by Perry 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I'm not "assigning non-personhood". Personhood must be established; it isn't a default position.
So would you say that you are withholding judgment on whether or not personhood is affiliated with the original Singularity? At least until you have evidence? Or, have you already made up your mind on the matter?
l
So would you say that you are withholding judgment on whether or not personhood is affiliated with the original Singularity? At least until you have evidence? Or, have you already made up your mind on the matter?
My position on everything is to not believe it without evidence. If evidence is sound it can change my mind about anything.
The suggestion though that the singularity -- that EXPLODED into all matter and energy that comprises our universe -- was a sentient, omnipotent being, the Judeo-Christian god, is preposterous. You are grasping so hard I hope you don't get a cramp.
Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
it solves nothing and actually makes the problem worse by adding another complex element into the picture.
Exactly. Either "something" popped into existence from nothing, or has always been.
If God is "allowed" by you to have always existed, why not impersonal but orderly space-time?
Why complicate the matter with a personal sky fairy who writes bad books?
However, I must remind you that most scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning.
This particular universe, likely yes.
No one knows what "things" were "like" before the big bang, and either possibility
(Either the universe sprang into existence, or something eternal "caused" it) are
both equally absurd to the human mind.
So what if there IS some eternal "first cause"; a universe-making "fabric" outside of our
known universe... What does that have to do with the anthropomorphic God of the
Judeo-christian tradition? Why does a "first cause" give ANY credence at ALL to your
pet feel-good notions of whatever preceded the big bang?
which brings me to...
One must conclude that atheism is nothing more than a superstituous fairy tale designed to pacify adults.
Pacify? Pacify? Atheism is terrifying! You think there is something comforting about the notion that the
universe didn't "intend" to make us, that there is no one out there that cares, and that we are the only
thin chance this broken planet has?
Atheism requires a level of mature courage that most people will never achieve, including, possibly, me.
[inkling]
My position on everything is to not believe it without evidence. If evidence is sound it can change my mind about anything.
I think this is a good time to point out that evidence and proof are not synomynous. A person can have plenty of evidence and yet the testable proof still elude them. Also, evidence is interpreted according to a person's premise. When evidence is encountered contrary to a person's premise, the novice will discard. However, when a person has proof and encounters evidence appearing to be contrary, the master will look for the error, already knowing or posessing the proof.
The suggestion though that the singularity -- that EXPLODED into all matter and energy that comprises our universe -- was a sentient, omnipotent being, the Judeo-Christian god, is preposterous.
In what way? Is it any more preposterous to posit the existence of life to chance? For instance, if I copy a Word application program with only one random mutation enbedded, how long will it take for it to turn into an Excel program? With computers we can do this billions of times you know.... simulating billions even trillions of years. What do you think we'd get?
Let me ask you an honest question: What would it take for you to believe in a Singularity with a personality?
Proof is a strong word, especially to the scientific crowd. Yes, evidence can be incorrectly interpreted, but so far there is basically no evidence at all to even interpret that would lead to "proof" of a god. All you have are anecdotes, subjective experiences, and circumstantial evidence at best. Seeing beauty in the night sky is not strong evidence for god. Are those the evidences I am "misinterpreting"? Do you consider the possibility that you are misinterpreting these evidences because you already believe in god?
Your Word to Excel situation shows a misunderstanding of evolution. First of all, evolution is hardly random. Sure, random mutations provide the raw materials for which evolution works with, but natural selection helps ensure the beneficial mutations are retained while the negative ones are discarded. Second, evolution never has a target or a goal in mind. (It has nothing in mind; it is a blind process.)
If you set up a scenario where the Word program was copied with random mutation over and over again, and also implemented some sort of check where the negative mutations would be discarded, then yeah, it is completely reasonable to expect that you'd end up with something that was useful yet different from Word.
Atheism is terrifying!... Atheism requires a level of mature courage that most people will never achieve, including, possibly, me.
Really? Not compared to Christianity.
And fear not them which kill the body , but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell .
Mt. 10:28
Here's drwtsn32's idea of death:
My body will decompose. The molecules will break down. The atoms will be reused somewhere else.
His view is exactly the same as the Watchtower's view. Atheism, like the Watchtower is a pacifier.
His view is exactly the same as the Watchtower's view.
Hardly. I don't believe in a possibility of a resurrection. I don't believe we die because of god's punishment due to original sin. Now the WT does have right as far as the "when you're dead, you're dead" part.
Atheism, like the Watchtower is a pacifier.
How does it pacify me knowing that when I die I'll be dead, and that's it? I think you mean to say your belief is what pacifies: living in a magical fairy land in the clouds with Jesus with your long lost relatives and pets.
also implemented some sort of check where the negative mutations would be discarded,
Does natural selection have limits? Is there observable data beyond those limits that renders that model obsolete?
So drwtsn32,
What would it take for you to believe in a Singularity with a personality?
My body will decompose. The molecules will break down. The atoms will be reused somewhere else.
That is identical to the WT view of death. You may have other differences, but this is not one of them.
How does it pacify me knowing that when I die I'll be dead, and that's it?
Because that is preferable to being tortured for all eternity by a loving God.
