[QUOTE=Hogwash]
Yes, but that doesn’t validate your God’s existence. It only states that, if we assume what you say is true, then it would appear that this hypothetical concept you call God would love you by a recognisable human definition of love on which a majority would agree. If you want to prove that either the love from God or God himself is real, however, we need more than your word.
[/QUOTE]
the word of 92% of the world population?
Argumentum ad populum.
My guest membership is almost up, so I probably can’t discuss any of this with you…but
You guys always make this so much more difficult than it is. I usually just giggle and carry on with my day, but I thought I’d drop my (near-obsolete) two pennies into the thought well.
One of these days you should try to really study the Bible. Try following themes throughout it, as opposed to looking at individual scriptures out of their context. Get some study aids. Spend a few *years * doing it. Until then, you all need to stop theorizing and postulating. Nobody goes out and makes a definitive statement in the scientific community until they’ve seen all the evidence available. Most people who claim to have studied the Bible only get so far as they want, then give up because of a difficult to understand point (like the non-existent Trinity for one----flame away, I won’t be here to respond). Then they take the words of the “more educated” Pastors and Fathers and Priests and Bishops and Popes as definite truth because of their own ignorance.
Oh and another thing, along the lines of conclusions drawn before evidence is viewed. Why does everyone feel the way they do about Jehovah’s Witnesses? I don’t hear too much direct inflammatory remarks here on the board, but you all know it’s still a widely held opinion that we’re baaaaddd. (No real evidence for that either…) Nobody cares to see for themselves though. Know why we don’t get upset when you slam the door in our face? Know why we don’t get into pissing matches with you? Know why we’re not surprised when people lie about us, give us a hard time, speak unfairly to us, place governmental bans on our preaching? Because the Bible said it would happen to all who were Christ’s true followers.
Perhaps you should spend the same amount of time studying the Bible as you spent learning physics, philosophy, sociology, law, literature, etc. College-based bible classes don’t count, because they only view the Bible as just “another religious writing” and try to understand it the wrong way. Try studying it with all the doubts set aside, just for a moment. Don’t throw the doubts away, just set them aside. They’ll be right there next to you if you feel the need to pick them up and swing them around. Any of Jehovah’s Witnesses will be happy to show you (not brainwash, not trick, not “interpret”, just show) what the Bible REALLY says on a variety of issues. That’s why we come to your house; how much easier can it get for those who really want to know?
Any the real reply to the OP:
Maybe then you will understand why you don’t need to follow the scientific method when attempting to understand something that is so far removed from the confines of this reality. Earthly “evidence” can not possibly apply to Jehovah God.
Gah. Thanks for ruining the thread. Why didn’t you say up front that you were just witnessing? Damn. Just plain damn.
Before the thread is closed…
I guess the only thing I have left to say to Voyager is that appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I actually have read a great deal of theology and am not under the illusion that no one before me has thought of anything I’ve said. There is, however, one unique aspect of my theology that no one from the monolatrous monothiests of ancient Greece (like Xenophanes of Colophon c. 500 BC) to the substance monotheists of primitive African cultures have ever mentioned at least to my knowledge. And that, of course, is goodness as an aesthetic, and the resulting deduction of God as love.
Also, speculation about what I might have done had history been different is completely pointless and lends no weight at all to your argument. What I know now I came to know in an instant, never having read the first word of theological philosophy. My research has merely confirmed the understanding I was given. Usage of the term “god” to mean almost anything under the sun is classical equivocation.
Finally, to Bryan, begging the question has a perfectly coherent definition. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument contains one or more of its premises. Definitions aren’t premises. It is impossible to beg the question simply by defining something.
And I really wouldn’t go citing science as a metaphor free zone where all terms are strictly defined, especially in sciences like biology with words like life. But even in physics — especially quantum physics — expressing many concepts in natural language (languages like English) requires metaphors. “When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.” — Niels Bohr
[QUOTE=echo6160]
My guest membership is almost up, so I probably can’t discuss any of this with you..but
[/quote]
You can always join. We’d actually appreciate a true believer who would do his or her best to answer questions and state their cases, as opposed to making drive by posts. Some people might be nasty, but many will question you firmly but fairly.
I assure you that many of us have read the complete Bible. Now, have you studied things outside the Bible? Do you understand which archeological discoveries support the historical record of the Bible, and which refute it? Do you understand how evolution and cosmology refute Genesis from the writing of scientists, not from the Watchtower? Your request is quite fair, but so is mine.
The last time two Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door, I greeted them sweetly by saying we weren’t interested, since this was a devout atheist household, and they ran as if the Devil were on their tail. When I was in high school one woman came to visit my grandmother (with no success) and quoted me verses proving that we’d never get to the moon - this was 1968. I got a good story for creative writing out of it.
