The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends

AGuest

What if they have found us?
Pardon me, dear one (again, peace to you!); I should have been more clear and said "manifested having found us TO us." Somehow let us know that they know we're here.
From this point on, I need to ask your patience and to bear with me. Because I did do my usual bump-by-bump... and then I came to the conclusion (which may be wrong, but makes sense to ME) that if what you say is true, no two of such life forms will likely ever cross one another's path/make contact. Too many variables and so "star-crossed" would always be the result. I mean, based on the EVIDENCE... there is NO other life "out there"... nor will there EVER be... because we will never be able to perceive it. Yet, your earlier comments indicate that there COULD be... even though we cannot "behold" such life forms. Yes?
If that's the case, though, how can we SAY there is NO other life "out there"... of ANY "kind"... physical OR spiritual (the first occurring after the "bang", the latter occurring before)... if the ONLY "evidence" is what WE can perceive? That we HAVE no physical evidence of other life... does not mean there IS no other life, does it? Rather, doesn't it simply mean we are not able, yet... if we ever are... to perceive it?
I don't think I'm getting this "evidence" thing so many put out there. It seems to me that folks are saying that unless THEY see it... it doesn't exist. Or, if science hasn't PROVEN it... it doesn't exist. But so MANY things existed... long before man perceived them... or science proved them.
Is the thinking that unless "we" SAY it exists... it does not? And if so... isn't that kind of like the WTBTS' "light" (i.e., truth is what we perceive at a given time... versus what truly IS)?
Do planets and galaxies... and other things... truly NOT exist... until we "discover" them? Is THAT when we're supposed to believe that they actually come INTO existence... when WE see/discover them... or have formulated some way to "test" them? If so, where were they BEFORE we discovered/saw/tested them?
I am sorry if this gives you a bit of brain freeze... but "our" (human) manner of stating what is... and what is NOT... just confuzzles me. It's like the England/France/Spain trinity saying the New World didn't exist... until THEY discovered it (which justified their laying claim to... and virtually slaughtering all those residing UPON... it).
What makes something EXIST? Sight? What if you cannot see? Realizations by one of the other empirical senses? But we not only could not see that little planet called Kepler 16b... we STILL can't. Nor can we taste, touch, smell, or hear it. We only know it's there by observing other celestrial phenomena. But it was THERE, was it not... even before we could even make such observations, yes? Did it not exist before?
What MAKES something exist?
Sorry, but I don't get what I perceive to be a double-standard, dear one, so any further clarification you are willing to indulge me with will be greatly appreciated.
Again, peace to you... and I hope my thoughts here aren't too much for you (or anyone else who would respond).
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
AGuest

it is still theoretically possible.
Then now I AM confused, dear one; if it is theoretically possible... why deny the possibility absolutely?
But where did they come from?
Heck, we haven't even figured out where everyone on EARTH came from (their original geographical location). We can THEORIZE... but we don't always actually KNOW. Why, then, would we presume to know that we could figure out where THESE came from?
Did God create them and they created us? Where did God come from? Who created God?
The answers to these depend, I think, on whether one accepts or rejects the RECORD (and it IS a record... regardless of whether one considers it too old... or too unbelievable...
we won't be around in even a million years. Probably not in another 10 thousand years, or even a thousand. Does that thought disturb you?
Absolutely not! Why would that bother me? Heck, I'm not even sure I'LL be around tomorrow! Sure, I HOPE so... indeed, I hope I am around for eternity (but not necessarily in my current body - wicked, disloyal, and betraying "lover" THAT has proven to be - LOLOL!). But I have lived a fairly decent life - no complaints. I've known hardships and I've known good times. I've known loneliness and I've known love. I've had much... and nothing. I don't consider my life as having been a waste, at all. Sure, there are things I wish I could experience before I leave life... and if I get to do that, hooray! But if I don't... hey, there are folks out there who haven't done or seen a fraction of what I have. So, if it's all over when the lights go out... whenever they go out... so be it. I've already bought my burial plot, so I'm not ascared of the dark.
As for mankind being around... I'm sorry but I think that whole issue is way too big for my itty bitty efforts. If man is going to die out... man is going to die out. Nothing I can do about it... and so nothing for me to worry about. I can only live for today... and do what I can TODAY... in the HOPES that there is a tomorrow. For me AND for mankind.
C'mon, dear Nick... if this is all there is and there's nothing after this... so what? You're dead, you're dead. BUT... I think it's a bit too late to start apologizing and saying what you would've, could've, should've done... after that. And just in case I AM granted life after... I don't want to be begging and pleading as to what I woulda, coulda, shoulda. I DO believe we only have this one life to prove ourselves... that after we die, it's too late. Whether there is life on the other side... or not.
Anyway, looking forward to your comments on "evidence", etc., if you're up to braving another of my tome's - LOLOLOLOL!
Peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
tec

