sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Why could God not have created the world as it is, the Bible as it is, and answer prayers as he sees fit? I understand you would prefer that God made a world without predators, a Bible with clear prophecy, and prayers with consistent answers. But beyond mere preference, what has this actually got to do with the existence or otherwise of God? Can't God be God as he chooses to be God rather than how you would choose him to be?
What is your actual argument?
i can easily believe that thousands did all through the watchtowers glory years but especially after '95 the whole thing has been unravelling.
kidding yourself to maintain family relationships and social networks is *somewhat* understandable in life but on your deathbed?.
i think the demographic for jw's may actually get younger as time goes on.
I think there is a lot of disbelief among JWs at the moment. Recent conversations I have had surprise me how much many JWs question these days. I think JWs are in a pretty vulnerable position right now. A few factors leading to increased doubts: bad publicity over abuse; stupid doctrinal changes such as overlapping generation; the GB making fools of themselves on the TV; many indications of organisational decline; 1914 getting more and more incredible with passage of time; increasing numbers of anointed when they should be going down; lack of substance to meetings and magazines these days; and, not to be underestimated: the secularising trend in society in general having its effect on JWs.
Having said all that, I think it's worth bearing in mind that belief/disbelief are not often, if ever, discrete binaries. I feel this anyway, in relation to myself: that I have experienced a variety of stages between belief and doubt, and one side never fully succeeds in defeating the other. It's true that JWs may more frequently have doubts these days. Unbelievers can also have their "doubts". It's a strange person who doesn't, no matter what their ideological position.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Natural laws are themselves part of the things that exist. So how can they be within themselves or explain themselves?
Uniquely miraculous in the true sense of a miracle being something outside of nature's laws
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Why does anything exist at all? That's the central mystery/miraculous core.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I am not sold on the miraculous/natural distinction.
After all what may have seemed "miraculous" may have a "natural" explanation as a result of advances in technology.
Talking to someone in another country would have seemed miraculous centuries ago.
The things God is said to have done may seem similarly miraculous, yet have natural explanations we are not aware of.
In fact the one thing I would truly reserve the term "miraculous" for, as perhaps undeconstrucable, is the very fact of existence itself. Since what natural law could be invoked as explanation for the existence of everything, including the laws of nature themselves?
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
So no example of a distortion then? Just more general accusations, kicking dust in the air.
And how hypocritical is that: when have you ever presented my views on postmodernism (or anything else) in terms that I would recognise? All I get is insults, and mockery as above.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
Like what? Just one will suffice.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
"This is what I would need in order to believe"
and
"demand a number of specific things in order for us to believe in God"
*Scatches head wondering what the difference is*
You are heavy on rhetoric, accusations and insults, but very light on actual responses.
alone, without my safety net of "god" being there to remember me when i die.
after much consideration, examining science, history and using logic, i have come to the conclusion that there is no "god" at least certainly no loving, personal "god.
" shortly before my final conclusion was reached, i read an excerpt from an expression attributed to marcus aurelius, .
Ah well, normal Cofty service resumed I see, insults and all.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
There's something gone wrong at the end of this thread.
The opneing post seems to demand a number of specific things from God in order for us to believe in him: 1) nature shouldn't be full of death and destruction 2) mass extinctions 3) parasites and predators 4) Bible prophecy should be specific and true 5) the Bible should be clearly ethically superior 6) ahead of its time 7) miracles should be happening with proof 8) no natural disasters 9) prayers would be answered.
But it strikes me that a God could easily exist without doing any of those things. Why not? This list speaks no so much to the probability of a God existing, but his likability according to a set of criteria which are culturally conditioned by our religious background. (Why on earth should clear provable "prophecy" be an essential characteristic for God? Why can't he supply obscure and ambiguous prophecy if he wishes? Other than we would prefer otherwise, I can see no logical reason why a God who provides frustrating prophetic statements is therefore a God who cannot exist.)
And beside all the demands for prophecies and healing and a world without predators and so on. What about the extraordinary things that do exist in this world? What about consciousness and the appearance of beings who can contemplate their origin and fate? What about the very fact that anything exists at all? Are not these things miraculous? In some sense more miraculous than anything in the gospels?
