The Case for God

by UnDisfellowshipped 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  middleman

  "Basically, the way I see it, you have three choices as to what to believe about the Origin of the Universe:

  1:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) always existed. (But this is shown to be wrong from all of the modern evidence for the Big Bang Theory)

  2:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) was caused to exist by some Timeless, Spaceless, Non-Physical Being.

  3:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) came into existence on its own, with no cause, from nothing, for no reason.

  Option # 2 seems the most reasonable to me out of those three choices."

  I think that pretty much sums it up....who here on the debate teams says what? Perhaps, you would like to add a 4 and 5 to this?
• 

  Spook

  To Flying High Now: That an agent is the source of an action does not entail that the action was a "choice." Neither does the appearance of "choice" entail "free will" - whatever that means. Please tell me what "free will" is free from. Please contrast this with a sort of will which was not free from whatever it is that free will is free from.

  The only other thing I'll bite at so far here is middleman's rejection of (some?) dating methods. I performed these calculations in nuclear physics class during my undergrad may be tempted to address his criticisms at inexhaustable, patient and crushing length if he will entertain a detailed response to the following questions:

  1. Of the available dating methods, which do you reject and why? Which do you accept and why? What is the difference?

  2. Are the assumptions behind the methodology flawed philosophically in your opinion, or is it the laboratory methods which you reject? If the assumptions are bad, what is one assumption which has more support than those which are the actual assumptions of the experiments?

  3. If extended to other forms of knowledge about the past, do your criticisms levied against these dating methods exceed or fall short of the standard of evidence you expect in order to infer knowledge about the past?

  4. Of the specific conclusions based on dating methods which you reject, please identify which of the rejected methods from (1) above was used to arrive at the conclusions of the research.

  5. Absolute dating not withstanding, please discuss the general law of superposition and its implications for relative dating.

  I will absolutely not accept the burden of proof on dating methods. These are exhaustively established and are freely in the public domain.

  The truth on the question of god from reason is as follows:

  A. Theists who have personal reasons to believe in god can possibly be rationally justified in rejecting arguments against their positions.

  B. No theistic argument merits the rejection of naturalism in favor of theism for those who have not had personal experiences to the contrary.

  C. Naturalism can account for theistic belief better than most theisms can account for non-belief in God.

  There is not a sound argument for the existance of God. There are only sound defenses of continuing previously existing theistic beliefs. There are no logical arguments which can prove a god does not exist, there are only arguments which lead one to conclude that a given God probably does not exist or else that the existance of a particular God is logically incompatible with her characteristics.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  JWFacts said:

  [Quoting UnDisfellowshipped: The Argument FOR God from evil: 1:) Humans recognize that there is good and evil in the world -- we know the difference.]

  "This is the most illogical of all the arguments. The existence of evil is the number one argument against a loving God."

  The best way of wording it is this quote below, taken from an excellent webpage about the "Moral Argument" ( http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/moral_argument.htm ):

  "No one can determine a line to be crooked without knowledge of a straight line. The Christian believes that this ultimately perfect standard is the all-good God Himself. Without this all-good God, there could be no such thing as evil. For evil is merely the perversion of that which is good. There could be nothing that is good unless there exists an ultimately good Being who is the source of all lesser goods."

  Here's another webpage that explains the Moral Argument very well:

  http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/does-god-exist
• 

  middleman

  Spook, with all do respect here, because of the lack of time (notice my short posts) I'll leave be for now. For me to answer your questions, it would take a considerable amount of time to address each and every one adequately, time in which I do not have, sorry. It would also take a considerable amount of time for me to brush up on my past studies etc. Unfortunately, I had an old laptop that burned up the hard drive and I lost all sorts of research. It's taken me over a year just to "reclaim" my WBTS research, a topic not nearly as deep as the evolution vs creation debate/discussion. I'm involved in so many other research/studies that I don't think it would be fair to you, I, or others to give a short "hack job" overview explanation of what you ask. I hope you do understand and if one thinks this is an opt out clause for my answer, I'm afraid there's not much I can convince you of otherwise. Maybe sometime down the road ok?
  
  I'm trying to finish up my research on the WBTS and I'm currently making PDF's of what I've found/read/seen. So far, I have 200 pages with another 200 or so to go. Once this is done (whenever that is lol) I hope to get back to studying evolution, dating methods, and like topics since it's been a little while that I've done so. I'm also in the process of starting a clothing line, this takes some considerable thought/time too.

  BTW, did I mention I'm writing two books and doing online/phone Bible studies (with various JW/EX JW's) also? I still meet with a MS every Wednesday which has been interesting. The notes I take from our study, I'm busy finding scriptures/publications to show him for the following week, ones that expose lies and contradictions. Ok take care now, I'm done yaking yak yak yak hehe.

  Blessings...
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  JWFacts said:

  "This [Argument from Design] falls over because the designer must have an even greater level of design and purpose. Therefore the argument for God in this case just compounds the issue."

  If Time began at a certain instant (as the Big Bang Theory says), then by definition, the First Cause is without time, or eternal (has no beginning or ending).

  The First Cause just is. I mean, Atheists have claimed the same thing about the Universe in the past, that it has always existed, that it just exists. But now, science is showing that theory to be false, and the Universe (Time, Matter, and Space) did have a beginning. But something or someone had to exist in order to cause the First Effect. Either that or you get the logical absurdity of nothing creating something from nothing without cause, for no reason.

  Therefore, every effect that began to exist (including Time, Space, and Matter) has a cause. But the First Cause before Time existed necessarily has no beginning or ending.

