Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  OldSoul

  TS: funkyderek already gave you the answer that the debate needed to continue, several pages ago:
  
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/91573/1546954/post.ashx#1546954
  
  he shows it's based on reality (also aptly brought to your attention by peacefulpete), and you keep turning around and saying "no" it is based on consensus (polarity for anyone?). and then to make matters worse, you keep bringing it up like it hasn't already been answered, and refusing to answer successive questions based on that. do you want us to admit that there is no video tape of "energy" coming out of the closet and shaking hands with several scientists at Princeton? yes, you are right, there is no such video tape. SOLIPSISM alert!

  Gee, from someone as smart as you seem to be I expected better. Nowhere in funkyderek's post did he do more than state something which has not been proven. As for peacefulpete, he simply demonstrated one obvious use for something we have labeled "energy" but surely has not proved that energy, as it is stated in the laws of physics, exists.

  I have not stated that nothing can be known beyond individual experience. However, it is not solipsism to assert that some things cannot be known beyond individual experience. For instance, love, respect, dignity, self-respect, pride, honor, jealousy, vengefulness, greed, and disgust. Shall I go on, or do you wish to challenge these for basis in existence as well?

  There are many things beyond our capacity for accurate description or comprehension that exist anyway. The fact that we cannot prove we love someone does not mean we don't. Fortunately, I do not have to prove I love my wife by your criteria for proof of love. Likewise, I don't have to prove basis for my belief in God by your criteria for God to exist.

  If you apply your strict scientific principle to the human emotions you would promptly eradicate them from existence.

  What I call things doesn't have to agree with what you call things for me to be right, for you may be wrong. The same works in reverse, of course. I am content with that fact of human existence. You seem rather less than content with it. I think tolerance is a very important thing to learn, perhaps religion has given an opportunity for the species to learn a very valuable lesson.

  Would you strip my belief if you could? I would grant you yours.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hey OldSoul,

  There are many things beyond our capacity for accurate description or comprehension that exist anyway.

  i guess i'm just kind of a materialist. i don't mean to seem dogmatic. the universe is not static and known, and i wouldn't want it to be. and that is just what fills me with awe and wonder at the scientific method. it seems like the first time in our history that we have a shot at learning things about the universe way faster than ever before, thanks to science.

  Likewise, I don't have to prove basis for my belief in God by your criteria for God to exist.

  if he is outside of the universe, or multiverse, and has never had anything to do with humans; or if he is in some remote corner of our universe or wrapped up in another curled dimension, and hasn't ever had anything to do with humans, then i could imagine that there is a deity that could exist. but, do we call him God at that point? he could also be an advanced alien race/type III civilization that has not had anything to do with humans. or an artificial quantum consciousness of some sort from another 'verse.

  so yes, it's possible. but, "my" criteria shows that it most likely has not interacted with us, if there is an "it". therefore, as far as a human in 2005 is concerned, it is safe to say that a "deity" most likely does not exist.

  What I call things doesn't have to agree with what you call things for me to be right, for you may be wrong.

  yes, true.

  perhaps religion has given an opportunity for the species to learn a very valuable lesson.

  if we could somehow keep a record of the lesson, it would be valuable.

  Would you strip my belief if you could?

  no, not at all OldSoul. i am just so disgruntled at magical thinking and the problems it has caused, regardless of a possible over-riding lesson for our species. if a debate like this can help any lurkers to shed their magical thinking, then that is all i want. But i would prefer for you to retain your belief and be happy, than to not have it and be un-happy.

  cheers,

  TS
• 

  OldSoul

  tetrapod.sapien,

  Thank you for restoring yourself to the classiness I first noticed.

  i am just so disgruntled at magical thinking and the problems it has caused

  Likewise. However, I have to acknowledge that much thinking initially regarded as magical is now accepted science.

  Unfortunately, some thinking intially regarded as magical was destroyed by scientists, governments, and businessmen who were afraid of what the magic would do to their piggybanks and wallets. It seems that with Tesla, humanity committed a figurative modern day slaying of Archimedes. Archimedes was egocentric and not a good sport among his fellows, too. But his fellows recognized his greatness in his own time. With the error of the Roman soldiers to learn from, the scientists of Tesla's day walked in on the middle of his computations, the founder of alternating current, the Tesla coil, and broadcast energy, and effectively destroyed his life, too.

  We recently began to understand again what Archimedes was already on to, all those years ago. We have not yet rediscovered the wonders of Tesla in the early 1900s, and there is little promise that we will in the short term. Have you studied any treatments of the anecdotal accounts of his later works? He had expanded his work in what he called aetheric energies, and apparently had found a way to produce work from a system that created a "sink" that attracted aetheric energies at a faster rate than it discharged them, while discharging them in the same state as when they were drawn in.

  Can you imagine what that sort of technology could have done for limiting deaths in this world? Add the principles of hydroponics to such a power supply and where is your world hunger? How many other ways could we have benefitted?

  Someday, I would love to discuss with you the dimensions we perceive with our senses versus those that likely exist.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  hmike

  OldSoul & others,

  Our discussions about God are dominated by left-brain, Western thinking. So, part of our problem is that we're trying to find God with only half a brain!
• 

  SixofNine

  Old Soul, you say: "However, I have to acknowledge that much thinking initially regarded as magical is now accepted science." I'm not sure I understand; could you give a few examples of this?
• 

  SixofNine

  :"No rational person would believe something they consider to be impossible. So, if a person does not even consider the existence of God to be possible, the starting point has to be establishing the possibility. If the person does accept the possibility, but needs evidence, then you have a different starting point."

