"NO EVIDENCE" for God, and creation? Maybe there is . .

by hooberus 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  If someone wants to believe in the concept of god, why mess about? Lets have lots of gods. A god for the wind another for the rain, one for thunder, one for luck and so on.

  The idea of one god was started by Abraham who wanted the monopoly on god.

  If man is made in gods image and procreates then surely gods do also. The number of gods we can have is limited only by our imagination.

  Christians only have three gods. The big celibate I AM and his demigods, Jesus and the Holy ghost. in Rome we have hundreds of Greek and Roman gods who flourish in a liberal atmosphere.

  My gods believe in me and that is why I keep then on. If they treated me like the Christians god they would be ejaculated from my mind in an instant and cease to exist.
• 

  PrimateDave

  "The idea of one god was started by Abraham who wanted the monopoly on god." - The Gladiator
  
  There is textual evidence in the Bible itself that Abraham and the Patriarchs were in fact polytheistic. Monotheism was retroactively imposed on the scriptures at a later point in the evolution of Jewish religion. Early Jahvist and Elohist writers were more likely to see El or YHWH as one god among many. Later Priestly sources were more likely to see YHWH as the only true or supreme God. I'm no expert on this. Someone like Leolaia could give a much better explanation (and any welcome corrections).
  
  Dave
• 

  wherehasmyhairgone

  Instead of pointing to some book and claiming the evidence is there, why not list your evidence here?
  
  S

  the reason is simple, the information is out there, The information, evidence is overwhelming, i have spent countless hours debating the creationist mindset, and their is a common thread that runs thru them all. To accept the evidence means they have to accept that they have spent their collective lives being fooled. Some like myself are willing to accept that i was fooled for a number of years becasue i didn't take the time and read mis-guide and factually incorrect information on the subject. So I have little time for people who come on the board and copy/paste the latest in along line of creationist BS claiming this is the answer.

  The reason i pointed to this book, is that the argument i see here, are the same tired old lines being rolled out that been answered hundred of times, but whereas science yearn to be proved wrong... and we all know how that can be done, for a creationist to accept he is wrong means dropping the one thing that anchors their life. And also the realization ,that they arn't special.

  When debating weather God exists, one first has to define God, if anyone wishes to try and prove a 'Christian God' then good luck, if we are talking about a Prime mover that you wish to label a NON personal God, then we have a starting point.

  But serious if anything as 'claims evidence' for a Person God ' has been listed here, then the claim do not even deserve an answer, as they clearly do not understand the leaps involved to get to a personal God.

  So if anyone wants to define out God , and do this correctly, then examine what eveidence would point to this then fine, until then poting to a book, that actually gives the answers they are need, is a time saver.

  I would debate anyone, and have debated from Evangelicals to Pastors & Decons (that was fun) and as long as long as they will define what God they are on about then thats a starting block
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Look around you, the incredibly complex material world is evidence. Look inside your mind to your own intelligence, to your own ability to think and reason. This is evidence for God and creation. No, it isn't going to prove anything to the die hard atheist, but it is evidence.
• 

  Gopher

  Look around you, the incredibly complex material world is evidence.

  Here is why this argument doesn't convince me (being the atheist that I am). If there were to be a Creator, it would seem logical that any such Creator is greater than his/her/its creation. i.e., they'd be more complex than what they created. I think it's reasonable to assume that you cannot create something more intricate than you yourself are.

  So where did this infinitely complex creator come from? Did he/she/it just pop out of a vacuum?

  The only answer that creationists seem to give is a dogmatic one -- that the creator was already there, so next question please.

  Once anyone can explain how a creator appeared out of a vacuum, then we'll next address how evolutionists believe the less-complex universe developed.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Once anyone can explain how a creator appeared out of a vacuum, then we'll next address how evolutionists believe the less-complex universe developed.

  You are trying to understand something you can't. Yet you believe that energy, matter and intelligent life appeared out of a vacuum. Think about it. We don't believe God appeared out of a vacuum. This is you projecting your questions on us.
• 

  PrimateDave

  "But serious if anything as 'claims evidence' for a Person God ' has been listed here, then the claim do not even deserve an answer, as they clearly do not understand the leaps involved to get to a personal God." - wherehasmyhairgone
  
  I agree. Well said.
  
  "Look around you, the incredibly complex material world is evidence. Look inside your mind to your own intelligence, to your own ability to think and reason. This is evidence for God and creation. No, it isn't going to prove anything to the die hard atheist, but it is evidence." - FlyingHighNow
  
  FHN, you are such a nice person that I really wish I could agree with you on this. I must admit that if I could have faith, I would be a Universalist like you.
  
  Dave
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  FHN, you are such a nice person that I really wish I could agree with you on this. I must admit that if I could have faith, I would be a Universalist like you.
  
  Dave

  Thank you, Dave. You are making me smile on this relaxed, almost magical, rainy Sunday afternoon. Check out my very last comment about the vacuum idea. I've been a serious agnostic before. I still have a touch of it, but I have never believed there was no God or Great Spirit.
• 

  hooberus

  Look around you, the incredibly complex material world is evidence.

  Here is why this argument doesn't convince me (being the atheist that I am). If there were to be a Creator, it would seem logical that any such Creator is greater than his/her/its creation. i.e., they'd be more complex than what they created. I think it's reasonable to assume that you cannot create something more intricate than you yourself are.

  So where did this infinitely complex creator come from? Did he/she/it just pop out of a vacuum?

  The only answer that creationists seem to give is a dogmatic one -- that the creator was already there, so next question please.

  Once anyone can explain how a creator appeared out of a vacuum, then we'll next address how evolutionists believe the less-complex universe developed.

  Your comments demonstrate a typical "Dawkins like" "God Delusional" evolutionist response to a valid probability argument against one of their actual beliefs.- that is to respond with an counter "argument" against something that no one in the discussion believes in (ie: a strawman).

  There is nothing in a probability argument against something coming about by chance [e.g. fine-tuned universe; origin of life from non-life], that also requires a potential creator to themself also have come about by an even greater chance, (since there is nothing in the argument that requires the creator to themself also come about by chance at all.

  For example: The probability of a "God Delusion" style book coming about by chance would be very improbable, (due to its relative complexity as compared to complete rubbish). Furthermore, even if we assume for the sake of argument its creator must even be even more complex, (and hense even more improbable by chance), we still make no arguemnt against his non-existence since there is nothing in the probability argument against the book coming about by chance that also requires its author to themself have come about by chance.

  Indeed, it would be bogus to claim that a probability analysis argument against a "God Delusion" style book coming about by chance is somehow a weak argument since "the odds of its author coming about by chance would be even greater !" This is due to the fact that there is nothing in the chance probability argument against the book that requires its author to themself have come about by chance (for example they may have come about by a non-chance method or be eternal). Yet this is the bogus style of argument that evolutionists frequently use to respond to valid arguments against things that they believe in.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Yet you believe that energy, matter and intelligent life appeared out of a vacuum.

  Bottom up yes.

  Top down no.