On a more serious note, for me this is a debate that has no solution. I was showing my grandson one of those mud nests that wasps make, and for me it screams there must be a creator. Then I recall the TV image of an african holding her little child, flies buzzing about, slowly starving to death and that screams against a creator.
An atheist and a creationist are walking along a riverbank . . . .
by nicolaou 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
DrJohnStMark
This was a good one...
About the river... it reminds me of one faulty argument by the WT society: the one on Ecclesiastes 1:7. It is claimed in many WT books (Creation etc) and even on their own www pages that this particular verse exemplifies divine inspiration of the Bible by "describing the water cycle" somehow.
Now where in that verse can you find a cycle? It only says that rivers go into the sea and the sea is not filled. Only one step of the cycle (consisting of many steps as we know today) is given. From the point of view of the WT argument the most critical step of the cycle would be how water gets back up. However, in that verse only the most obvious step of the cycle is given.
Giving one step of a cycle certainly is not "describing a cycle" (except in the usual WT logic where broken links in chains of inference are allowed and even necessary). In this case a huge leap of faith is needed to see a justification for such faith (circular chain). Did I really believe such argumentation back then?
By the way, the reason for the sea not being filled was 'known' in the biblical times: Namely, from the edge of the flat earth the water falls down... Also, the origin of rain is 'explained' in Bible as sent by God in Matthew 5:45. And Isaiah 55:10 might say something about the cycle: "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither..." -
Satanus
DD
'I think you mean multiverse. You seem to have the same problem. You are a believer in a macroverse/multiverse? Based on what evidence?'
Yah, that's the term. It's not a problem, though, because it's merely theorization. For evidence, it comes from the efforts of physicists and cosmologists at attempting to explain the properties of the universe.
It all started in a galaxy, far away. Hehe. Actually, it started about 90 yrs ago, when scientists discovered that the locations of atomic particles could not be nailed down, not pinpointed. They actually appeared to be in more than one place at the same time. In attempting to solve this problem, they developed the string theory, that the universe is made up of vibrating strings. From this theory, the existence of multiple dimensions beyond our regular 3 were posited as a way to make the theory work. They got up to 5 dimensions, at first, then 10, then finally, 11. Finally, membranetheory developed out of it all. This m theory, as physicists call it, enabled physicists to go back all the way to the big bang, and beyond. M theory even allowed them to theorize the CAUSE of the big bang.
Part and parecel to the above is the possibility of other, paralel universes, starting w the shifty electrons. It was suggested that maybe the particles were shifting btween this universe and others. String theory also suggested alternate universes, side by side, like slices of bread. W m theory, infinite univereses are suggested.
Check out a fairly good article @ http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml It uses terms that us ordinary types can almost understand.
As well, one of the scientists explains how the laws of physics break down as they retraced, back to the big bang. Conversely, it shows that the rules for a universe come into existence concurrently and just a little bit after the universe starts it eruption into existence.
Nowhere in the article is there any evidence for god, a god, or gods. However, the 'membrane', or one of the pre bigbang membranes that they described is somewhat like what i saw the universe emerge out of in one of my meditations, a few yrs ago.
S
-
Deputy Dog
S
I understand "String theory". I'm asking for evidence of other universes.
Nowhere in the article is there any evidence for god, a god, or gods.
I would suggest that other "dimensions" could be seen as evidence for God.
-
Psychotic Parrot
I would suggest that other "dimensions" could be seen as evidence for God.
How so? It's not good enough to merely suggest it, you must explain what you mean.
-
Deputy Dog
Psychotic Parrot
Are you reading the thread? How does the claim that, what appears to be other "dimensions" are evidence of other universes, more valid than a claim they evidence of God?
-
Psychotic Parrot
The evidence for other dimensions doesn't equate to other universes, but rather they are both seperate facets of M-theory.
God has nothing to do with it. What you just said is no different to saying: "well if there's no evidence that the earth goes round the sun, then it must go round the moon." = Non sequitur.
-
Deputy Dog
The evidence for other dimensions doesn't equate to other universes, but rather they are both seperate facets of M-theory.
That's my point. It goes no farther to prove other universes, than it does to prove God.
-
Mary
OK, I heard a funny one along these lines:
An atheist is walking in the forrest enjoying all the sites and sounds that evolved on its own. He admired the tall trees, the singing birds and marveled at it all. Just then, a bear appeared before him and the atheist became (understandably) terrified when he saw the bear charging towards him. He cried out "Oh god, save me!"
Just then, the bear suddenly stopped mid-air, and a voice came out of heaven that said "Oh sure----you deny I exist and then when you need some help you expect me to answer you?" The atheist assured God that he had seen the error of his way and would be a believer from here on in, if he would only make this bear into a Christian. God thinks for a minutes and says: "okay, you've got it."
The bear stops charging, gets down on his knees, clasps his hands together and says "Oh Lord, for the meal I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."
-
BarefootServant
Dr JohnStMark,
on the scripture at Eccl 1:7, I tend to agree the WT overplays its hand somewhat, and we can presume that the writer did not understand exactly how the water 'cycle' worked - but it's a little unfair to say that there is no mention of a cycle:
5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
The whole context of these verses is about natural cycles - the solar cycle, the cycling winds, and the water cycle; that somehow the water that streams into the sea eventually returns to the streams again. These are scientifically accurate observations, and at the very least demonstrates remarkable insight, for the time.