A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist

by poor places 126 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sulla

  The argument is logically sound, but not, I think, strong. For two reasons.

  First, we might similarly argue about whether or not Sulla exists. If I do not exist, then I will never do a headstand outside your front door while singing "We Built This City (on Rock and Roll)." Since I have not done so, that is more evidence that I do not exist than it is evidence that I exist.

  Which is just another way of saying that the strength of the argument relies on one's prior assumption about the likelihood of the event happening in the first place. If God is the kind of thing that exists essentially, then this sort of constant reassurance is not something he needs. Indeed, one might think that a constant stream of miracles and so on wold actually place the essential being under the control of contingent beings. So, maybe sequence of unmistakable signs is exactly the sort of thing that we shouldn't expect to happen at all.

  Second, we have to ask what an unmistakable sign would look like? How about parting a sea to facilitate the escape of his favorites? What about raising a man from the dead in such a way as to make him beyond death for all time? What about a miracle of the sun in 1917? What about miraculous healings? I know, you don't believe these things. But these are the signs you would say you need, and these are signs you reject; what frequency of miracles and signs would constitute proof to you?

  And what makes you think you deserve proof?
• 

  bohm

  Sulla:

  First off, it is a fundamental observation that ones reasoning and conclusions about the world depend on ones prior knowledge, and i believe i wrote as much in my last post. For instance when you write:

  First, we might similarly argue about whether or not Sulla exists. If I do not exist, then I will never do a headstand outside your front door while singing "We Built This City (on Rock and Roll)."

  Then it is very true the argument you give is similar to mine, sound and provide practically no evidence towards your nonexistence for the reason you note: The chance of you doing headstands and singing rock n roll in front of my door --no matter if you exist or not-- is practically zero in either case. What this tell us is that if i want to examine if you exist or not, the proper experiment to perform is not to just look outside my front door, a pretty obvious conclusion really.

  Thus in order to examine the strength of the evidence, we need to examine at least roughly how likely we believe it is for god (I assume we are talking about the christian God and our salvation to some extend depend on our acceptence of his existence?) to give unmistakeable signs of his existence. That is a long and difficult discussion and not one i think is terribly interesting.. personally i believe existence of certain forms of evil is a stronger argument against the christian god than hiddeness.

  I will add this: If it was in my power to (trivially) prevent many types of evil, I can see no reason why i should do so. In fact i can give many, many cases where i would feel morally obligated to act, and where i would feel i was a terrible person if i did not act. I do not see why this should not be taken into account when posed the question if a perfectly loving god would tend to prevent trivially preventable evil or not.

  On the other hand if i try to put myself in your shoes, i find it extremely unlikely i should get the idea to go over to some random strangers house, do a headstand and sing rock and roll. And even if i did get the idea into my head, considering there are billions of houses where i could potentially carry out the act, the chances i should do such a thing at one specific house is much much lower still.

  Returning to the example of miracles:

  we have to ask what an unmistakable sign would look like? How about parting a sea to facilitate the escape of his favorites? What about raising a man from the dead in such a way as to make him beyond death for all time? What about a miracle of the sun in 1917? What about miraculous healings? I know, you don't believe these things. But these are the signs you would say you need, and these are signs you reject; what frequency of miracles and signs would constitute proof to you?

  I do not believe the above are unmistakeable signs of Gods existence because i do not believe the majority happened in the first place. To answer your question, personally i would accept a person being raised from the dead as evidence for Gods existence, assuming i could verify it really happened (strong indication of the person both being dead and then alive).

  Or if God for instance rearranged some of the stars to spell out a message for us, or more mundanely, wrote his name on the moon, or if he talked to many different people telepatically at the same time -- there are many, many things i would consider clear evidence for Gods existence.

  But the signs you gave are simply not of that strength, and i dont even think you find many of them very convincing. Take for instance miraculeous healing. If reports of healing, backed up by eye-witness accounts, are sufficient evidence, what about the various gurus and healers who can present eye-witnesses testifying to them healing other people?

  And what makes you think you deserve proof?

  hmm that sound a lot like an admission. Well is there compelling evidence [proof] or not? If there is no compelling evidence, you can say i do not deserve proof. That may be right. But why should i accept a god for which there is no proof? If there is no proof for the right god, and no proof for all the thousands of wrong gods, well, i might be perfectly wlling to accept god, but chances are i am going to end up with the wrong one.

