by Piph 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Sure, there may not be any empirical evidence at this time that God exists. But it wasn't that long ago that we didn't have proof that many things existed. That doesn't mean that they didn't. It just means that we didn't have proof.
Absolutely correct. And your god is right there on my list with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Invisible Pink Unicorn as things that may exist despite the complete absence of empirical evidence.
Absolutely correct. And your god is right there on my list with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Invisible Pink Unicorn as things that may exist despite the complete absence of empirical evidence.
FunkyD,
How ya doing?
What possible good can be accomplished by your insults to me? You seem very sensitive to obvious truth. Afterall you did say that I was absolutely correct but now you attack me.
Methinks that thou protests too much.
Robyn
What possible good can be accomplished by your insults to me? You seem very sensitive to obvious truth. Afterall you did say that I was absolutely correct but now you attack me.
Robyn, I didn't intend to insult you - despite you comparing skeptics (like me) unfavourably with JWs. All I did was point out a flaw in your argument. If you think my counter-argument - namely that a god whose existence is unproven has exactly the same status as any other imaginable entity whose existence is unproven - is flawed, then by all means point out the flaws. But please don't take offense.
FunkyD,
Thank you. No offense taken. Please do not take offense at my above post either.
How do you say that there is a flaw in my argument? If all scientists had closed minds, where would we be now?
At one time we didn't know about xrays, atomic principles, etc. They still existed. And now we have proof.
You are not pointing out any flaws in my opinion by throwing words like Santa Clause, Easter bunny and pink unicorns at me.
Give me some empirical evidence. Or let's agree to disagree.
Robyn
Robyn:
Is it your position that we should believe in everything until it is absolutely proven not to exist? If so, what would this absolute proof consist of?
Expatbrit
Expat,
No that is not my position. Nor is it my position that you should dismiss everything until there is proof. Science must remain curious. I am merely suggesting that we do not dismiss out right anything that we do not know for sure. Let's keep an open mind and let's see what new discoveries may occur.
Robyn
Robyn:
I guess that if we were to start throwing labels around then you would be "agnostic", yes?
As you know, I'm an atheist, because I have a lack of belief in God. This is different from believing that God doesn't exist. The position is that, until there is convincing evidence that cannot be explained any other way than by the existence of God, I will by default lack belief in the existence of such an entity.
See, the trouble with saying that we should not dismiss anything we don't know for sure leaves everything open. There is very little, maybe even nothing, that we know for absolute sure, therefore arguments can be made for anything.
Take for instance Funky D's example of Santa Claus. How can we know for sure that Santa doesn't exist? Have we explored the entire universe? Is Santa beyond our comprehension? We may think that we have explained how presents get under the tree, but is the Grinch blinding our eyes? You can see that someone who really wanted to believe in Santa could make the exact same arguments as those who believe in God, and those arguments would have just as much validity.
This is why we lack belief in Santa, because a) there is no convincing evidence for his existence, and b) the stories and myths that purport his existence have been demonstrated to be extremely implausible, and have much more plausible alternatives.
As an atheist, I apply these same principles to God.
Expatbrit
How do you say that there is a flaw in my argument?
It's a flaw because your claim is unfalsifiable. It may seem like a contradiction, but in order for us to be able to consider something true, there must be some test that could in principle prove it false. Your god does not fall into that category. Nor does Santa Claus etc. In fact, without some empirical evidence or some way of testing, claims of the existence of God and of Santa Claus must have exactly equal merit.
At one time we didn't know about xrays, atomic principles, etc. They still existed. And now we have proof.
Yes, because we have empirical evidence. But do you see why we don't believe in Z-rays, time-travel, 37-dimensional physics etc.? It's not because we're not open-minded, simply because there's no reason to believe and until there are tests available to falsify these hypotheses they are not worth considering.
Give me some empirical evidence. Or let's agree to disagree
Empirical evidence for what, exactly? For the non-existence of a being who doesn't comply with any known laws of physics and can have any properties its followers wish? Do you see why it's impossible for me to do that? And do you also see why that doesn't mean our positions are equally valid and how your god as described here is no more worth considering than any other unprovable being I can hypothesise?
Piph,
I still believe in god and pray constantly. About stupid everyday things. And yes, he still answers my prayers. I test him all the time. It just in jwland they always told you that unless you were a jw he wouldn't answer your prayers. WRONG!!!! So when a jw says come back to meetings, I say well, God is still answering my prayers so I must be ok in his eyes. And he and Jesus are the only ones I care about. They (jw) have also put in your mind that you cannot have a close relationship with God without them. AGAIN WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are letting them interfere with your thinking. I am so sorry you are going through a rough time.
Rockon
I still believe in god and pray constantly. About stupid everyday things. And yes, he still answers my prayers. I test him all the time.
Great! Someone with a testable hypothesis. In what way does God answer your prayers, rockon? And how do you test him exactly?
