Posts by hmike

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

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

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

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.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

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!

4

Comfort for XJWs

by Shawn in

i asked god for an answer to a problem before opening my bible right now and i came upon psalm 129. i feel compelled to share this with anyone who has not stumbled upon it recently.

they have greatly oppressed me from my youth- .

let israel say- .

hmike

That is sooo good, Shawn. May it be a blessing to those who need it.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

the person who makes a claim that something IS who is responsible for proving it.

As this statement keeps popping up, I'd like to point out that this thread was not started by any deist claiming the existence of God. It was started with the challenge, "Prove to me that God exists." This implies to me that the original statement comes from the negative position--that God DOES NOT exist--for people generally do not ask for proof of something they already believe, which is why I replied with, "Can you prove God does not exist?" which received a chilly response from some.

From the beginning, I didn't think this was a good title. We can never prove the existence/non-existence of God in a formal sense--using a premise and statements that lead to a conclusion--because we would never agree on a premise. This is proof more in the sense of what happens in a trial, where various types of evidence can be presented, including personal testimony. The objective in court is not to prove an assertion to all people, but only to persuade a judge or jury. Each individual has her/his own unique way of processing the evidence, and what is convincing to one is not to another, as anyone who has served on a deadlocked jury could attest to. So, as I suggested way back at the start, it would be better to state something like, "Convince me God exists" or "Persuade me God exists" because we are dealing with one individual to whom the presentation of evidence has to be tailored.

This is also why I brought up the issue of accepting the possibility that God exists. It's like a court case, where the prosecuting attorney needs to show opportunity, because if the accused could not have committed the crime, there is no case. So first, I would want to determine if the individual accepts the possibility that God exists, because that has to be established first. Those of you who left JW, think about it, did you suddenly turn from wholly believing the WT to not believing? No, you went through a process that involved accepting or entertaining the possibility that the WT was wrong. Now this part of the process may have been very short or long, but it did happen--it had to. 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.

As I understood it, the intent of CB was for us to present evidence to HIM (or HER) for his (her) personal consideration. I never found out what the starting point was for CB. Personally, I don't engage in "cold calls."

I think I'm just approaching it from a different perspective than most, which is why my statements received a harsh response.

4

If this just wouldn't make your day I don't know what would :-) ...

by Podiatrist in

http://starbulletin.com/2005/06/03/news/index4.htmlman pulls on exit.

handle in flightthe pilot says passengers.

were not in any dangerby leila fujimori.

hmike

A Hawaiian Airlines pilot said it would be impossible to open the door of a pressurized cabin in flight.

There's probably a locking mechanism that prevents the door from being opened when sensors detect a difference in pressure between the inside and outside. I'm sure it's designed that way to prevent any kind of accidental opening.

62

The status of women in early Christianity

by Leolaia in

the watchtower society maintains a very strict gender dichotomy in its organization.

this is news to no one.

although men -- in many cases, unqualified men -- are expected to reach for advancement within local congregations (e.g.

hmike

Excellent, scholarly work as always, Leolaia. I think I'll need a two or three sessions to digest it all.

I've always wondered what would have happened if Paul had come upon a society where women had the dominant roles. Would he have tried to change them, or would he have worked with the situation that existed. I think ultimately his actions would have depended on the success of his work there. If his message was well-received and was accompanied by conversions and miracles, he would have concluded that God accepted this situation. If they had turned on him, he probably would have concluded that God disapproved of their arrangement. Policy seems to have been shaped by success or failure--acceptance or rejection of the message--repentance and conversion or hostility/indifference.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

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?

Of course not. You have to start with what everyone agrees on.

It might seem like an absurd point, but what's the purpose of a debate if someone considers the premise to be invalid? One has to accept the possibility that God exists if the evidence is to have any value.

When a crime is committed, if it is impossible that a suspect could have done the deed, the DA does not bring charges because a trial would be a pointless waste.

I asked, "Can you prove God does not exist?" If someone can, what's the point of a debate? Case closed--issue resolved, at least in this person's mind.

That's where I'm coming from.

22

Something I've wondered about for many a year.......

by TadSexington in

o.k..... i've been out of "the truth" for about 10 yrs now.... .

so when i was in i was still a child, and someting just didn't sit right with my child like mind..... whats the deal with not having any women elders....?.

did i miss that watchtower article somwhere....?.

hmike

1 Corinthians 14:34-35..."...let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says....it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

Some points that seem to have been overlooked about this passage:

The context is about exercising the spiritual gift of tongues and prophecy in the congregation, not normal talking. The Bible recognizes the legitimacy of this gift in women, for example, Philip's daughters (Acts) and Anna in Luke 2. In fact, Anna prophesied about Jesus while in the Temple, clearly from the Holy Spirit, and did so without any kind of rebuke.

In 14:34, Paul says the women are to be subject as the Law says. So how does Paul, the man proclaiming grace and not law, invoke the Law in worship?

There is some question in my mind who Paul is referring to in 14:36--the Corinthian church as a whole, or just women, when he asks if the word of God originated with them, or came to them only. If he meant women, maybe they had dominated the prophesying, exerting themselves over men instead of sharing the platform.

Joseph, sorry to be dense, but I don't understand your point (unless I mentioned it here). Could you please clarify--esp. about the thread?

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

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.