God does exist...

by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  donkey

  I have been lying here naked waiting for God to show up and start the relationship but no luck so far...perhaps its the aftershave?
• 

  JamesThomas

  

  The world of phenomena, material existence, flows rhythmically. There are ups and downs; pleasurable moments and painful ones. If we believe in a personal god we attribute or relate these fluctuations to him/her/it, which supports and gives credence to our beliefs and makes us feel good -- because it feels good thinking we are right. If we have no beliefs in deities, the flow and rhythm beats on non-the-less. The story remains the same, only the characters differ. The unchanging constant is the pristine consciousness which embraces all this; and it is here that the unimaginable intimacy of our infinite Source is discovered. However, attention focused outwards looks beyond for Truth or God, rather than deeper into what reads this. What we seek is always closer -- and closer still. No need to reach out into time and space. j
• 

  Farkel

  little toe,

  : I have many holes in my understanding, but cannot deny that which I have experienced. However, my skepticism drives me onward to find explanations and some kind of coherence, to that which I "see".

  : That, for one, gives me reason not to dismiss "Holy Writings" out of hand, as I see within in them an attempt to describe that which was experienced, and relate it to the world.
  The conclusions may seem barbaric at times, to a 21st century human, but it was written when it was written.

  You are exactly where you need to be in your path, my friend. You are a seeker, and you are not dogmatic. I wish you and yours the very best in your path.

  The "Bible Path(tm)" is full of shit, though.

  Oooops. I wasn't supposed to say that part! Sorry!

  Farkel
• 

  LittleToe

  Ascot:

  How can you have a relationship in the first place with someone/something who never speaks to you, answers you, or manifests him/her/itself in any way to you?

  Doesn't "He"?

  It's like saying to someone "I'll help you if you're my friend, but I'll never talk to you or in any way make it possible for you to be my friend." Hmm, I don't think so.

  Maybe the Calvinists have it right, after all, and it's "God" who initiates.
  Alternatively, perhaps it's more a matter of triggering it, somehow.
  I still think that "submitting the ego" is the key. Whether that's to a personalised object, or just an internalised change, it seems to be a factor in all the cases that I've thusfar discovered.

  Donkey:
  I can assure you that the aftershave probably has a good deal to do with it
  Essense of hay-cart just doesn't do it for incorporeal beings.

  James:
  I see it, for some, in a series of stages:

  • Sky daddy God
  • Internalised God (truly incorporated omnipresence, not just stating a doctrine)
  • Inner Self
  • Universalised experience of the "whole" - I AM

  Farkel:

  You are exactly where you need to be in your path, my friend. You are a seeker, and you are not dogmatic. I wish you and yours the very best in your path.

  Thankyou
  IMHO, once you stop seeking, you stop...
• 

  Dansk

  If we believe in a personal god we attribute or relate these fluctuations to him/her/it, which supports and gives credence to our beliefs and makes us feel good -- because it feels good thinking we are right.

  I believe James has got to the essence of the truth of it all here.

  Ian
• 

  Abaddon

  LittleToe

  For gawdsake, don't get Abaddon talking about the Flood!!!!
  Try weedling out of him what he thinks the weak points in Evolution are, instead.

  Ha! But I suspect Loves_Turth doesn't actually know enough about evolutionary biology to know the weak point I've pointed out to you in the past... or does he? Only he can let us know; Loves_Turth, what's the biggest weak point in evolutionary theory, i.e. a feature that supposedly evolved for which there is not an entirely satisfactory set of explanations? That's almost giving it away...

  It's wonderful though, people obsess about literalism so much they will argue there was a Flood, when any bloody idiot with half a science education can see that's utter nonsense. It's normally because they draw their criticisms of evolutionary theory from a group of people who either have very dodgy agendas or very low levels of scientific knowledge. They miss what any decent graduate student in the area would be able to cite as the bits we really don't fully get yet whilst disputing well-established fact. I know Creationists will immediately contend scientists have dodgy agendas, but the claim that scientists don't want to believe in god and come up with theories to justify that is invalid, no more valid or invalid than the reversed accusation that theists want to believe in god and come up with theories to justify that. Let's deal with issues, not platitudes.

  Taking a Calvinistic theological perspective, for a moment (coz it riles Abaddon, nicely), I would say that once someone has been adopted the "papers" are never rescinded.