Whyever would we put doubt aside? We understand how psychologically we tend to defend whatever we believe in, even if there is evidence against it - is putting doubt aside a way of convincing people to believe, sans doubt, so they’ll ignore evidence against later? If the case is so strong, why can’t it win despite doubt? That’s how we do science. Not only do I read a paper I’m reviewing with doubt and skepticism, I do experiments trying to cast doubt, to falsify, whatever conclusion I want to happen. When scientists don’t do that we get cold fusion. Evidence strong enough will refute my doubt - most of it, anyhow.
I started out as a believer. Then, as I read more, I had doubts. When I read the entire Bible, cover to cover, I became an atheist. I wonder if you would take the same challenge about, say, the evolution of man?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
And that, of course, is goodness as an aesthetic, and the resulting deduction of God as love.
[/QUOTE]
One of these days, I’ll grill you with questions about this (if you’ll allow it). I read the original thread where you propounded this and it goes over my head. I’ll prepare my questions.
[QUOTE=Anduril]
One of these days, I’ll grill you with questions about this (if you’ll allow it). I read the original thread where you propounded this and it goes over my head. I’ll prepare my questions.
[/QUOTE]
No problem. Grill away. But you might want to open another thread. As soon as a mod discovers that this one was opened for purposes of trickery, it might likely be closed.
[QUOTE=feli8]
Why do we believe in God, when there is no scientific evidence of its existance
[/QUOTE]
In addition to some good points above, another reason is a variant of “you can’t argue with success”.
That is, if one guy says there is an invisible monkey on his head, people will think he’s a lunatic. If two people say it, others will still consider them crazy.
But, if 5 billion people say there is an invisible monkey on their head, you might think, “hmmm, maybe there is something there”. More importantly, even though the truth of a statement is not a function of how many people believe it to be true, the fact of the matter is that it’s hard to argue that the majority of humans are lunatics, and you are one of the few sane people left.
Also, if you grow up in a community where everyone believes that, without a doubt, there is an invisible monkey on their head, it’s quite likely you’ll end up believing the same.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I guess the only thing I have left to say to Voyager is that appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, I actually have read a great deal of theology and am not under the illusion that no one before me has thought of anything I’ve said. There is, however, one unique aspect of my theology that no one from the monolatrous monothiests of ancient Greece (like Xenophanes of Colophon c. 500 BC) to the substance monotheists of primitive African cultures have ever mentioned at least to my knowledge. And that, of course, is goodness as an aesthetic, and the resulting deduction of God as love.
[/quote]
My friend, I assure you that I will never dispute that your theology is unique. 
I think I even understand some of it, just not the Jesus part. As for your history, I meant more the concept of god, not necessarily a specific view of god. It doesn’t surprise me that you found some that more or less aligned with your view, but that does not mean I think you got your view from them.
There is a difference between equivocation and oveloading. I can give you an example of equivocation. On a newsgroup, one person, though he claimed to be an atheist, said that it was not valid to say no gods were known to be existed since Augustus Casear was worshipped as a god, and he existed.
Most people, however, have a single view of god, which I can accept is their honest belief of what god is. Though they do not claim to understand god in totality, they certainly have an idea of some of god’s characteristics. Is the fact that their view is different from someone else’s view equivocation? Should we not permit them to use the term god? We need to understand which god they’re discussing, which I express with a subscript.
I see no reason to force these subscripted gods to share all or even some characteristics. If I remember our discussions correctly, your god is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, (though he is necessary in all universes.) Some peoples gods are bi-omni. I’d say the type of god who caused the flood or throws people into the pit is not love. I’m all for letting anyone use the name, so long as we’re very careful about not letting the characteristics of one subscripted god bleed into another through carelessness.
As far as the OP goes, and I think I said this in the very beginning, some gods have characteristics or reported activities which can be examined by science, and some do not. It may be quite true that we can only examine the projection of the former type of god onto the physical world, but we do that for many things, don’t we?
Liberal, no matter how annoying they may be to you personally, you might want to spend some time reading about the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in this country – especially during the first half of the 20th Century. I didn’t know anything about it myself until a recent series of lectures at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt. Just sayin’.
echo6061, last minute question! Which U.S. president was sworn in on a Jehovah’s Witness Bible? tick tock tick tock…
(Actually, I think his mother brought him up as a Jehovah’s Witness, but he changed later in life.) tick tock tick tock…
[QUOTE=Liberal]
As soon as a mod discovers that this one was opened for purposes of trickery, it might likely be closed.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by that?
[QUOTE=aclubs]
What if I were to claim that God has told me that God loves me, or that God reassures me when I’m hurt? Would those be evidence that God loves me?
I’m honestly not trying to start an argument here, but I’m quite sick of countless threads wildly proclaiming that I and 90% or so of Americans are deluded or brainwashed.
[/QUOTE]
We just call it like we see it, no offense intended.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Are they? Then what was the point of all those religious wars?
[/quote]
Kindly name and illustrate the history of ‘all those religious wars’.
It should be enough that the message of the Divine in every instance was that man was asked to honour a Divine and to be good to his fellow-humans. If you reduce each of the great religions to its essence; they are the same.
