see it. Just one or two of your best evidences will suffice here.
• 

  S3RAPH1M

  I believe that "God" has given us the intellect, the curiosity, the ingenuity to discover the ecological solutions to world problems. I believe we could solve "hunger" by yesterday. Solving the worlds problems has nothing to do with God. People relinquish their responsibility to others (government, corporations, etc.), when they should act themselves individually. I can't speak for "God", but we as humans need to accept responsibility for our own doing or not doing, and come up with solutions. Here's one: http://www.thevenusproject.com/
• 

  Gopher

  Of course I think there's "not enough evidence for God". An atheist merely believes there is not enough evidence. However, that doesn't mean he cannot see evidence against God. Such evidence or reasoning is what I outlined twice already in this thread:

  (1) the problem of evil in the face of claims that God is all-powerful and/or all-loving, and (2) that it's a leap of faith for the believer to assume that an infinitely complex creator could have popped up out of a vacuum.

  I don't have time to elaborate much. But you don't need to go into comparing anyone who disagrees with you here to a JW.
• 

  Perry

  Perry preaches a message of hate

  Breaking Away,

  Just hatred of sin here bubba. That's the culprit.
• 

  BreakingAway

  Breaking Away,

  Just hatred of sin here bubba. That's the culprit.

  1.I sure as hell ain't "bubba".

  2.If you believe in God, why don't you let HIM take care of the sin, while you work on whittling down that rafter in your own eye.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  But my question is WHY would a "loving" God as he so often calls himself in the Bible, allow this kind of suffering on such a monumental scale? What does he think he's accomplishing?

  I think we are being allowed to live our choices. And scale is a question of perspective, isn't it? An agitated fishbowl is armageddon for the goldfish.

  God does not need for us to suffer in order to accomplish anything. Suffering exists because of evil which is an act that goes against the order God has created. God allows evil acts out of deference to our free will. He will not deprive us of it. Nonetheless that evil exists because of our evil choices cannot ultimately frustrate God's will-- and he can still bring a greater good out of it.

  How do you, if you have faith in God, reconcile this contradiction? Is it pure faith? How do you make that leap?

  That suffering exists in a world created by an omnipotent omniscient God presents a dilemma for many. In my personal experience it is the most serious objection to Christianity. Various theodicies have been proposed by great minds to explain it and I have dwelt on the subject a lot myself. Suffering in its many varied forms is probably that one thing that we can find difficult to come to terms with-- especially the suffering of the innocent through natural disasters etc. The suffering of innocent people at the hands of evil created by man tends to someone to blame for it: Man himself.

  In the end, I think it comes down to faith. Faith that suffering has a greater purpose than what we perceive. Faith that suffering exists and is ultimately for our own good. Faith that suffering is temporary and our present lives in this fallen state are but a small piece of our eternal existence. As a Christian, I believe that God took our own suffering upon himself in living as a human being and being subjected to injustice. He did not make Himself immune to suffering.

  BTS
• 

  Perry

  Of course I think there's "not enough evidence for God".

  Gopher,

  Then how can you logically have it both ways by claiming that the atheist has taken an additional step based on the preponderance of evidence? I mean if you don't have enough evidence for the existence of God, surely you couldn't have enough evidence for the philosophical construct "there is no God" (atheism).

  Would you not need to know all things yourself in order to make such a claim? Unless you have a different suggestion, that IS THE ONLY WAY. So, by necessity the atheist places himself in the position of God and makes himself the very thing he claims doesn't exist!

  An atheist merely believes there is not enough evidence.

  This is what YOU claim out of one corner of your mouth, and out of the other corner you claim:

  The atheist merely takes things one step further and says, based on the preponderance of evidence available,

  Again, I am not drawing comparisons between yours and JW thinking to embarrass you or to hurt you; but rather to provide a rational explanation for your cognitive dissonace. We all were indoctrinated with it like it or not, and were apparently quite comfortable with CD.

  Now, let's examine your evidence for the non-existence of God that you have presented.

  (1) the problem of evil in the face of claims that God is all-powerful and/or all-loving, and (2) that it's a leap of faith for the believer to assume that an infinitely complex creator could have popped up out of a vacuum.

  Let's formalize this time honored atheist argument:

  1. God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
  2. A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
  3. The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.
     
     Therefore, God does not exist.

  The Bible does state that God is "all powerful." In the Old Testament, one of God's titles is "El Shadday," which is translated "God Almighty." 1 The Bible also states that God is loving. 2 In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love. 3 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect. 4 So, we can agree that the first statement is a correct interpretation of what the Bible says about the characteristics of God.

  The next statement indicates that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. This is the statement that is false and invalidates the argument. Nowhere does the Bible state that the universe was created to be perfect. God Himself called it "good" 5 and "very good," 6 but never "perfect." In fact, God Himself stated that part of the original creation was "not good." 7 The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect, 8 but was designed to be temporary 9 and will be replaced with a perfect universe 10 that will be permanent. 11 Science also tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary. 12

  Why would God create an imperfect, temporary universe only to replace it later with a perfect one? Why wouldn't God have created a perfect universe in the first place? This is a good question, but shows a lack of understanding of the biblical reason of why God created the universe. One can find the reason for the creation of the universe in the first few chapters of the Bible. God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them, which He had with Adam and Eve before they sinned (Genesis 2). Jesus said that the first and foremost commandment was to "Love the Lord your God..." 13 A personal relationship, characterized by the possibility of love, is only possible if created beings are given free will.

  If God had created the universe with no possibility of evil or sin, then the created beings would have had no free will, and, as such, would essentially be programmed computers. Such beings would be incapable of love, since love involves making a choice - which requires the ability to choose not to love. For example, I can program my computer to say "I love you" when it starts up. Does this mean that the computer really loves me? Of course not! Likewise, God could have programmed humans to say that they loved Him, without the possibility of rejecting Him or performing evil deeds. However, these programmed beings would exhibit about as much true love as my computer - not a very satisfying relationship. Therefore, God created the universe for the express purpose of allowing free will spiritual beings the opportunity to have fellowship with Him (and likewise, reject Him).

  As for your second evidence for the non-existence of God. Your premise is simply false. God never claimed to pop out of a vaccuum. He has consistently claimed to be self existing, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega. Ironically, this is the exact same thing that many atheists try and sell through ambiogenesis, multi-verses etc.... that the universe is self-existing. Why is it OK for the universe to be self existing but not for God to be? The answer to that question will yield far greater pearls than the double think offered by bible cults and modern pop-culture atheist book writers.

  I don't have time to elaborate much.

  You should make the time....it's important.