  And to be frank, I doubt it would impress you a lot if i told you to accept Thor, and when you asked why, i said you dont deserve any proof.
• 

  Sulla

  Thus in order to examine the strength of the evidence, we need to examine at least roughly how likely we believe it is for god (I assume we are talking about the christian God and our salvation to some extend depend on our acceptence of his existence?) to give unmistakeable signs of his existence. That is a long and difficult discussion and not one i think is terribly interesting.. personally i believe existence of certain forms of evil is a stronger argument against the christian god than hiddeness.

  Well, the actual discussion would be considerably shorter, I think. The question is how likely God would be to give unmistakable signs of his existence to you. Again, I don't see why this would be a long discussion; by similar argumentation as I have made before, if God would give you an unmistakable sign, then he would certainly owe everybody an unmistakable sign. That gets us back to the whole question of who is taking orders from whom and, therefore, just who is God around here, right?

  I will add this: If it was in my power to (trivially) prevent many types of evil, I can see no reason why i should do so. In fact i can give many, many cases where i would feel morally obligated to act, and where i would feel i was a terrible person if i did not act. I do not see why this should not be taken into account when posed the question if a perfectly loving god would tend to prevent trivially preventable evil or not.

  I feel like you are trying to squirm out of the bind that argument is in. "Many, many" cases where you would feel obligated is not the question. Every single case is the question; because if God is good (under this line of argument) every single case of wickedness or evil or hatred must be stopped. Your feelings that you would stop some proportion of evil less than 1.0 is not germane to that argument. Again, that argument is simply one that insists a good God wouldn't have allowed us to be fallen. As I have said, I think that is a very questionable assertion.

  On the other hand if i try to put myself in your shoes, i find it extremely unlikely i should get the idea to go over to some random strangers house, do a headstand and sing rock and roll. And even if i did get the idea into my head, considering there are billions of houses where i could potentially carry out the act, the chances i should do such a thing at one specific house is much much lower still.

  So, you'd only do a headstand and sing "We Built This City," for a good reason? And to prove you exist to me is not a good reason? Interesting?

  Or if God for instance rearranged some of the stars to spell out a message for us, or more mundanely, wrote his name on the moon, or if he talked to many different people telepatically at the same time -- there are many, many things i would consider clear evidence for Gods existence.

  Still stuck on insisting God dance when you goddam tell him to dance, I see.

  hmm that sound a lot like an admission. Well is there compelling evidence [proof] or not? If there is no compelling evidence, you can say i do not deserve proof. That may be right. But why should i accept a god for which there is no proof? If there is no proof for the right god, and no proof for all the thousands of wrong gods, well, i might be perfectly wlling to accept god, but chances are i am going to end up with the wrong one.

  Why should you accept a god for which there is no proof? You may feel that you should not. But this thread was considering how to prove God does not exist, and you've changed the question.
• 

  tec

  Back to the original topic (for me anyway), since I wasn't here for it:

  When's the last time you prayed to God? Did he respond?

  My prayers are always answered. Sometimes not right away, but they are always answered, and I have faith that those not yet answered, will be... in HIS time. At the same time, I don't ask for anything that would be outside of His will. He knows and sees better than me. I know and see almost nothing.

  I prayed to him for years and years and received no response. At times, I would grasp at straws and try to interpret an experience of mine as an answer to a prayer. But it was only grasping at straws. He never responded. At times, all I would ask for is a sign. There were no signs.

  I've never asked for a sign that I can recall... thinking of 'do not put God to the test'. But I have found that sometimes I ask the wrong questions; perhpas omething that doesn't have an answer. Like, "Please tell me if the trinity is true, or if Jesus is Michael. Tell me which one is right." Then I look for the proof of either of those things, when there is no proof of either of those things, because neither of those things are true. Sometimes I'm looking so hard for the answer I WANT, I'm not listening for the truth of things. If the answer to our question doesn't eksist (my eks isn't working, sorry), then how can God give us that answer?

  At some point, you have to ask yourself why the God you love doesn't make it obvious that he exists. Why wouldn't he? It would be so easy for an omnipotent God.

  I have asked myself this question, yes. But my understanding is this: Believing in his eksistance doesn't necessarily make everything all good. Satan believes... or rather, knows. The angels who followed him believe/know. There are plenty of people who believe, and yet don't love or show mercy or forgive as He and His Son taught us.

  Believing in His eksistance doesn't do anything if you don't also have love - written on your hearts and consciences. Some of us look to Christ to learn this. Some of us already have it... by nature. Just like the gentiles Paul spoke of who did, by nature, the things that the law required.

