by Shining One 122 Replies latest watchtower bible
Rex, For most Christians subject to the centuries of teachings ABOUT Christ, your claim is true. I, however, believe the heart of the Gospel is what Jesus taught, not how He died or what happened to His mortal remains. Were it not the case, He simply would have told His deciples that His death was more important than His life and that His Father was the God of the Dead.
carmel
Damn Shining One, You sure do type fast. HL
Shining one,
The reasoning given was this one (written in short).
a) law of thermodynamics
b) --> universe is not infinite old
c) --> universe is not infinite in size
d) assumption: all events have causes
e) --> there is no infinite regress of events
f) --> there is a first cause
g) --> this first cause event must be greater then what it causes
h) --> this first cause is God
i) --> this God is the God of the Bible.
I showed you that b) was not a fact, it is certainly possible, not 100% sure.
I showed you that c) was also not a fact, not 100% sure also.
I showed you that d) was not true
I showed you that e) does not have to be true
I showed you that g) is only an assumption
I showed you that h) if not definied that way, is not a valid argument
I showed you that i) is just an assumption, based on nothing.
So, a reasoning like this is as weak as it's weakest link. Most links are weak, some are totally invalid. So we really can not accept this as a proof of Gods existence.
I hope you would be willing to agree with this. I think there is NO proof that there is a God. If you know any can you please show it to me?
I could have a same argument with the proof that there is no God. However that would also not be a very good proof with very weak links. I agree herefore that I can NOT proof that there is No God.
One more remarkt about c) the causes.
Scientists have discovered that in the small scale things happen that have no cause. For example energie (a photon) can be transformed into one or more particles of matter. This happens spontaniously, without cause. There are many examples of this on the small scale.
It is surely thinkable that the small universe, at the beginning, had also no cause.
Danny
For Danny (part two),
Here is a brief cut and paste from a link I am providing:
"Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism."
I really do not know enough about Hinduism to know if Hinduism can be in agreement with a big bang or not. It isn't very important for me...
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,
"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."
"These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view). There are a lot of assumptions here:
1) the current theories of space-time are correct.
2) there is a sort of time dimension outside of the universe. Why? Where does this come from?
3) the universe has a cause
4) There is a God. (was this not what we are trying to prove?, here it is an assumption)
5) God has caused the universe
If you make this assumtions, then it is valid to say that God is not the universe itself nor contained to it. I agree. However why make all those assumtions. (The written has placed a lot of if's in the text)
Assumption is the mother of all errors.
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."
I agree with this. Unexplained.
Unexplained is not the same as God, however.
All things that were once unexplained and are explained now, turned out not to be God. So, we should not make any conclusion that unexplained means that it is God or something like it.
"The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago."
True, we had an interesting thread about the big bang on this board. (nothing to do with atheism or God, so save to take a look)
Please continue the investigation with Hawking's work, "A Brief History of Time" and the other works recommended by the article's author. I pray that the realization that Deism is valid will lead to the further realization that Christianity is the sole faith that is built upon solid evidence! Also, feel free to e-mail me at any time.
Thank you
Danny
Hi Danny,
You are very welcome. I appreciate your candor and I can agree that actual, physical proof of God existence (by your set standards) is unattainable. All logical arguments break down at some point no matter which side you find yourself on. However, see my posts about the metaphysical nature of our own reasoning and logic, think about it: where does logic come from in the first place? It is a transcendent proposition.
Rex
You are very welcome. I appreciate your candor and I can agree that actual, physical proof of God existence (by your set standards) is unattainable. All logical arguments break down at some point no matter which side you find yourself on. However, see my posts about the metaphysical nature of our own reasoning and logic, think about it: where does logic come from in the first place? It is a transcendent proposition.
Shining one,
I am glad that you agree that there is no proof of Gods existance.
"think about it: where does logic come from in the first place? It is a transcendent proposition."
I don't see logic as a "transcendent proposition" since it is within the realm of the thinking mind. How is the mind transcendent?
shining one is back? it's true his lack of good arguments only reinforces atheists' beliefs.
Shining One,
"and I can agree that actual, physical proof of God existence (by your set standards) is unattainable."
Isn't this the problem, that proof of God's existence isn't possible, and that all of the various religions and philosophies are nothing but attempts to prove the unprovable? And furthermore, isn't the disagreement between opposing beliefs the foundation of the violence and hatred in the world? Can you see the irony here? Beliefs which cannot be proven are used as an excuse to isolate, separate, and denigrate those who have opposing beliefs, which also cannot be proven.
So I ask, what are your standards? Are your standards any more relevant than anyone else's, and if so, what makes them more relevant?
The basic premise is foundational and must be addressed.
Religion can only thrive by destroying man's mind. Religion creates a helpless dependency. Religion insists that man is worthless and unworthy of life.
God is presented as the last bastion of Justice.
Justice is making certain all parties to an issue get WHAT THEY DESERVE; no more and no less.
I can therefore prove God does not represent Justice.
How?
What is the way the Bible identifies the mercy of God?
UNDESERVED (or unmerited) FAVOR is what his "grace" is.
JUSTICE does not allow what is UNdeserved to be administered to the undeserving. That would be INjustice.
Secondly, all the magnificent things that have improved life on earth for humanity have come from humans who who develp their minds. Inventions, medicines, technology, health and nutrition information find their source in human effort and not religion.
The time when Relgious authority kept its heel on the neck of human beings was called the DARK AGES. Man has been emptied of self-confidence and robbed of his intellectual powers by misplacing his source of survival. This is taught by men who peddle God. The whole purpose of pointing people toward dependency on the Bible and some witch doctor representing god as an "Authority" is to use the person the way a flea uses a dog: it is a free lunch.
What the JWD offers is a breath of fresh air where people who have been mightily damaged by doctrine, orthodoxy and Bible poisoning can gasp for oxygen, share their symptoms and declare their freedom and debate their dependency issues.
The FREEDOM to think here is the very opposite of what you embrace when you direct people into the narrow minded state of being called: FAITH. Faith is the renunciation of thinking. Knowledge is destroyed and wishful thinking replaces it. The SELF is subdued and ultimately destroyed leaving a zombie who follows orders and stays depressed because all the bright promises made to him fail one by one to bring happiness and contentmet.
Go peddle your "apologetics for honest seekers" to the brain dead. On JWD you can expect to get your butt kicked for selling crack to school kids in the form of predigested bible-pap.
Terry