  Ah, you are as much about what riles me about Calvanism as I am about being a High Priest of Set. I expect your intellectual dalliance with it is 'cause you're Scottish. I expect you eat porridge with salt and water, wear a plaid skirt, and no underwear...

  The last question really IS rhetorical!!!

  Loves_Truth

  As for the test, I think that's rather condescending, dude.

  Look, say you knew koine Greek really quite well, and someone cam along saying that agape meant bannana, and all sorts of other things that showed they really didn't know much about koine Greek other than what they'd read in brief on a web-page somewhere. If they were expecting to be taken seriously, and they were the dozenth person to do that. YOU'D want to set them a test to extablish their credentials, as actually discussing Greek with them would be pointless unless they actually knew something about it. I don't think you're not smart, if you weren't reasonably smart I'd have got bored with you by now. I do supect your level of knowledge about a subject you make such confident assertions about.

  Well, alternately you can go through my post history, find threads on evolution, and rebutt arguments I have used in the past. That would be fine, as the evidence of the threads show, most of these threads end up with a disappearing Creationist or a Creationist insisting there are "turtles all the way down". Of course, merely saying 'god exists 'cause trees are pretty', or equivalents will just be giggled at. SHow me where the main principles of evolution are in error, as you've already outlined.

  I have a good friend with a post graduate degree in Biology, and he believes as I do.

  Argument from authority. I would be very happy if he came here and showed me 'where evolution was wrong'.

  I have a graduate degree (BSEE) as well, and decades of experience as an Engineer, much of which rests on understanding physical laws.

  Yup, and thus your pronouncements on a different subject are just as suspect as any unqualified but educated persons pronuncements on a subject they are not qualfied in. Funnily enough, many prominant Creationists have no real degree qualifications in the biological sciences. Anyway, if you feel your Engineering degree qualifies so well to discuss evolutionary biology, what's the problem with taking the test?

  I could make up a test for you just as well.

  If you wanted to discuss Etruscan art, and wanted me to show I knew what I was talking about, I wouldn't find a similar request by you unreasonable.

  Come on Loves_Truth, you are a person of strong opinions, and you are not backward in stating them. Surely what you like least about the idea is that you could be shown to be making pronouncements about a subject you don't know much about? If you were confident in your ability you wouldn't hold back, in fact I don't think you could resist!

  Of course, I like debating so would likely deal with any 'proofs' of Creation or rebutt attacks on evolutionary theory that you posted anyway, but you can expect some gentle teasing if you don't know what you're talking about.

  Maybe I can cut it down to one question; what is evolution?

  Or we can cut to the chase; I can show from human sexual biology that the Mosaic Law and other Biblical laws on relationships was either made by a joker of a god or made-up by a man, as the Biblical commandemnts are contrary to human physiological make-up and response.

  How's that for Biblical inaccuracy? Someone who knows the internal and historic contradictions better than I can do that and I'll be science geek with support, no doubt, from the regular science geeks.
• 

  Hunyadi

  I simply believe the Bible when it asserts, and I am paraphrasing, that the proof of God's existence is in the things he has made.

  Sincerely
• 

  LittleToe

  Abaddon:

  Ah, you are as much about what riles me about Calvanism as I am about being a High Priest of Set. I expect your intellectual dalliance with it is 'cause you're Scottish. I expect you eat porridge with salt and water, wear a plaid skirt, and no underwear...
  The last question really IS rhetorical!!!

  Darn - busted!!!
  At least I pour some milk on my porridge, after it's made.

  You say to Love_Truth: "Look, say you knew koine Greek really quite well, and someone came along saying that..."

  ROFLMAO
  I'm sorry. I can't help but think of Monty Python, when reading that!!!
• 

  Love_Truth

  Farkel,

  How do you reconcile the fact that the alleged writer of Genesis, namely Moses, could list some Kings of Israel in that same book that were to reign some 350 fifty years AFTER he was buried? I've got many more anachronisms from the Bible. Just answer to people's satisfaction the problem with this one and then challenge me some more. I will make your head spin and show you just how NOT historically accurate the Bible has been.

  Go for it. I?ll first remind you that (1) Archaeology is more art than science- it?s detective work, good or bad, that yields the conclusion of the team doing the analysis as to when events occurred, why, how, etc. Archaeological conclusions are always subject to re-interpretation. How many innocents have been jailed, executed, or otherwise punished due to ?bad? detective work, using recent evidence?