Tammy . . . you only quoted me in part, which removes the context. But that's ok . . . I'll put it back for you. The part you left out referred to "evidence freely available to all"
Sorry, Size. I just used the quote from Shelby's post, and her response. However...
I feel I have divested all my preconceptions of God . . . I am a blank page . . . point me to the freely available evidence and I'll examine it. That's what I'm looking for.
I don't have access to any more evidence than you do, Size. Far as I know, no one does. Faith allows some to hear and understand more, I think. But I already do think you're trying to listen. You did say that you would keep knocking. Don't give up on that, put faith in that you 'will' (or if you can only manage 'could' for now, that is fine too, that is a great start), have the door opened for you.
Or if you have seen a pre-concieved bias in my posts . . . point me to that also and I'll endeavour to remove it.
As I said, you already said you would keep knocking. You sound like you're trying to understand, keeping an open mind as TO hear. I would guess that you probably do have pre-conceived bias (since I think we ALL do, myself included). Hard for us to get rid of those altogether, and all at once. Those things take time.
I was also mostly speaking in general (I did emphasize that in my post, right?), though I was responding to your comment.
Peace, and I apologize for the miscommunication/understanding on my behalf.
Tammy
tec

such life forms wouldn't have advanced to locate any other "similar" life forms... in the same, similar, or even a distant galaxy... in even a billion years! Because they obviously haven't "found" us.
Yet, we (homo sapiens)... who've been around (according to science, for the sake of argument) less than half a million years... can find the answers they CAN'T? "We" can design a vehicle that can travel light years away... but they CAN'T? After being in existence at least a billion years... and in a similar environment?? Considering what humans have learned, discovered, found out, etc., in the last 100 years, let alone 1,000, 10,000... or 100,000 years... doesn't your comment suggests that we are even more advanced than those who, perhaps, came a billion years before we did?
Yes. And not just one advanced civilization, either. In an eternal universe, how many would/coud there be? Yet none have contacted us? They would have to be either organized (with no dissention) and have some sort of 'prime directive', or they havne't found us, or we are somehow the more advanced (which makes no since in an infinite timespan)
Just some things I think about also, when considerint the age of the universe and other life forms.
Peace to you,
Tammy
bohm
I don't think I'm getting this "evidence" thing so many put out there. It seems to me that folks are saying that unless THEY see it... it doesn't exist. Or, if science hasn't PROVEN it... it doesn't exist. But so MANY things existed... long before man perceived them... or science proved them.
1. Science is not in the business of proving things. Science is in the buisiness of doing inference on explanations based on evidence.
2. It is ofcourse entirely silly to say science cannot talk about things which are not "seen". For instance we can say a whole lot about subatomic particles, dark matter, our common ancestry with the great apes and event horizons of holes.
3. "I don't think I'm getting this "evidence" thing so many put out there" entirely true. But unless you are hell-bend on keeping yourself in the dark, an evening on wikipedia could clear up many of the cherished misconceptions and misrepresentations.
bohm

