The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  A couple/few comments only... then I'm out (may you all have peace!), because the questions originally asked (and so prompting my previous comments) have been responded to, so there's really no more point.

  I don't need to know what your beliefs are, unless we are trying to come to and understanding

  Which was the point of the OP, dear Jay (peace to you!)... and so why some commented as to their beliefs as they did.

  I want to see how you communicate with others, without using the "christ tag" every interaction.

  But God/"Yahweh" (and so, for some of us, Christ) was the subject, dear one. How can you ask people to tell you what/how they believe in something... without having them refer to that something... or what it (or who) it is that prompts such belief? ????

  If you actually want to understand what the theory of Evolution "would have you believe" . . . you need to divest your mind of this widely held and constantly promulgated fallacy. Only when you can examine the evidence without the inherent bias of this preconception will you ever begin to understand it.

  Very interesting statement, dear Size (peace to you, as well!)... and quite ironic, I have to say. Because MANY atheists... and particularly many here who received their indoctrination as to "God" from religion... and particularly the WTBTS... rely a great deal on what religion (and the WTBTS) "would have you believe." Yet, you are unable to divest YOUR minds of MANY "widely held and constantly promulgated" fallacies. Because of this, you are as unable to examine the evidence* as to these things yourselves... "without [the] inherent bias" of your OWN preconceptions... and so do not (yet) understand what WE share with YOU. No difference, dear one... truly.

  Finally, dear PSacto... the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one. I wish I could say that I ONLY came to know God through love; however, that would not be true in my case. I my case, I came to know Him... through His Son, the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, His Chosen One (MischaJah). And through THAT One... I came to know love. And that God... IS love.

  Again, peace to you all!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA

  *Please see various posts regarding what constitutes evidence for believers, above...
• 

  Nickolas

  That problem and it's resultant irritation is directly proportional to the length of post..:)

  Yes, and this one was no doubt my longest to date as I flipped from page to page while composing fragmented responses to the excellent points made by all. Lost to posterity now, but that's how it goes. Perhaps I overloaded the buffer. In the end I can offer a simple distillation:

  loquimur inter se et aliis linguis, non est qua nos invicem intelligere possit quid sit amet est. Ut omnia et singula, secundum quod ego elegi vos reperio semita quo vos. Omnia inquam in reditur ad te mei.
• 

  Nickolas

  Rough translation, we are speaking different languages to one another and there is no way we are capable of understanding what each other is trying to say. To each and all, I respect that you have chosen the path on which you find yourselves. All I ask in return is that you respect mine.
• 

  Nickolas

  Oh, and goodnight.
• 

  tec

  I think everyone here respects you, Nickolas. We just wanted to share our reasons with you, as fully and honestly as possible, as you asked a sincere question, in the hopes of understanding. Perhaps one day you will. It goes a long way and says a lot about you that you respect others and their right to their belief, despite not agreeing with or even understanding them and their belief.

  I'm sorry you lost your big post though. I know how it feels to have that happen, and then just not have the energy to redo it, knowing something might get lost anyway.

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  sizemik

  No difference, dear one... truly. . . . AGuest

  Oh yes there is . . . a huge difference. The statement was made in relation to the perception of Evolution which is constantly promulgated by those who discredit it while knowing very little about it . . . not those who understand it based on the scientific evidence freely available to all.

  Your false analogy is a pefect example of logical fallacy on multiple levels.

  I'm not saying we all don't fall victim to confirmation bias at times . . . but this isn't one of them.

  I don't discredit the evidence believers put forth . . . I simply admit that I don't understand it . . . big difference.
• 

  jgnat

  I did not read all nine pages. I just wanted to offer a short comment on the stars. I love them. I could stare at them all night.

  Here's another thought.

  http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html

  We might not need carbon for life. The implications means we can look for other kinds of stars and other kinds of planets for life.
• 

  soft+gentle

  I love the stars too jgnat and would like to whilst staring at them fall sleep every night!!!! reminds me of camping trips and clear nights

  the video raised some exciting issues about non carbon based life from inorganic matter and grappled with the question of what is life.

  what I am taking away from this interesting thread "the hubbble, Yahweh, the bible and faith" is that atheistic scientists are all fired up by the mysteries of the universe and this impels them to search for how it works together and what the mysterious possibilites are that it opens up.

  In contrast Yahweh, the bible and faith tends towards denying mystery and possibility suggesting that there will always be more of the same - (to me a kind of annihilation). Jgnat's video crystallised it for me - the scientist taking a chemical approach was prepared to experiment with different ways of looking at an old problem. The clincher for me was that he is enthusiastic and protean and whilst acknowling the gaps in our knowledge about evolution was still prepared to go on trying to understand how replication, containment and an energy source can be demonstrated in the lab and that if we call this life then it is possible to look for other life forms and habitats in the universe. watch the video and you will see what I mean.

  at the same time I have a great deal of respect for believers. I was especially following Awen's reasoning regarding how some parts of the bible are thinly disguised descriptions of phenomena that we now study as science (post 297).

  I also find that I can admit personal experience as proof in faith for oneself but only up to a point and that is to say that faith must admit the courage to engage with mystery - God would then be dark, mysterious and challenging.
• 

  sizemik

  I also find that I can admit personal experience as proof in faith for oneself but only up to a point and that is to say that faith must admit the courage to engage with mystery

  I like all of your points soft+gentle . . . especially the above.

  I feel it is a natural human tendency to "solve" the mystery . . . ie; it is uncomfortable to make room for it long term. I think that's what creates the sense of lonliness (perhaps there's a better word) that we all try to eradicate as best we can. We seem to have an intolerance for the unknown over and above our natural curiosity.

  I guess it's when "personal experience" is constantly presented as proof of belief to others . . . and that the belief should then be considered a reality . . . that I become frustrated and feel it is a kind of condescension. Supernatural personal experience serves no purpose as a recommendation.

  Faith can simply be used as a way to avoid engaging with mystery IMO. I've tried to better accommodate the unknown . . . and believe there is value in doing so.

  It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.
  - Albert Einstein
• 

  sizemik

  Here's another thought. . . . JGnat

  Very very interesting video JGnat . . . thanks for the link.

  For me . . . it questions the definition of "alive". What we might label "dead" matter could be in fact alive . . . if it has the potential to evolve into something else. At what point anything "dead" becomes "alive" is just a subjective boundary of complexity.

  We ourselves are really just a complex congregation of "dead" matter. "Alive" has become more conceptual than I have previously believed. There may in fact be no such thing as the "spark of life"