  There is also all the fear that would run rampant, the wars over what some would certainly think a ruse or a lie of their God's enemies... and also the continued doubt. Many if not all of those who would want to do evil, would still do it. Because that would be what is inside of them.

  If he plans on destroying billions of people because they have no faith, why doesn't he give them a chance to have faith?

  Who says this is His plan? JW's? Even the bible doesn't say this... though it has been interpreted by some into making it appear to say so. Perhaps this is one reason they do not feel that their prayers are answered. They do not know God, through His Son. Did Christ destroy or even condemn anyone who did not know him, or have a chance to know him? Did he not say that those who do the will of His Father in heaven are his brothers, sisters, mother?

  God would know that people believe in what they see. So why doesn't he appeal to the eyes?

  Not all people. Those with faith beleive in what they do not see with the eyes of flesh. Besides, look at the bible. We have that, which we can see, and we have thousands of different interpretations, translations, arguments, etc.

  Maybe I put too much stock in the God of the Bible.

  Perhaps.

  I don't think you can put too much stock in the God and Father of Christ, though. We can perhaps get a glimpse of Him from the bible, but we also get the wrong picture as well. Else, why would Christ have come to show us the Truth? The scriptures were there all along, and people did not know God from them.

  Maybe God just doesn't care. But that's unlikely. I would expect a God to care more than we do, since he would have much more power to improve conditions on planets.

  I agree: that is unlikely. He cared enough to send His Son to teach us. Christ cared enough to come, and to lay down his life, for us.

  If this offends some, I'm sorry. But that's just how I see it.

  No offense at all.

  You can pray for truth and faith, you know. Then keep praying, keep asking, keep knocking. I do this. Christ did promise that the door would be opened to those people who kept knocking on the door. I believe Him.

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  Sulla: Sorry i did not see your reply

  My bolding:

  Well, the actual discussion would be considerably shorter, I think. The question is how likely God would be to give unmistakable signs of his existence to you. Again, I don't see why this would be a long discussion; by similar argumentation as I have made before, if God would give you an unmistakable sign, then he would certainly oweeverybody an unmistakable sign. That gets us back to the whole question of who is taking orders from whom and, therefore, just who is God around here, right?

  right. i think that is a very poor argument, and so does you. Here is why:

  • if God would give you an unmistakable sign, then he would certainly oweeverybody an unmistakable sign
  • God has given others (noah, moses, the deciples) unmistakable signs but not me
  • therefore god does not exist

  the only way to save yourself is with a bit of special pleading: God owe everybody a special sign if he give me one, but that does not apply to other people because it would be inconvenient. well duh.

  Next counter argument, which is only slightly better

  I feel like you are trying to squirm out of the bind that argument is in. "Many, many" cases where you would feel obligated is not the question. Every single case is the question; because if God is good (under this line of argument) every single case of wickedness or evil or hatred must be stopped. Your feelings that you would stop some proportion of evil less than 1.0 is not germane to that argument.

  Is there even a point here which can be spelled out in english without contradicting itself? I am thinking:

  • If god stop some evils, god must stop 100%.
  • God acted to prevent some evils in the bible.
  • God is self-contradictory, hence god does not exist.

  the only way to get out of the bind is to claim something along the lines that god never actually stopped any evils in the bible, or ... well... i dont know. im not even sure what the argument is supposed to be.

  So, you'd only do a headstand and sing "We Built This City," for a good reason? And to prove you exist to me is not a good reason? Interesting?

  (now that is random). what has my reasons for doing a headstand to do with anything? im glad you find it interesting, because i am very confused: You have illustrated what we allready know: some experiments are better than others. particulary, observing who is doing handstands outside your door is a piss-poor experiment. why is it being brought up as relevant for the discussion? I am glad you find it interesting, because to me it sound an awfull lot like you are spending your times making bad analogies.

  Bohm: Or if God for instance rearranged some of the stars to spell out a message for us, or more mundanely, wrote his name on the moon, or if he talked to many different people telepatically at the same time -- there are many, many things i would consider clear evidence for Gods existence.

  Sulla: Still stuck on insisting God dance when you goddam tell him to dance, I see.

  ...and so the problem of hiddeness was solved: god want us to accept him on evidence he provide, but he provide inconsistent, vague evidence because providing good evidence would make him feel like he is being bossed around. well that makes sence.

  Why should you accept a god for which there is no proof? You may feel that you should not. But this thread was considering how to prove God does not exist, and you've changed the question.

  if there is no evidence for god, the point is made: he properly does not exist.
• 

  bohm

  bttt
• 

  bohm

  bttt