tec:
In an eternal universe, how many would/coud there be?
our (big-bang model) universe is not eternal. Furthermore, even this universe is causally disconnected from other parts due to expansion of space-time. In other words, assuming relativity, if aliens exist 50 billion light-years from us, we will never ever see them, and they will never see us.
Yet none have contacted us?
we do not know that...
They would have to be either organized (with no dissention) and have some sort of 'prime directive', or they havne't found us, or we are somehow the more advanced (which makes no since in an infinite timespan)
The conclusion is based on two false premises.
(intelligent) alien life is properly very rare. But we simply dont have the evidence required to conclude much beyond that and not take leaps of faith.
Nickolas

What MAKES something exist?
Sorry, but I don't get what I perceive to be a double-standard, dear one, so any further clarification you are willing to indulge me with will be greatly appreciated.
Sure. The New World did not exist to the Europeans until it was discovered. Did it actually exist before it was discovered? Of course it did. Did some visionary Europeans postulate mathematically that another part of the Earth existed, yes to that too. The key difference between the New World and the Spiritual World is the latter cannot be proven, because it cannot be perceived but through individual revelation or, as it is said, through death, which means it cannot be proven in the life in which we are. I can postulate that there are fairies in my garden, and I can believe it too, but that does not make it real to anyone but me. To everyone else, they do not exist. As to galaxies and stars and planets, we have ample evidence that they can and do exist, therefore we are not surprised when we discover them. The same cannot be said for the spiritual world of which you speak.
Then now I AM confused, dear one; if it is theoretically possible... why deny the possibility absolutely?
But I do not deny the possibility. I deny the possibility that there could have been a being sufficiently complex to create such great complexity. The watch is less complex than the watchmaker. The pot is less complex than the potter. The universe must be less complex than the creator. But to deny that something of such great complexity as the universe could have possibly come into existence on its own means that something of even greater complexity came into existence on its own, or always existed. It does not compute.
The answers to these depend, I think, on whether one accepts or rejects the RECORD (and it IS a record... regardless of whether one considers it too old... or too unbelievable...
The record of which you speak was written only thousands of years ago by non-eye witnesses. It does not, sadly, qualify as a record but as an assertion. An assertion without any evidence to back it up. Not too old. Far, far, far too recent, and far too primitive.
I can only live for today... and do what I can TODAY... in the HOPES that there is a tomorrow. For me AND for mankind.
It is a wonderful hope, but the important thing is living for today because you can have no assurance whatsoever that tomorrow (whether that be the day after today or the millenium after today) will ever come for mankind. What you can be assured of based on the evidence of record is that you, personally, will not exist as a human being after a very short period of time.
C'mon, dear Nick... if this is all there is and there's nothing after this... so what? You're dead, you're dead. BUT... I think it's a bit too late to start apologizing and saying what you would've, could've, should've done... after that. And just in case I AM granted life after... I don't want to be begging and pleading as to what I woulda, coulda, shoulda. I DO believe we only have this one life to prove ourselves... that after we die, it's too late. Whether there is life on the other side... or not.
Pascal's Wager, my dear. I think God would be unimpressed if I kinda, sorta believed in Him just in case He turns out to exist after all.
AGuest
1. Science is not in the business of proving things. Science is in the buisiness of doing inference on explanations based on evidence.
Once again, dear Bohm (peace to you!)... you entirely misunderstand me, what I've stated, and the points I've made. I never stated what science was in the business of. I stated (and I will reiterate it for you, since you appear unable to grasp it):
"It seems to me that folks are saying that... 'if science hasn't PROVEN it... it doesn't exist'."
Whether that IS what folks are saying (and, again, it appears to ME that they are)... is what you should have responded to. I am not sure you could have refuted that, though, so...
2. It is of course entirely silly to say science cannot talk about things which are not "seen". For instance we can say a whole lot about subatomic particles, dark matter, our common ancestry with the great apes and event horizons of holes.
Ummmm... that was my point, at least with regard to three of the four...
3. "I don't think I'm getting this "evidence" thing so many put out there" entirely true. But unless you are hell-bend on keeping yourself in the dark, an evening on wikipedia could clear up many of the cherished misconceptions and misrepresentations.
I understand the definition of evidence, Bohm. As you say, the information is readily available. Thus, Wikipedia shows the following:
"Types of Evidence
- Anecdotal evidence
- Intuition
- Personal experience
- Scientific evidence
- Testimonial evidence"
I DON'T understand, therefore, how ones... you included, apparently... not only limit their acceptance to only ONE of such definitions... but try to limit OTHERS to that one, as well, while intimating that it is WE who need to come out of the dark. Previous in this thread, however, I and others have given you both the testimonial evidence (of others) as well as evidence based on our own personal experience. You, however, seem "hell-bent" on disregarding that and accepting only "scientific evidence." So be it. If YOU reject the evidence... because it doesn't comport with the particular definition YOU want it to... so be it. You hear... and accept... what you want to... and do not hear or accept... what you do NOT want to. And so here we are, back at the beginning, once again.
If you say, "I will only accept scientific evidence," then IMHO you are like Thomas ("I will NOT believe, unless...") and that's on YOU. Since Thomas was the only one privy to the empirical evidence he demanded... and those after pronounced "happy" for believing but NOT seeing (as Thomas did)... it is no surprise that you don't receive what he did.
It is not my understanding of evidence that is limited, dear Bohm... but yours. As with you understanding of many other things discussed in this thread, particularly regarding that which is spiritual. But you really MUST understand that the fact that "Bohm of JWN" DOESN'T get/understand these things... is of no great concern to me. If you WANT to know... I am more than willing to share how it is that I AM able to maintain my faith in God... even in light of Hubble's endeavors. Again, such only serve to further set and solidify my faith.
This isn't the WTBTS, dear Bohm, and so I am not about MAKING you "get" anything... nor considering you a "goat" or worse if you don't. That is not how this works, not at all. You (or someone asks); I share. You don't accept/get what I share... no problem. Believe what you will... and leave me to believe what I will. So long as I am not pursuing YOU (or anyone, actually)... or telling you what YOU should believe... you really should have no concern.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Nickolas