The mistake unbelievers make is looking at the human-added elements (called ‘religion’) and thinking that they and faith are the same thing. They are not.
Let’s say there’s a person you love. The person loves you back. Together you share a feeling and you know that feeling with a knowing that is beyond and undefinable via intellect. Oh sure you can toss some words at it but none of them really suit.
There are tens of thousands of books telling you the best way to show your love. They don’t all agree on what’s best. Others tell you how to find ‘signs’ of love. They, too, differ in the advice they offer. There are articles written, advice-givers making a business, stores that sell products. All purport to explain love or tell you how to love. None of them has any bearing on the feeling of love.
Love is to all the accoutrements built up around it as faith is to religion. In both cases, the man-made institutions are pitiful little attempts by mere mortals to create something specific and meaningful to deal with the knowingness. They don’t do a very good job, but their aim is all the same.
When it comes to religion, though, all the non-believers keep pointing to the sex shops and the ‘how to love better’ books and everything human to denigrate the knowingness that is love. They have never experienced this brand of love, so they question those who have by asking about the valentine cards. They ask the wrong questions and fail to understand the answers.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
But those are cultural Christians (or implicit Christians, as your site puts it). Only about half of them even believe “in a God of some sort”. It’s like calling a Jew who is an atheist “religious”.
[/QUOTE]
Well speculation would be that once atheism drops to a certain rate, people will flop easier–and just because 92% of people stay with their parents religion in current day doesn’t mean that that number couldn’t have been lower 30 years ago. shrug
The point still remains that people who are religious are primarily so because their parents taught them to be. I think you will find that vastly overwhelmingly, any select region generally holds the same religion, and isn’t a hodge-podge, buffet-style conglomeration where every other person “chose” a religion that was right for him. So either:
Now certainly #1 is fairly believable, and probably a strong force. But given as, for instance, the children of Jews are generally of the Jewishfaith , the children of Muslims generally subscribe to Islam, and so on–and that minorities quite often stay with their own religion rather than switching to the religion of the majority–I have to suspect that #2 is probably the deciding factor. Yes that will vary depending on time and place, but meh, close enough for anything worth debating.
#3 we shall just ignore.
If you can think of some #4 possibility, I would gladly listen to it, but otherwise we’re not accomplishing much.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Liberal, no matter how annoying they may be to you personally, you might want to spend some time reading about the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in this country – especially during the first half of the 20th Century. I didn’t know anything about it myself until a recent series of lectures at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt. Just sayin’.
echo6061, last minute question! Which U.S. president was sworn in on a Jehovah’s Witness Bible? tick tock tick tock…
(Actually, I think his mother brought him up as a Jehovah’s Witness, but he changed later in life.) tick tock tick tock…
[/QUOTE]
Eisenhower
[QUOTE=Liberal]
… Jesus teaches that we all are gods. We all are immortal, and the essence of each of us is our spirit. …
[/quote]
Jesus said nothing of the sort.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I mean no disrespect, but in my time here as a lurker and participant I can count on one hand (and still allow for a few missing digits) the people that I have perceived have the read the bible cover to cover. Off the top of my head, two come to mind. (And I’m not sure of that as they’ve never said as much) I suppose I might come up with another one or two if I really think. (although, frankly I doubt it)
The comment ‘many heref have read the complete bible’, is preposterous in my view. There is a huge difference between having read the complete and saying you’ve read the complete bible. Among the latter, there are many here who have claimed to have read it cover to cover—and incredibly several who claim to have read it cover to cover many times. (IIRC, one who claimed to have read the OT 3 times and, incredibly, the NT 8 times)
Reading Asimov is not the same as reading Paul [of Tarsus], Ehrman as the Gospels. (or the University of Google) [Fu :smack: ] Hate to come and urinate in the “We’re the SDMB and we’re smarter than everyone else on the internet” kool-aid, but this is hardly a place for biblical knowledge.
My [tired] mantra: If you want to know more about the bible (whatever your motivation) read it for yourself.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
No problem. Grill away. But you might want to open another thread. As soon as a mod discovers that this one was opened for purposes of trickery, it might likely be closed.
[/QUOTE]
Does this mean, Liberal, that you might be willing to reply to my questions in http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=402045&page=4&highlight=goodness
I asked you, quite politely I believe, why your god doesn’t give us reliable information on what goodnessis. You ignored my question. I asked you in another thread if you would please reply; you ignored me again. Why are you willing to be “grilled” by Anduril but not answer a polite question from me?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Not quite. More like right out of DC comics.
[/QUOTE]
Well, right there at long last is the explanation for your unbelief. YHWH, Scripture tells us, is a God of Marvels! 
[QUOTE=Liberal]
For the same reason that we believe that neutrons exist when there is no Biblical evidence of it. Science is no more the proper tool for examining God than prayer is for examining gravity.
[/QUOTE]
There is a lot of wisdom in that statement. Thanks. I will be pondering it for a while…