isn`t there enough evidence to acknowledge the god of the bible has been a failure ?according to wt / jw teachings ?.
a god that has supposed to have created the visible universe and everything in it ?.
some points where i would challenge that from an earthlings point of view using the bible if only in paraphrase.. doesn`t god create everything perfect ?
We sin because it is our nature to do so...Full payment is in the resurrection/rapture when we are glorified into immortality and the sin nature is removed.
Sea Breeze, do you believe this was God's intention right from the very beginning, when he created humans? Did God set things up in such a way in order to lead humans to the conclusion, that the best way humans could use their free will, would be to choose to have their free will curtailed? Choose to make it impossible for them to sin.
isn`t there enough evidence to acknowledge the god of the bible has been a failure ?according to wt / jw teachings ?.
a god that has supposed to have created the visible universe and everything in it ?.
some points where i would challenge that from an earthlings point of view using the bible if only in paraphrase.. doesn`t god create everything perfect ?
But, you have to ask for it out of your own free will
Sea Breeze, are you saying we have to ask God to make it impossible for us to sin?
Their is a film called "The last days of American crime"
In 2024, the U.S. government prepares to activate the American Peace Initiative (API) signal, as a final response to terrorism and crime. The U.S. government plans to broadcast a signal making it impossible for anyone to knowingly commit unlawful acts.
As the government prepares to launch the American Peace Initiative (API), the citizens take to the streets for one last purge of death and destruction.
i’m an atheist.. let’s assume i am wrong, i am willing to be.. let’s give people a god, let’s even make him the god of the bible…... does he deserve to be worshipped and obeyed?
if so, why does his abhorrent actions not morally make you question allegiance to him?.
does his authority alone allow him to murder and drown and order war, to throw people into a lake of fire?.
Creation as we see it, rewards success. to us it may be immoral, unfair. but success is rewarded. The deity must want it that way, because the way it is. but not success to excess. success in balance.
This is what success in balance looks like. I'm not making light of this, but when it comes to morality, none of us are without blood on our hands. So all we can do is point a bloody finger at God and accuse him of being immoral.
Some of these guys may actually be ruling in Afghanistan now.
i’m an atheist.. let’s assume i am wrong, i am willing to be.. let’s give people a god, let’s even make him the god of the bible…... does he deserve to be worshipped and obeyed?
if so, why does his abhorrent actions not morally make you question allegiance to him?.
does his authority alone allow him to murder and drown and order war, to throw people into a lake of fire?.
yeah but scientists don't use thinking human beings in his experiments. That would be considered criminal.
So if Jellohoba is using humans for an experiment, then he is a monster with no ethical concerns.
Just accept the fact that there is no god. Or if there is, he doesn't give a shit at all.
The Nazi's and Japanese had no ethical concerns about using humans in their experiments. We get to view it a criminal because we won the war.
As we speak the Chinese are experimenting on Muslims. Rewiring their thinking.
As to if it is morally correct to do so? it all depends upon where morality comes from. If there is no God, then everything is morally permissible. If you disagree, pick up either a gun or a pen.
is the fact that no god/god ever communicates with us evidence that no god/god exists?
i think it is very strong evidence that no personal god/god exits, especially a benevolent god who wants humans to know him him/her/it, to obey him/her/it, and/or to love him/her/it.
since no god/god communicates to us (including those who sincerely want communication with the/a god/god), wouldn't it be sensible for those who pray to what they believe is the/a god/god to cease all efforts to communicate to a god/god?
In chapter one of Victor Stenger's book called GOD: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, the very first argument he uses is under the heading of "Lack of Evidence". In that section he says the following.
"... as we saw in the preface, the overwhelming majority of prominent American scientists has concluded that God does not exist. If God exists, where is he? Philosopher Theodore Drange has termed this the lack-of-evidence-argument, .... Stenger later says that "... the very existence existence of nonbelievers in the world who have not resisted such belief [in God] is evidence against his existence. The problem of divine hiddenness is one that has taxed the abilities of theologians over the years--almost as much as the problem of evil ...."
Just because someone is a non believer at one point in time doesn't mean he or she is destined to an eternity of disbelief. Tom didn't believe until he got some blood on his hands. Maybe there is a time and a place for non resistant unbelievers to get what the are looking for.
It doesn't surprise me that most scientists don't believe in the existence of God especially if this is primarily due to a lack of scientific evidence proving his existence. Science looks to understand the workings of the material world and everything in it. It can't make any definitive statements about anything non material which may or may not exist, for the simple reason that it doesn't have access to anything outside of the material world.
If the material world has always existed, (that means it's eternal in the past) in one form or another, that solves the problem and science potentially will be able to explain everything. If however, matter hasn't existed eternally and came into existence, then it potentially came from a non material source. Matter can't bring matter into existence if it doesn't exist. This doesn't get you to God but it does get you to a non material reality.