  Of course, on an exJW db, it is rather amazing to me that the deist seem to forget that they are dealing with a group of athiest/agnostics who at one time not only accepted the possibility of god's existance, but fervently KNEW that god exist with every bit as much confidence as the deist in these debates KNOW it now.
• 

  hmike

  Of course, on an exJW db, it is rather amazing to me that the deist seem to forget that they are dealing with a group of athiest/agnostics who at one time not only accepted the possibility of god's existance, but fervently KNEW that god exist with every bit as much confidence as the deist in these debates KNOW it now.

  So what we have are people who went from believing that God exists, to considering the possibility that he does not exist, to believing He does not exist.

  Agnostics are people open to the possibility that God exists, but are withholding any conclusions until there is more evidence. Even atheism has some variation, and there are different reasons for it too. Each individual is unique.

  How someone "knows" is important. Mental persuasion is relatively superficial anyway, and only lasts until a better argument comes along.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  So what we have are people who went from believing that God exists, to considering the possibility that he does not exist, to believing He does not exist.

  hmike,

  like you say, there are variations of atheism. i basically explain it like this:

  strong atheists assert that there "is no god". weak atheists have a "lack of a belief in god". there is a significant difference. like i said before, most atheists fall into the weak atheists group based on the last sources i have checked. it does not mean they a floundering, it simply means exactly what i said, "lack of a belief". now, there is a disticntion between weak atheists and agnostics. agnostics will say often that it is impossible to know either way, therefore they are neutral on the subject. whereas weak atheists go a step further in actually saying they have a lack of belief, incredulity towards the existence of god. i think both positions are pretty honest positions considering the fact that existence of god cannot be proved by logic alone, and no scientific evidence is available for existence. there is some over lapping and grey area of course.

  Our discussions about God are dominated by left-brain, Western thinking.

  i guess my concern is, how to trust our "emotions" and "experiences"? after all, we have been duped once before by emotions. people all through time have been using their "right brain" to understand god. yet, doesn't scientific method have a much better track record for determining an accurate picture of reality? why not apply this to god? after all, the pushy abrahamic-based religions believe he has interacted with the physical on many occasions. therefore, why should he be exempt from scientific method?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Can you imagine what that sort of technology could have done for limiting deaths in this world?

  OldSoul, yes, it's possible. however, it should also be said that if organized religion was absent from our history, the gene pool could be a lot richer. there would have been fewer wars and other crimes against humanity that constrained our ability to make progress as a species.
• 

  hmike

  hey hmike, thanks for dropping by again.

  Thanks tetrapod. I think with this post I will have said enough.

  There's no way to prove the existence or non-existence of God in a way that is satisfactory to all since God can't be observed or detected or tested by any scientific means.

  What makes this whole proof-of-God issue problematic to me is that if the God of the Bible really exists, He has control over whether or not his existence can be proven. In other words, He is not just some life form or celestial phenomenon passively waiting out there to be discovered. He would have complete control over who would learn of Him and the manner in which that would occur. Does that render the search useless? No. It just means that things are done on His terms, not ours.

  Something about the possibility of God's existence that amazes me: I recently saw a show on the Science Channel about parallel universes. Apparently scientists have mathematically determined the existence of parallel universes in dimensions outside the four we are familiar with. Some scientists were speculating about life in these universes, which could co-exist with our own without our awareness of them. Now if science is willing to go this far, what makes the existence of God and heaven so incredible? Heaven could be one of those parallel universes, and spiritual beings the intelligent life form. It's seems strange what people are willing to believe--UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligent life, ghosts, psychic phenomena, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster--and not believe in the existence of God, or at least some kind of supreme being.

  This brings me to the question of what kind of proof would be satisfactory to the skeptics? Suppose that Jesus himself ripped open the interdimensional door and revealed the host of heaven. Would some maintain that it's all an illusion, mass hallucination, or some other kind of deception? Would it be explained as something else?

  Frankly, it's been my experience that most atheists don't take their stand based purely on intellectual reasons, that is, they didn't start from a neutral position and come to their conclusion based on a thorough investigation of all the evidence. There are basically three reasons I've found to be most common:

  (1) They insist on a "closed" system in nature, that is, only things that conform to known physical laws are acceptable. Miracles are not possible because they violate the natural order of things--what is known and accepted. No influence from the outside can exist. (Related to that is, “It hasn't happened in my life or to anyone I know, therefore it doesn’t happen at all.”).

  (2) Accepting the reality of the Biblical God means being accountable, and people want to live their lives the way they want ("We will not have this man king over us"). No God--no standards.

  (3) The position that God isn't real is springs from emotional reasons--being hurt, deceived, or abused by Christians, a church or other organization, or from something they feel God did or didn't do that hurt or disappointed them: accident, death of a loved one, unanswered prayer... Any subsequent evidence against the existence of God is used to support or justify that position.

  There are some people who have chosen not to accept the existence of God for intellectual reasons. Far too much of the evidence for that position is taken as established fact when actually it is circumstantial, and even weak at that.

  I think I've made enough people mad at me for now. If I've gotten anyone to re-examine a position that has been taken for granted, then I've accomplished something by this post. For those who have done an impartial, honest, thorough examination of all the arguments and come to a conclusion, how can I dispute it? Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for our own path, and each one of us lives and dies according to it.

  Best Regards,

  Mike