Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

by Slappy 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

LtCmd.Lore

We can conjecture all we like, but when it comes down to it, can we say for sure?
Do you realize what you just said?
If you can't know for sure, then why do you seem so sure that it came from God?
Galileo

Slappy, Pseudo gave you some good advice. Reading up on some biblical scholarship rather than biblical apologism can help you understand where us skeptics are coming from. Something else to research is how and when the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John got their names, since they are all anonymous.
Slappy

John Doe: LMAO!
gymbob said "...the subject you speak of..." but pseudoxristos said "you covered such a multitude of topics...". Well, which is it?
SixofNine said "...you seem ridiculously and stupidly sure about that." This would be a prime example of our human-nature (without the love of God to guide us) reacting to something it doesn't agree with. Same with startingover and gymbob. Immediate bashing without taking the time to explain why or how...actually no explanation at all. So how is not believing in God the way to go again?
john doe responds with humor, which isn't much of a response at all but was entertaining nevertheless.
In all, only pseudoxristos gave a constructive response. Interesting don't you think? I know for a fact that those that believe in Christ and apply His love and teachings to their life would not have responded in such a way, since I have seen and been part of many a 'discussion' between believers and non-believers. Only very few non-believers ever take the time and effort to form a constructive response.
Anyway, from what I have been able to ascertain, Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus, Luke was not a disciple, and Mark was more or less the writer for Peter (my one mistake). How is that so glaringly wrong that it leads to 'educate yourself'? For further clarification I mainly use the Libronix Digital Library System and its many sources and the NKJV Study Bible for most of my study. The NKJV Study Bible is great in that it gives a synopsis of Bible scholars' research and then I can research more in depth anything that interests me from there.
slappy
gymbob

Slappy,
That's it? That's all you can say? Sad....
Lt.~
An awesome post, well put. Thank you! Gymbob
Galileo

Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus, Luke was not a disciple
Yes but there is no evidence that any of these men wrote the gospels that later came to bear their names, as I already alluded to.
Slappy