So God isn't the explanation for why the apple fell from the tree, science can tell you that. God is the potential explanation for why the apple and tree exist in the first place.
i’m an atheist.. let’s assume i am wrong, i am willing to be.. let’s give people a god, let’s even make him the god of the bible…... does he deserve to be worshipped and obeyed?
if so, why does his abhorrent actions not morally make you question allegiance to him?.
does his authority alone allow him to murder and drown and order war, to throw people into a lake of fire?.
Does he deserve to be worshipped and obeyed?
If so why?
If so, why does his abhorrent actions not morally make you question allegiance to him?
Does his authority alone allow him to murder and drown and order war, to throw people into a lake of fire?
If God exist and morality is grounded in him, then the sense of morality I possess comes from him. My ability to judge his actions as abhorrent stem from this God given gauge. So either there is something wrong with my sense of justice or there is more to the account than I am aware off.
If God doesn't exist, then all we are are lumps of well organized clay telling other lumps of clay how they ought to behave. In this version of reality our sense of right and wrong is grounded in the clay. The concept of right and wrong held by the mightiest lumps of clay tends be the right one. In a materialists world, might is right.
The only hope we have of being able to truely state that abhorrent actions are objectively wrong, is if there is a source of morality beyond the mere attributes of matter.
So although we don't understand all of his actions and as a consequence feel uninclined to worship him, he does provide hope of ultimate justice being accessible to all. This can only be achomplished in an afterlife. It may even make him more likable in the end.
Someone once said "Everything will be ok in the end, and if it's not ok, it's not the end."
you have probably heard all kinds of excuses why god doesn’t communicates with his creation or why he doesn’t intervene.. some examples.. no one can see god because he is a spirit.. but we can hear god---yet he chooses not to talk to humanity.. god only communicates with certain people.
moses, samuel, abraham, etc.
but there are many people today who also claim that god spoke to them yet we ignore them but believe god spoke to people who lived thousands of years ago and we can’t really verify if that was so.
The claim that God doesn't communicate with humans is based on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever.
What do we mean by "communicate"?
Notsure what sort of evidence would you accept?
Great question. I do not mean to be inflammatory, but are we talking some sort of two witness rule or three witness rule?
is the fact that no god/god ever communicates with us evidence that no god/god exists?
i think it is very strong evidence that no personal god/god exits, especially a benevolent god who wants humans to know him him/her/it, to obey him/her/it, and/or to love him/her/it.
since no god/god communicates to us (including those who sincerely want communication with the/a god/god), wouldn't it be sensible for those who pray to what they believe is the/a god/god to cease all efforts to communicate to a god/god?
But I do care if other people believe a personal god (or other spirit) exists, for such beliefs hinder the progress of human society.
you have probably heard all kinds of excuses why god doesn’t communicates with his creation or why he doesn’t intervene.. some examples.. no one can see god because he is a spirit.. but we can hear god---yet he chooses not to talk to humanity.. god only communicates with certain people.
moses, samuel, abraham, etc.
but there are many people today who also claim that god spoke to them yet we ignore them but believe god spoke to people who lived thousands of years ago and we can’t really verify if that was so.
Anthony Flew has an interesting conversion account. It was the discovery of DNA's double helix which led him to believe in an intelligence behind the creation of life. The creator communicated to him through his creation.
Anthony Flew
His name may not be familiar, but Flew was one of the most significant atheist thinkers of the pre-Dawkins era. He was a prominent critic of religion, suggesting that atheism should be the default position until evidence for God could be produced; that the burden of proof should be on the faiths, not on the faithless. He carried these beliefs late into life, even signing 2003's Third Humanist Manifesto. However, just a year later, he announced that he had dramatically changed his philosophical allegiance.
Flew hadn't converted to the Christian faith, but he had embraced deism – the belief in God. So convinced was he, that in 2007 he published his final book, There is a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind. It has been discredited by atheists ever since who claim that Flew's change of position was due to his declining mental health, and that the book was mainly the work of his co-writer. However, before his death in 2010, Flew lucidly and specifically addressed this in one of his final articles, itself a rebuttal of Dawkin's references to him in The God Delusion.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/five-atheists-who-lost-faith-in-atheism/61784.htm
you have probably heard all kinds of excuses why god doesn’t communicates with his creation or why he doesn’t intervene.. some examples.. no one can see god because he is a spirit.. but we can hear god---yet he chooses not to talk to humanity.. god only communicates with certain people.
moses, samuel, abraham, etc.
but there are many people today who also claim that god spoke to them yet we ignore them but believe god spoke to people who lived thousands of years ago and we can’t really verify if that was so.
Why doesn't god convince a sceptic for once? Why does he only manifest himself to "true believers"? The clue is in the "believers" part.
To be fair he did have a chat with Paul on his way to Damascus.