  JWFacts said:

  "People crave things that are not physical, such as love. Imaginative people crave things that dont exist, such as imaginary friends, it does not make them real."

  I think the overwhelming vast majority of people will agree that love actually exists. And. with regard to "imaginary friends," people actually do exist that could become friends with that person.

  The argument still stands.

  Now, as regards to another poster's comments about craving "three naked models," well, I would just say that three models actually do exist and do get naked at times.

  So, none of these statements have shown that people crave things that do not actually exist.
• 

  middleman

  Spook wrote:

  1. "There is not a sound argument for the existance of God."

  That's not a scientific statement...science is silent on the matter...

  Then he/she writes:

  2. "There are no logical arguments which can prove a god does not exist, there are only arguments which lead one to conclude that a given God probably does not exist or else that the exexistencef a particular God is logically incompatible with her characteristics."

  I agree with the second thought that I labeled number 2, which cancels out number 1 as I see it. If there are NO logical arguments that definitively prove a god doesn't exist, in which I agree, then how is that you say there is no sound argument for the existence God? Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth. Can't we just say it's possible there is a God but I can't prove it either which way?

  In short, science would have to back up number 1 for it to be absolutely true, while faith is not bound by the scientific method praise Jesus.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Witness 007 said:

  "No real proof! Darwin had a theory over a hundred years ago which scientists have been finding evidence for ever since! TONNES OF EVIDENCE including the human genetic code."

  How do you define "real proof"? If you mean 100% proof, then I agree. But there is not 100% proof for anything in life.

  What would YOU personally accept as "real proof" in this case? What criteria is acceptable to you?

  And, I did not call Darwin's theory into question at all on this thread. I am even open-minded toward the possibility that evolution is true, like Francis Collins believes ("Theistic Evolution" is the correct term for this I believe)

  But, by the same token, do scientists provide 100% real proof for macroevolution?

  And, does science give "real proof" for a purely naturalistic cause for the first LIFE coming into existence from NON-LIFE?
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Nicolaou said:

  "[1:) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.] It's counter intuitive I know, but that statement seems no longer to be valid. Quantum theory has shown that cause and effect appears to break down at the quantum level. In fact this may very well explain why the Universe had a beginning!"

  But Quantum Theory doesn't explain anything about what would have existed before the existence of Time, Space, and Matter, does it?

  In fact, before the instant when Time, Space, and Matter began, the Quantum Level would not have even existed, correct?
• 

  Spook

  Middleman -

  I won't take your not substantiating your claim as proof that it is false. But please don't be so hasty as to deny things which you know are at least a consensus position without at least a modicum of backup.

  Your criticism of my first point seems to miss my intent. It was not a scientific claim. Science does not really have arguments, it has experiements (usually). It is a claim about logic and arguments which derives from a general modern theistic philosophy on the characteristics of God, and it holds. It is also false that science is "silent" on the matter of god. There are certainly mainly claimed lines of religious evidence which have been investigated and falsified by science. Thus the god-of-the-gaps situation. Some prime examples are:

  1. Prayer.

  2. Miraculous healing.

  3. Channeling the dead.

  4. Demon posession.

  5. Religious relics.

  6. Statistical claims that being a member of religion X makes you a better person or promotes successful marriages compared to non-believers.

  7. Claims that corporal punishment of children causes them to be better adjusted adults than do their non-physically punished peers.

  8. The claim that complexity can only be the result of teleology - or even that it is more probably so.

  9. The claim that emotions and personality are completely metaphysical properties of an immortal soul.

  10. The claim that humans have existed on earth for a short period of time. (Your objections not-withstanding)

  11. The claim that "religious" experiences are supernatural (At least some have full natural explanations)

  Your claim that science is "silent" on the matter is clearly false. At the least science has shown that a vast array of religious beliefs are poorly supported by the evidence and have simple natural explanations. Whether a modern reinvented god for which there is no evidence exists is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. I didn't even mention evolution because it will further detract. Though I would add to the list above "The claim that humans are not animals" and also "The claim that animals were created in fixed kinds."

  Your second criticism, as I understand it, seems to again miss a distinction between a scientific argument and a logical one. In other words, one based on natural evidence and one based on words and symbols.

  It is technically possible that a god exists depending on one's definitions. This does not mean it is rational to conclude that such a being exists. It is equally possible for almost any of the available gods to exist. These are vastly different points. My concessions to theists, and the current state in the philosophy circles, is close to as follows:

  While there is no argument that should rationally convince one to accept theism from a neutral state, there are successful arguments which justify a theist maintaining her belief in a god for other reasons.

  The scientific arguments would be very different than the philosophical ones. And since the OP was about philosophy primarily, my comments about the arguments are largely philosophical. I raised the dating issue in response to your denial of dating methods.
• 

  middleman

  Spook, As stated earlier...I'm not going to go into long drawn out posts, because of time.

  You say:

  "I won't take your not substantiating your claim as proof that it is false."

  Well, for now you're gonna have to...wait in line my friend . I have a lot more people ahead of you that I have dialogue with lol.

  "There are certainly mainly claimed lines of religious evidence which have been investigated and falsified by science.

  2. Miraculous healing"

  Hmmm, where do I go with that one? Sure, there are a number of things that are falsified by science but nevertheless true. Things such as miracles-I've witnessed quite a few supernatural occurrences unexplained by science- ghosts, UFO's etc are all well documented but unproven/baffling to science. I can share some of those experiences if you wish. Really though, I'm sure there's not much I can convince you of anyways so I'm not really going to try.

  Blessings...