First, what you don't seem to realize is that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . If I tell you I have ten bucks in my pocket, you'll probably believe me no questions asked. If I say I have a million dollars in gold in my pocket you'll probably require some evidence before you beleive me. IF however I tell you I have a baby fairy in my pocket, you'll definitely need some darn good evidence.
Why don’t they have the same desire for physical proof for Columbus or some other bit of ancient history that they take for fact?
There is nothing miraculous about Columbus.
So now we have double-standards? JWs have double-standards and that bothered a lot of people. Does this requirement for a double-standard not bother people? I guess not; not if it suits their purpose at the time?
So why is it so hard to believe the Bible? It’s a collection of accounts, written about the same God over an amount of time that is truly astounding.
"Written about the same god" Highly debatable!
OT God: Vengeful, Jealous God of War, capable of creating everything, flooding the planet and stopping the sun. Eye for Eye, and all that.
NT God: Loving, Happy God of Peace, barely able to do anything more impressive than Chris Angel. Totally abolishes the Eye for Eye rule.
He's still vengeful (righteously so) "'...Vengence is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" Romans 12:19 or Hebrews 10:30.
He's still jealous, He wants us for Himself
He's going to destroy the earth...again...
He didn't stop the sun in the NT, He just completely blotted it out for 3 hours, which is even more impressive. Can't be an eclipse...they don't last that long.
Eye for an eye still applies, you have just completely misunderstood it (as many people have). It applies to the punishment being equal to the crime.
Also, the four--four mind you--different accounts of the life of Jesus Christ were written by four different authors. Yes, atheists will argue, but three of those authors were ‘apostles’ of said Jesus, so that’s hardly believable.
You are confused. There is no evidence that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. In fact most of them were written long after Jesus died by anonymous authors.
That is what Bible Scholars have ascertained. And written long after Christ died? Relative to a minute...maybe. I don't count 50-70 years (the date of the Gospel of John is a slightly longer) long relative to the span of time. Many biographies today have been written that long after their subject died. Maybe you should get your facts straight, or just stop with the attempts at deception and lay things out like they are.
To even put those books on the same level as the Bible shows a complete lack of comprehension of what those books are and what the Bible is.
If you think the Gospels were written by Apostles than you know a lot less about the Bible than I do.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but the fact that you seem to be making the assumption that they weren't when Bible Scholars (who I'm quite sure have more knowledge of the Bible than you and I put together) have concluded, to the best of their knowledge that they were, lends one to discredit your assertion. Also, you're blatant attempts to twist things in relation to God in the OT and God in the NT shows you have quite a lack of knowledge about the Bible. Careful, too many more of that and you'll no longer even have a sieve to bail your sinking boat.
You know what; prove to me that the ‘big-bang’ and evolution really and truly happened. Don’t give me minor evidence that gives small support for a theory that has slowly been massaged to fit that minor evidence. Prove to me that matter can be created in a way that will support life, prove to me that life actually came from no life (through natural processes), prove to me that one (can’t be more than one, that doesn’t fit the theory) type of micro, one-celled, asexually reproducing organism evolved into the countless, many celled species that inhabit the world today. Prove to me that not only did that single organism evolve into those countless species, but prove that it evolved into a male and a female of each species who somehow had the proper organs to reproduce sexually even though that single organism reproduced asexually. Prove to me that these species are still evolving into better species. We can’t you reply, we don’t have the time. Ah…and there lies the irrefutable defense. For all this took place over a span that covered billions and billions of years; there is no way to prove this ‘theory’ in the course of known human history let alone in our lifetime.
Irrelevant .
Even if we had NO alternative theory WHATSOEVER, that STILL doesn't make " God Did It " a logical conclusion.
Even in the complete absence of an alternative, you can't just make something up. (Or use what somebody 4000 years ago just made up) And assert it as correct without any evidence.
This would be the equivalent of finding a strange rock formation you can't explain, and then assuming Leprechauns built it.
Well, there's an actual term (in debate circles) for what you tried to do (in relation to the Leprechaun analogy), but the exact term fails me at the moment. Actually, I'm pretty sure that when we have two alternatives, we can very much accept the one alternative that remains standing until another alternative presents itself. Where would society be if we didn't do so? Science wouldn't have advanced to the level it has today if we just sat around and said "Well, that isn't right, but that doesn't necessarily make our alternative right either. Let's just wait and see what else pops up." And the fact that you had to attack that point in the way you did lends one to think that you don't hold to the nonsense of evolution theory either. Or if you do, you realized you have no evidence to prove it right either, so you left it alone. We cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, but evolution doesn't even have a chance; I know what one I'll stick with until a better alternative presents itself.
One more point, where did we learn to speak and write? Who taught us?
... Well I'm not sure about everyone else, but my parents taught me.
Without our predecessors, how would we know how to do those two things?
We'd make up our own language.
We cannot teach ourselves these things. This is impossible.
On what do you base this assertion?
Have you ever known of a truly deaf (no offense in any way, shape, or form) person to speak (vocally) as fluently as one who isn’t deaf?
No. Instead they MAKE UP A NEW language, like Sign Language.
And Blind People read with Braille... This fact blows your last assertion out of the water. Braille was INVENTED in 1821 by Louis Braille. That's right, he taught himself this.. He didn't learn it from anybody.
Of course our parents taught us, that was my point. And who taught our parents? Our grandparents, and on down the line. You either completely missed the point (i'm not sure how though) or you conveniently ignored it (to what purpose?). I make that assertion on the basic understanding of language. It is a taught skill, not a self-learned skill. Even the braille example, which you so thoughtfully provided, supports my assertion. (Did you even read what you linked to? I'm not sure how you could have? Maybe you need to take a basic reading comprehension class.) The Braille system was already in place, it was just modified to suit the needs of those disabled. And it itself was created by someone who already had the ability to read, speak, and write. This 'language' was based off a language already in use.
So why don’t monkeys talk now?
Because Monkeys are not yet as smart as (most) humans.
However they DO have primitive language abilities.
Exactly my point! It's impossible that we evolved from monkeys then. The only way the monkeys could ever reach the intelligence of a human (not going to happen btw) we would need to teach them. How can the 'evolved' creature teach the 'evolved from' creature. It doesn't make any sense. Hence, no evolution.
Because, for you, it’s better than believing in the alternative.
How do you figure that? You think I don't WISH I could live forever?
That would be great! Why would it be better for me to die than to live forever?
I’m not sure why.
Me either, that's stupid. But wishful thinking doesn't make something true. So as much as I wish there was a god and an afterlife. (And I most certainly DO.)
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Sure, you may want to live forever (I personally don't, at least on this mess of a world), but you would want to do so on your own terms would you not. The fact that you would have to conform yourself to the image of God presents a difficulty you'd rather not deal with. So it's easier to say that it's not possible and leave it at that. Do you REALLY wish there was a God and an afterlife? I find that...hard...to believe.
We can conjecture all we like, but when it comes down to it, can we say for sure?
Do you realize what you just said?
If you can't know for sure, then why do you seem so sure that it came from God?
I do. And I accept that. I too, am as imperfect as a human can be. I realize that I may not have the answers to a lot or even any of the questions. I question the existence of God everyday. However, instead of leading me to another answer, it only strengthens my resolve. It is the only explanation that fits all the many pieces of the puzzle that make up my life. I've seen the lives of others that don't believe and I realize that they are much worse off than they would be if they believed. It hurts, especially when some of your closest friends go through so much pain and agony when their actions are in direct contradiction to what God desires. If they would only listen and follow the One who knows all, they would not have that pain in their lives. Trust me, I've seen both sides of the equation.
THIS is what makes me so sure. THIS is why I believe. THIS is why I want that everybody else believes; to be happy and content. True and lasting happiness can only come from God. Any sort of material thing on this world cannot and will not satisfy us. Why do you think so many people look for something higher than themselves. I'm not refering to just God either; people join organizations with a purpose because they think its purpose will give meaning to their life. And some do, to an extent, I don't deny that. But in the end, what was it for? I just got done studying Ecclesiastes and wish that everybody would understand what was being said in there. If we all could only live vicariously through Solomon, we would realize that he did everything one could do on this world to find happiness and came to the conclusion that without God, it was impossible to be fully satisfied. And this is coming from a man who had everything.
slappy
startingover

