Belief in God: What were the difficult aspects and questions you had.

by designs 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sabastious

  *sigh*....really? You simultaneously hint at an absence of evidence as evidence of absence as well as use the the words fact and evidence to point to God?

  It's not a fact that the universe is large?

  Evidence doesn't equate to proof as I think you are reading that into my post.

  The universe is unimaginably large and what's happening billions of light years from where we are right now could literally be ANYTHING, right? What we see is only a magnification of what was eons and eons ago. There is still something happening that was caused by what see in our magnifications. That's our point of reference and which when logic is truly considered we find out trhat we know jack shit about anything outside of THIS planet and IT'S people and animals.

  If you and I come up to a door of which we could not pass through you couldn't possibly convince me that nothing lies on the other side and I couldn't possibly convince you that something specific lies on the other side. We CAN, though, contemplate what doors are typically made and used for, as well as the building it is in, which gives us a mental point of reference as to what may be behind it.

  -Sab
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  My only beliefe at the moment of God is what occurred to me when I was younger, all the poltergeist and noises, things I see that disapeared, but this may reflect something other than god of the canons and gnostic books, but I think its not relevant as God has not made himself known, also its very confusing the bible and you can never be 100% certain of it.

  Out of interest I read a lot of books from other countries and religions and finding it very interesting, one that I am reading now is called God save us from religion written by Ian Vayros, its like one of bart ehrmans books on steroids.
• 

  dm6

  i had about 7 or 8 main things which did it for me. but if i had to choose ONE, it would be the death issue. They believe that when you die your dead and then there will be this resurection.

  I had trouble coming to terms with that since i am a roman catholic and brought up as one, we beileve when you die you go to heaven or hell.

  Alarm bells rang when i realized their religion is based on the word IF.

  For example: what IF they didnt eat the fruit! they woouldnt have died! and lived forever! LOL.

  Honestly, forget your ifs and buts mr and missus JW, it DID happen, they DID eat the fruit and we DO die, and this is life (imo) for EVERYONE, it was Gods plan to begin with, otherwise why would he have put the tree there to begin with.

  So i had trouble accepting this, and never really could.

  Especially when Jesus says many times about the kingdom of heaven that we all hope for after death, how about keep storing yourselves treasures in the heavens?

  Jeez, i wont go on too much with this.

  Good day.
• 

  sabastious

  thats just plain old false. any atheist i can think of leave it to the theist to define a god-hypothesis.

  Anyone who calls themselves an atheist is supporting the already researched conclusion that "God does not exist" otherwise they must be considered an agnostic. Therefore it is the atheists that will be the first to examine any theist's hypothesis because every single one direcly contradicts the atheist position which is always considered a threat to the atheists foundational perspective on life.

  A real atheist will offer a rebuttal for every theist argument he/she comes across, a daunting task. Creating a rubuttal for a theist argument is directly entertaining the theist hypothesis and, as EntirelyPossible spoke about, "realscience" dictates that the atheist must believe in a God that can be proven using the scientific method.

  Of course atheists leave God arguments up to the theists they wouldn't be atheists if they didn't. That doesn't change the fact that almost every atheist I have ever come across is actually a closet agnostic because they aren't married to their conclusions because they entertain theistic ideas to support, by form of rebuttal, their "firm conclusion" that a human creator does not exist in any fashion.

  -Sab
• 

  Paralipomenon

  And everytime we press the magnify button and see more no life, even remotely comparable to our own, is found. However, I would never presume to conclude that we are the only form of intelligent life.

  In the effort of being fair with facts, up until last year we didn't have a reliable means of directly imaging extrasolar planets. Even then they render more like blobs so we can't say if there is or isn't life on them.

  I swear 999/1000 people I have encountered who question the existence of a creator lump all ideas of God within a "supreme being" concept and then use that concept to support their anti-creator conclusion. STOP THAT! It's entirely feasible for God to only be a "supreme being" in relation to his creation. The Bible, or any other rigid view of God, is NOT representative of our creator, if he/it exists, simply because it cannot logically fill that role because of inherent limitations.

  I remain open to the chance that life on earth may have been seeded by another race, but that just pushes the question back a level. At some point the choice comes down to the first intelligence either being a unique creation of chance and circumstance or to always have existed.

  It's a strange concept as the universe seems to have always existed, but yet everything inside seems to have a beginning or end. Does that make the universe intelligent and our creator, or does it just make it exist?

  Quite deep, but we don't have near enough information to make a conclusion. Our brains cannot process the infinite. It's not a concept we can hold onto. Accept the infinite, yes, but process, not even close.

  My hunch is, if we don't destroy ourselves, we will become gods long before find one.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  It's not a fact that the universe is large?

  It is the size it is. Since we don't have another universe to compare it to, we really don't have any scale to compare it to. Having said that, yes, I agree it's large. Again, absence of evidence, particularly given the scale and our lack of ability to directly observe MOST other planets, in no way equates to evidence of absence.

  That's our point of reference and which when logic is truly considered we find out trhat we know jack shit about anything outside of THIS planet and IT'S people and animals.

  Logic? What logic are you referring to? Scientists know there is much to learn, that's why they are still going.

  If you and I come up to a door of which we could not pass through you couldn't possibly convince me that nothing lies on the other side and I couldn't possibly convince you that something specific lies on the other side. We CAN, though, contemplate what doors are typically made and used for, as well as the building it is in, which gives us a mental point of reference as to what may be behind it.

  Or we could find a way inside, find a window to look it, get a tiny camera and slip it under the door, get an x-ray machine, look up the tax records on the building and see who owns it and what they do.... there are any number of things we can do other than sit idly and speculate. Without knowing something more than "here is a door" we would be doing nothing more than mentally masturbating.
• 

  designs

  How are the various String Theories, Quantum Field Theories etc. reshaping and redefining the God questions.
• 

  jay88

  I was reading the comments so far,....and I too was wondering what the cut-off point would be in regards to pondering about "god", at what point does it become "mental masturbation as EP stated?
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Creating a rubuttal for a theist argument is directly entertaining the theist hypothesis and, as EntirelyPossible spoke about, "realscience" dictates that the atheist must believe in a God that can be proven using the scientific method.

  *sigh*.... science. It doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. I don't have to believe in a hypothesis in order to come up with a method to falsify it. It's absurd to suggest that in order to falsify a hypothesis you must beleive in it first.

  Example, my hypothesis is "EP is the most attractive man alive and every woman wants him." You don't have to believe it to figure out how to falsify it.
• 

  sabastious

  *sigh*.... science. It doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. I don't have to believe in a hypothesis in order to come up with a method to falsify it. It's absurd to suggest that in order to falsify a hypothesis you must beleive in it first.

  You better be really sighing damnit

  When did I say you have to believe a hypothesis to falsify it? If I say that a hot pink apple tree exists and you put forth efforts to falsify it you entertaining the idea, correct? And even if somehow you weren't entertaining the idea you still would be attempting to stengthen an already made conclusion, which defeats the purpose of having a conclusion!

  -Sab