  Dating methods are likewise inaccurate, and have been proven so. There are numerous examples of hoaxes that were radiocarbon dated to thousands of years, and then determined (after the hoax was revealed) that the dates were way, way off. So much for ?dating? accuracy. When a method of accurately, reliably, dating material is developed, the present day methods will then be ?demolished?, as you are fond of stating. Until then careers, books, and fortunes rely on the appearance of accuracy in findings. Professionals in the fields described above often cover each others backs collaboratively in coming to their conclusions.

  If you choose to believe in uncertain conclusions, so be it. The Bible was, and is believed to be God?s inspired word for many centuries, nearly two thousand years. For your ilk to now try to prove otherwise, you?ll need irrefutable proof to convince me.

  Go ahead, give it your best shot. This?ll be fun.

  Love_Truth- loves it when people threaten ?demolishing? other?s beliefs with out irrefutable evidence to back them up.

  Abaddon,

  What I wrote above (to Farkel) and here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/67962/1068440/post.ashx#1068440

  fairly well sums up my response to your latest posts.

  To elaborate further, you continually bring up how ?inaccurate? the Bible is, and yet you have posted no irrefutable conclusions to that end.

  You bring up the flood (yet again) that we?ve already discussed in another thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1040881/post.ashx#1040881

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1041955/post.ashx#1041955

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1042250/post.ashx#1042250

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1042364/post.ashx#1042364

  You likewise bring up evolution theory as ?proof?, which I?ve touched on as well:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058804/post.ashx#1058804

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058844/post.ashx#1058844

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058897/post.ashx#1058897

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058907/post.ashx#1058907

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058956/post.ashx#1058956

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1059031/post.ashx#1059031

  So, if you have other or new lines of reasoning you?d like to pursue, be my guest.

  Let?s not rehash what?s already been covered on:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/67335/1047849/post.ashx#1047849

  and:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1037533/post.ashx#1037533

  OK?

  Now, as for what you consider to be the ?weakest link in evolution theory? I can?t read your mind, but I can certainly read your post history here on JWD. Do you care to point me to the post in question? Or do I have to dig it up myself? Here are what I see as, off the top of my head, the weakest links in evolution theory:

  -The spontaneous appearance of life (Creation explains this well, evolution, other theories, not so).

  -The drastic jump from one species, genetic type, etc, to a radically different one. (Creation explains this well, evolution, other theories, not so).

  - The physical laws. (Creation explains this well, evolution, other theories, not so).

  That?s a ?good start?. I may post more, yet that?s enough for now to get the discussion rolling, I believe.

  Incidentally, whether I am an archaeologist, a biologist, or an engineer, what is critical in all of the sciences is critical thinking, good analytical skills, a healthy amount of skepticism, a good research tool such as the internet, and it doesn?t hurt to have an IQ in the top 1%. I don?t need to be a "Degreed" subject matter expert, per se, to come to a valid, supportable, defendable conclusion, as long as I have the aforementioned attributes.

  In addition to what I wrote above to Farkel about archaeology and dating, I?d add that I?ve found in my 19 years holding senior level positions in Engineering, Consulting, Marketing, and Sales, that University Degrees are good for credentials (to get one?s foot in the door), not good for much else. I can become a subject matter expert without a degree, such was the case with many of the most brilliant minds in recorded history, so appeal to authority alone is unconvincing to me.

  So, no, I won?t be taking a test. If you believe something to be factual, irrefutable, whatever, post it and state so. If I?m not familiar with the subject matter, I?ll research it and reply after doing so.

  PS- as for the definition of ? deamazon ?, you?ll have to tell me what that is.

  SixofNine,

  The first part?s easy- it?s possible to argue about the existence of God because there are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from the observable evidence.

  Yes, but an all powerful benevolent and loving god is not one of them, unfortunately.

  Seems I?ve already shown my assertion to indeed, be the case (numerous conclusions), and continue to do so. So much for your ?argument?.

  Love_Truth- knows this is going to be a "never ending" thread.

  P.S.- let's try and continue keeping this civil, eh? I'm not a fan of being callled names or playing the "my opinion is better than yours" games.
• 

  LittleToe

  Love_Truth:
  We're still ahead of Minimus' attempt to spawn the largest thread, so don't give up now