Slappy,
You start this thread asking for proof, which of course we all know you did not want, and when you make false statements and are called on it you claim to be "bashed".
Your comment in the last post really exposed your ignorance. No one says we evolved from monkeys. Like I said, educate yourself.
THE GLADIATOR

Slappy
I see that you have opened another thread to peddle your obsolete beliefs.
The title of this thread is excellent and we are still waiting for you to deliver.
hamilcarr

Why don’t they have the same desire for physical proof for Columbus or some other bit of ancient history that they take for fact?
There used to be two methodologies to deal with ancient texts: one adapted to the Bible and one to all other texts. The bible was considered sacrosanct and eluded all scientific examination.
Now, scientists use one method to distinguish between the probable and the improbable.
So why is it so hard to believe the Bible?
For manyn the same reasons why you find it hard to believe the Quran and the Vedaic writings.
Then again, ignorance is bliss, so if one doesn’t know what the Bible records and its (the Bible’s, not the history it recounts) history, then one can ridicule it and feel comfortable and justified in doing so. Man (in general) has always, and will always, ridicule that which he doesn’t understand; it’s a basic defense.
I wouldn't use this particular argument on a post-JW board.
Slappy

*sigh*
So far I haven't received any proof. The point of my original post was that many of you claim that belief in God is ridiculous and bordering on insanity, if not outright sanity. I'm making the same statement about evolution. Is there a 3rd option to explain our existence that I'm not aware of? How about you 'educate' me of it? I'm asking for proof that evolution happened. Not that it 'might' happen given this, this, this, this, this....and on down the line, which more or less means that the probability of all those necessary items occuring at the necessary time so miniscule as to render it impossible.
I'm making the same claim that you ask believers about God. However, while believers give reasons why they believe, and you either ridicule or ignore them, when I ask for proof considering evolution, you ignore that and jump straight into the ridiculing. You know you cannot prove evolution anymore than we can prove God. However, as anybody with a faulty set of beliefs does (just look to the JWs) you take the attack immediately in order to keep yourself from having to go on the defensive.
This is a two-way street, but you cannot and will not accept that and therefore believe that it's a one-way street and anybody who isn't going the way that YOU'RE going is out of their mind.
Slappy,
You start this thread asking for proof, which of course we all know you did not want, and when you make false statements and are called on it you claim to be "bashed".
Your comment in the last post really exposed your ignorance. No one says we evolved from monkeys. Like I said, educate yourself.
No one says we evolved from monkeys? Um, I'm pretty sure that's part of the evolutionairy theory, unless they've changed it now...you know, that an evolutionists version of 'New Lite'. Anyway, continue your offensive, I understand completely why you do so; you have no proof to offer.
Slappy
I see that you have opened another thread to peddle your obsolete beliefs.
The title of this thread is excellent and we are still waiting for you to deliver.
Gladiator, I mentioned earlier that you should consider taking a reading comprehension course. I think you just showed that you need to. I'm done offering proof for why I believe in God; whether or not you accept any of it. The point of this post was to challenge you to offer proof for your beliefs.
slappy

Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

Share this