Questions and answers for Slappy:
Can you expect to be able to prove something spiritual exists with physical evidence? I don't know, and neither do you. But on the other hand, why not? Can you prove that bopplewobbles don't exist? Bopplewobbles are not physical. They require a separate sense, similar to spiritual sense, to sense them. You need Bopplewobble senses to sense Bopplewobbles. Do you have them? That's a shame if you don't, because your salvation depends on it.
Do you demand the same evidence for say, Columbus? If someone were to ask me to worship Columbus, then yes. Do I believe 100% that Columbus existed as I have never met him? NO. I would put my belief in the historical Columbus to be pretty high though because I have no real warrant to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot about him. I believe in Columbus with about 85 to 90% sureness. If I were to actually hold his letters in my hand and become a real expert in all things Columbus, that number might go up. But I am not really concerned with whether Columbus existed or not, because he is not a religious figure, and he never asked me to do a damn thing. So, who cares.
Can I prove God does not exist? No. Can you prove Bopplewobbles don't exist? No.
Can you prove God exists? Sure, there are many ways we could do that, but they al involve physical senses. As long as god refuses to be sensed by the senses we actually have, all 5 of them, it will not be possible to prove his existence, as far as I know. Maybe there is a way, but other than actual experience of a real phenomenon, I can only imagine. Reading a book will never do the job.
Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!
by Slappy 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shawn10538
-
Slappy
Shawn, I understand. That's where faith comes into play. However, I will not go into what has been beat to death several thousand times over; for all our sakes.
My point was that myself and others have given our reasons for believing in God and NOT believing in the alternative. All I'm asking is for your reasons for believing what you do. Realize, however, that this is different from giving reasons for NOT believing in God. I want to know what is so damn convincing about evolution that one would rather believe 'that' than in God.
You're right, reading a book will never do the job. There has to be experiences in our lives that influence us. That is how we truly learn after-all, through experiences. It has been my experiences that have led me to the Bible and the truths that I feel are contained there-in. In then applying those truths to my life, and trying my dammdest to live my life as God would have me live it, I have realized that I truly am better off for that.
slappy
-
Galileo
I want to know what is so damn convincing about evolution that one would rather believe 'that' than in God.
This is a false dichotemy. As has been pointed out many times, the vast majority of those that accept evolution also believe in god. Not the vast majority of accomplished scientists, granted, but there are still some, such as the brilliant Kenneth Miller, who so deftly demolished Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" hypothesis in the Dover trial. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic. I myself was just the opposite, I stopped believing in any god after doing extensive research on the history of the bible, but it was still years before I became convinced of evolution.
You mentioned that you thought evolution says humans came from monkeys. This statement is indeed one that shows great ignorance of even the most basic understanding of evolution. You are speaking of Lamarckian evolution, an idea that is older than Darwin and an idea that Darwin proved wrong. Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches that in the distant past both humans and monkeys had a common ancestor.
As for strong evidence for evolution, here are a couple of my favorites, although I doubt you will take the time to actually look into them:
Endoginous Retroviral (ERV) insertions.
The fused 23rd chromosome in humans.
I could make a much longer list, but those two should keep you busy and baffled for quite some time, if investigated properly.
-
gymbob
Slappy~
As usual, the believer falls back on, "this is where faith comes in". Faith, faith, faith.....have you ever stopped to ask yourself WHY?? Why do you need to have faith?
Why believe that things that are impossible in our natural world, really did at one time happen? Why not simply believe in what can be proved? It's been know to work pretty well...
-
besty
So I still hold to my statement of wanting proof
With all matters scientific we position ourselves somewhere on a continuum ranging from strong belief to strong disbelief. Without becoming an expert on each field we wish to have an opinion on, one way of deciding where on the continuum to position ourselves is by considering the scientific consensus.
For example the scientific community consensus is that global warming is anthropogenic.
Another example is that evolution is a valid theory for the origin of the species, according to the consensus.
The existence of God and Sudden Emergence Theory (or whatever creationism is called these days) is not a subject for scientific proof. That is why there are no peer-reviewed articles available for Intelligent Design. That's none. Nada. Zip. It's not science,
So don't ask for proof when you have made your mind up in advance - the scientific community has nothing to offer you - it stands for progress, research and the balance of probabilities.
Please take the time to read http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ClosingArgument.pdf
-
Galileo
First off, I'm sorry you think I've been snide. I've actually gone out of my way not to be. Honestly, I'm trying to have sympathy for you because I was once where you are now, so I'm biting my tongue.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229 Maybe that wasn't the exact article you would have had me to read, but it was first one I came across in Google.
