Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  The God of the Bible lets people suffer, explicitly. So how can the God of the Bible be incompatible with a God who allows siffering?

  Maybe God takes us more seriously than we know or can understand.

  For example can God reverse all the suffering when he restores all things? You may say it doesn't count if God puts things right because people still suffered in the meantime.

  But what if God can do more than simply reverse the suffering. What if he makes it so it never happened in the first place? You can say that's impossible because it already happened. But are you sure it's impossible? Can't God do anything he wishes, including making past suffering completely non-existent.

  Isn't it likely that God has the capacity to perform solutions greater than we comprehend.
• 

  cofty

  Now you have sunk to the depths of complete absurdity!

  It's like saying the abusive husband is actually a loving husband as long as he finds a way to make it up to her for all the years of wife-beating.

  But more importantly you are still ignoring the necessity that the god of xtian theism must always act consistently with his own self-proclaimed standards of love otherwise he cannot exist.

  I have never seen a more pathetic example of special pleading.
• 

  slimboyfat

  No I'm not talking about God making it up to people, like the story of Job for example. I mean more fundamental than that. What if God can make it so the suffering never happened? Not just "forget" or "make it better", but literally make it not exist at all, ever. Is that impossible? Who says?

  The point is God surely has the ability to see, know and do things we can't even begin to comprehend. So to say "I can't see how a God of love is compatible with suffering" may not be saying very much except our inability to understand.
• 

  jp1692

  SBF: What if he makes it so [suffering] never happened in the first place?

  Then why not just prevent it "in the first place"?

  What would be the point to ALLOW something, then UNDO it so it was like it never happened to the extent that those that experienced it were completely unaware that it had ever happened?

  Also, that ignores the fact that--even if this absurd proposition were possible--the individuals that suffered the first time through (this is really getting ridiculous) still would have suffered and felt pain and anguish at one point in time. Having it wiped from their minds might make them unable to recall it, but they still would have experienced it once. At THAT particular time this "GOD" would have been culpable for allowing something that he could have prevented, but didn't.

  Saying, "It's okay, I'll fix it later and they'll never remember," doesn't undo the damage done even if those that felt it before can't recall it later.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I'm not talking about simply "not remembering". Im talking about making it not have happened at all in the first place. Is that impossible? How do we know? We are creatures that live inside time and space. If God can make suffering in the past (from our perspective) non-existent, then maybe the question "why does God allow suffering", misunderstands the nature of reality in a fundamental way we cannot grasp.

  I don't know if that's a viable solution. Probably it is not. But what I am saying is that the universe and reality are stranger than we can imagine. And for us to say we "know what is good" and we "know how God would need to act in order to be good" just seems presumptuous.
• 

  Earnest

  cofty : And here we get to the heart of the problem. I have made it very clear I am discussing the god of xtian theism but you have been defending the couldn't-care-less deity of deism.
  

  I have not been defending either the god of christian theism or of deism.
  
  I have simply been arguing that both creationists and evolutionists are human and have diverse reasons for believing as they do. I have argued that some creationists and some evolutionists use the argument from incredulity.
  
  I have also said that both the argument from incredulity and the argument from the law of non-contradiction are subjective. These are not facts we are talking about, they are opinions. In your case it's a very strong opinion but if you cannot verify it or falsify it then it remains an opinion.
  
• 

  cofty

  if you cannot verify it or falsify it then it remains an opinion

  Non-contradiction is not a subjective argument or a matter of opinion.

  SBF - With apologists like you theism doesn't need critics. Just keep talking. Have you got any clue how ridiculous - and callous - you sound?
• 

  Earnest

  cofty : Non-contradiction is not a subjective argument or a matter of opinion.

  Then verify it or falsify it. Prove what SBF has suggested is wrong. It's not enough to ridicule and insult him. Any idiot can do that.
• 

  cofty

  Any idiot can do that

  I see what you did there.

  SBF's absurdity is not worth further attention. Most of my refutations have been totally ignored by SBF as usual.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I just solved the problem of evil and all you can say is "ridiculous"!

  If God can prevent suffering now, then can he prevent suffering in the past? If God is outside space and time maybe it doesn't mean very much to make a distinction between present and past. If God's will is to make all suffering non-existent in all time, then how can we say that's impossible. Has anyone come up with this solution before? I think it's genius, if I do say myself.