God created the universe... but something else happened that required God to send down to Earth his Son [Jesus] to save us. Am I closer?
That's closer to what I understand, dear Nick (again, peace to you!).
Thanks. It is much better to understand another's perspectives more clearly when comparing them to my own. What bothers me is, if God is omniscient - knows what's going to happen even before it happens - how was it He got blindsided?
(and I will reiterate it for you, since you appear unable to grasp it):
meow?
sizemik

The PROBLEM, however, is that some who ask want a specific KIND of evidence... and will accept nothing else . . . . AGuest
I'll take any evidence at all . . . . anything . . . as long as it's reasonable. "Anecdotal" and "Testimonial" evidence alone could have me believing in Santa Clause . . . or worse, a JW (were it not for personal experience)
Like Thomas, who said, "I will NOT believe... UNLESS I see the holes." Seeing Christ himself wasn't enough - he had to see the marks made by the nails. . . . AGuest
It's interesting you raise the example of Thomas. I would greatfully accept even a fraction of what Thomas received. But here's the problem I raised earlier. In spite of being an eyewitness of Jesus miracles, he wanted more evidence . . . and he got it. It was no problem for the Lord to front up then.
Why can't I just have my fraction . . . I see no reasonable explanation for this . . .
I've asked a thousand times . . . Thomas asked just once. I draw a blank . . . Thomas get's everything he asks for . . . as apparently, do others who have an unshakeable faith based on evidence of some kind. "Anecdotal" evidence alone was not sufficient for Thomas . . . so why the partiality? Why should it be good enough for me?
I'm simply looking for God . . . but I can't find him anywhere.

The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

Share this