That certainly wasn't a bad article, but I would suggest next time maybe reading more than just the first article on Google. One thing that wasn't made very clear in that article is that scientists didn't just happen to find the fused chromosome. It was known for a long time before that chromosome was found that Apes had 24 Chromosome pairs and humans had 23. This seemed strange if humans and apes had a common ancestor. Darwinian evolution predicted that at some point two pairs must have fused into one. Scientists tested this hypothesis, and it was proven correct. This sort of thing has happened time and again with Darwinian evolution. Unlike the bible, which states that plants were created before the sun and that epilepsy is caused by demonic posession, Darwinian evolution has been established more firmly the more we learn about life.
ERV insertions, although a harder concept to grasp, is in my opinion much stronger evidence for evolution than the fused 23rd chromosome pair in humans. I would encourage you to research this until you understand it.
-
gymbob
Slappy~
Control myself? Right, good response to what I asked you. Ok, I won't type in capital letters anymore...
How about responding to what I asked? Have you given any thought to why you need to have faith in your belief system? You said you were thinking, "outside the box"....
So....Why is faith a requirement? Gymbob
-
gymbob
Oh, and if you think that someone asking you a question means you're being attacked, then you really need to control yourself.
-
MAHERSHALALHASHBAZ
Which is easier to believe/prove, that life came from no life or life has always existed?
-
Slappy
First off, I'm sorry you think I've been snide. I've actually gone out of my way not to be. Honestly, I'm trying to have sympathy for you because I was once where you are now, so I'm biting my tongue.
Er, snide may have been a 'strong' adjective, but it's the first word that came to mind. "...although I doubt you will take the time to actually look into them." Is what I had reference to. Maybe it was an honest attempt at rev. psych. I will study up on your suggestions as time allows; if only I could quite my job and study full-time, that would be incredible. Granted, I'm not saying that I'm looking for an alternative to my belief, however, I do want to understand the 'other side' in as equal a manner as I understand mine. I'll admit that I'm quite set in my belief in God. However, that doesn't mean I'm restricted in learning and understanding another perspective, however much the actions of other 'religious' people seem to contradict that statement .
"the burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the more unusual the claim, the more proof is needed." Something like that. So the one claiming there is a supernatural being is the one that needs to prove it. If I said there was a pink dragon in my garage that was invisible, etc., the burden would be on me to prove it, not everyone else to disprove it.
I've heard this argument put forth several times. "...the more unusual the claim..." all depends on perspective does it not? I also believe, as I'm sure many others will, that our individual experiences are the main contributing factor to our beliefs. Some may argue that location is the deciding factor, but I disagree.
stated that he's only 99.9% sure of atheism, as it really can't be proven.
True, and neither can God. To make the statement that we are 100% sure of either is an arrogance that is unfounded. We are all human, and are subject to our many imperfections. Now I'm aware that I came across as being 100% sure of God, and I want to apologize for that. That probably wasn't the best tone to start things with.
So don't ask for proof when you have made your mind up in advance - the scientific community has nothing to offer you - it stands for progress, research and the balance of probabilities.
I believe this can apply in the reverse also, no? A non-believer asking for proof when his/her mind is already made up about the non-existence of God. The believing community has nothing to offer - it stands for faith, love, happiness, and the many other things that the Bible teaches. However, I've realized my folly in trying to convince people who have no care to believe, so I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future. Now, as I mentioned earlier, I'll apply myself to understanding, more completely, the opposing belief.
Control myself? Right, good response to what I asked you. Ok, I won't type in capital letters anymore...
I asked for proof from you, and all you could come back with was asking me for proof. Like I said, if you can't contribute to the conversation, then remain a spectator. Your two cents (that's all it was--a quick 'blib' here and a quick 'blib' there) was getting in the way of an honest discussion. I'd be more than happy to give you my explanation for the need of faith, but would it do any good? No! So I'll leave it alone as I know it cannot and will not be appreciated by you.
So, what I propose now, is that instead of belittling the other's ideas and beliefs, you can ask me why I believe in God and why faith is necessary or anything else (preferably honest questions--nothing like "why didn't he leave instructions to make toilet paper"), or don't ask anything at all (you've probably heard 'all' the answers anyway). However, I'm more than willing to read any articles/ideas you have that explain your side of the argument. However, keep in mind that I do actually have a life outside this hobby of mine and am incapable of intaking everything at once (I should be studying for the CPA, seeing as how it's slightly more relevant, if undeniably boring and not nearly as interesting).
Thx again to those who actually provided useful and applicable feedback.
slappy