by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible
Gault,
It's just meant to establish a starting point, not to be any kind of a proof. We don't have enough data to rule out the existence of God. If you do, then you must know all the details of this vast universe, in which case, I guess I am a pinhead compared to you.
Comparing what we know to all the information that is out there yet to be discovered, we are all pinheads.
the statement that life cannot arise spontaneoously is a wrong. It quite manifestly did. We are today putting together just how that happened. Do a google using terms like "origin of life recent" and learn the leading hypotheses and evidence.
Life cannot spontaneously generate
Except for God right? C'mon, be consistent.
Why don't you read the millions of posts on this subject all over the internet. Take notes of the best arguments and create your own "argue-log".
An argeulog is an imagined conversation between two people. You write the script.
PRO: I believe in God
CON: Prove that God exists
PRO: blah blah blah
CON: blah blah blah
To infinity or ad nauseum which ever comes first.
Post your progress here. I'll be glad to read it and make suggestions.
Evil, you said:
Did you review the evolution / creation thread that have been going here VERY HOT and heavy all this week???? Lot's of good stuff on them.
I've been away for months and didn't see this. Could you please provide a link as the search feature on the board is out?
Pat
hmike - following your argument, likewise we cant exclude the existence of every character in Starwars, Planets of the Apes and whatever fanatsies any human mind can conjure, can we?
there is no argument, per se, that can *prove* the existence of god(s). there is no argument that can *disprove the existence of god(s). the evolution/creation debate is neither here nor there in the argument, since the scientific theory of evolution does not even touch on the topic of existence, or even original cause. it's a biological life theory. it is just a coincidence, that pretty much all atheists call upon the theory to explain diversity in nature, since it is the one that makes the most sense and is time tested. a fact, of sorts.
however, if you lack a belief in the existence of god(s), then you are in what philosophers and logicians call the default position. the neutral position. from there, evidence for the *positive* assertion (that god exists) must be forthcoming, and as we know, there really is none. you should be careful in asking people to prove a *negative* (non-existence of god), because that is essentially a waste of time, and fallacious. no one should ever ask you to prove to them that santa claus *does not* exist. the burden of proof does not rest on the unbeliever, but rather the believer, the one making the assertions for the positive. like carl sagan (an agnostic) said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." the claim that a god exists is an extraordinary one indeed.
in instances like this, where a final conclusion cannot be obtained by pure proof alone, there are certain time tested tools that can help you determine if you want to stay in the default position or not. Occam's Razor is one. it simply states that in a situation like this, the argument that contains the fewest assumptions, should be the preferred one. the simplest explanation should be preferred. why? because pure proof is not forthcoming in deciding the HIGHEST LIKELIHOOD of truth. again, for emphasis: the highest likelihood of truth.
also, a tool of reason, that i quite like in this debate, is The God of the Gaps.
happy birthday gumby, those are some swee-ut photos you posted there.
Patio.....here are the two threads.....
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/91371/1.ashx
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/91429/1.ashx
