by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
And neither should God be measured by your rules of evidence because God is not physical. - fm
The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism. - cofty
A follower of scientism can't accept something is not physical.
Ironically they accept several axioms in mathematics and science. Axioms are metaphysical postulates and are the building blocks of the scientific method.
It's a very contradictory position.
God's existence is independent of cofty's limitations. After all, he is God and not subject to cofty.
Cofty talks about god; I am refering to Jehovah of the Bible - Fishy
Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.
The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.
All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP. You and John_Mann are yet to address any of them specifically.
When anybody asks theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.
All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP.
What you mean by "objective fact"? Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?
You have a very poor understanding about epistemology.
Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.
The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.
And you are right! The concept of Jehovah is a caricature of the concept of God.
You're always beating a Sola Scriptura/JW/Pentecostal concept of God.
When you ask theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.
You are changing the subject. Sometimes you talk about a very strict concept of God and sometimes you talk about theism as a whole.
What subject are you talking about?
Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?
The answers to those questions are all in the OP
Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?
The answers to those questions are all in the OP
No. They are not.
What you mean by an "objective fact"?
If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know John_Mann.
It is page 12 after all. It's about time you addressed the actual topic as opposed to your generic apologetics.
It begs to be answered why would the god of christianity - heck, ANY god - would require mediation in its dealings with the human beings that the divinity supposedly caused to exist.
It begs to be answered why would a deity create lifeforms and gift them with extraordinary intelligence, and then demand that they relate to him by faith.
It begs to be answered why a god that portrays itself as all-powerful and the apex of love would allow the existence and persistence of evil in any form.
It begs to be answered why such an Almighty and loving god would value his reputation more than the endless suffering of the creatures he supposedly caused to exist.
Turns out that life makes a lot more sense (albeit is much less heart-warming) when god is removed from the equation.
If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know.
Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.
You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.
You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.
These are basically the problems in your OP.
Your whole metaphysical position is a mess.
as opposed to your generic apologetics.
My position is not generic. I only defend the Catholic concept of God. Other concepts of God are very contradictory and incomplete IMHO.
It begs to be answered why would the god of christianity - heck, ANY god - would require mediation in its dealings with the human beings that the divinity supposedly caused to exist.
No man is an island. But what kind of mediation do you mean?
It begs to be answered why would a deity create lifeforms and gift them with extraordinary intelligence, and then demand that they relate to him by faith.
This is a very strict concept of God. I accept the Catholic concept that states reason is the first requirement (preambula fidei).
It begs to be answered why a god that portrays itself as all-powerful and the apex of love would allow the existence and persistence of evil in any form.
The moral evil is done by free conscious agents. The only problem is natural evil. But there's some explanations about it (necessary and temporary evil to get eternal greater good).
It begs to be answered why such an Almighty and loving god would value his reputation more than the endless suffering of the creatures he supposedly caused to exist.
This is a JW concept (sovereignty).
Turns out that life makes a lot more sense (albeit is much less heart-warming) when god is removed from the equation.
Why? How do you know that?
