by JosephAlward 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
I am the true God.
I am invisible and can only be spoken to through my official channel –the internet. As I am invisible, the proof that I exist is that you have never seen me. Well, have you ever seen me? No? Incontrovertible proof!
PS: I zapped Pascal for his error.
Ik Ben Ben.
Religion n.
An organisation designed to promote atheism.
LOL @ Ben!
Dedalus
RWC,
I think you misunderstand the apostle argument. We are not arguing that the apostles willingly died because they saw with their own eyes that Jesus had risen. If they had witnessed the resurrection, then of course they would die for Jesus rather than give up Christianity, because the Jesus they knew taught they would live forever in the kingdom of God if they didn't forsake him. Thus, it's obvious they would have died for him had they known he was the son of God.
The argument instead is this: if there is evidence that followers of Jesus allowed themselves to be killed rather than forsake Christianity, may we take this as proof that they walked and talked with Jesus, were there before the crucifixion, during, and after, and had seen him resurrected?
My response was that followers of Jesus may have martyred themselves, but they might not have met Jesus, if he existed. When apologists argue that it makes no sense for one to martyr himself unless he truly believes, I respond by saying that that is absolutely true. But, believing is not the same as knowing, as David Koresh's followers, and untold Moslem martyrs have shown us.
Thus martydom by followers of Jesus does not prove that Jesus was resurrected, or even that he ever existed.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
rem:
You are incorrect. It can and has been proven by scientists that if physics factors were to be changed even in the least, life would not exist.
Get the book "Evidence of God" but don't read that. Instead, go into the back at the bibliography and check all the scientific references.
What you think you know and what actually is are two different things.
Why not take your ego out of the picture and research it instead?
Joseph,
How can you agree that the apostles died a martyrs death believing in Jesus, which is recorded in the Bible, but not believe that they walked with Jesus before his death, which is also recorded in the Bible? Your proof is right there! You are contradictory in your logic, because your stand should also be questioning whether there really were any apostles in the first place that died a martyrs death!
Do you believe only certain text to be true, but not others?
So I ask you then, what other type of proof would you need to convince you that the apostles walked with Jesus before his death?
Stocwach,
It can and has been proven by scientists that if physics factors were to be changed even in the least, life would not exist.Did I ever disagree with that fact? Where?
All that scientists can show is that if certain physical parameters of the universe were different then OUR kind of life would not be possible. In fact that is not all - rocks would not even be possible. This is not to say that another type of life or "matter" would be possible. The anthropic principle argument as evidence for god is flawed.
Get the book "Evidence of God" but don't read that. Instead, go into the back at the bibliography and check all the scientific references.Perhaps you should do some more research on your own on why the strong anthropic principle is simply wishful thinking.
What you think you know and what actually is are two different things.You should be looking in a mirror.
Why not take your ego out of the picture and research it instead?I have. Why do you think I know so much more about this subject than you do? You should follow your own advice. That way we can have an intelligent discussion. Right now I feel like I'm talking to a ten year old.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Just a couple nickles worth. It is the sciences that caused me to realise that there had to be a designer or creator for all the varied life on this planet. For the very planet itself, with a moon perfect for it's purpose. ( a bit too perfest for chance I think) In a solar system that is far to young to have "evolved" this life that is upon this planet as we know it!
QUOTED ""Prayer works, but only if the one being prayed for thinks--or knows--he's being prayed for.""
That above quote I have to completly disagree with on personal first hand experiances many times over.
Norval
Rem,
Here is what you said in an earlier post:
Your grasp of cosmology is quite precious. Your anthropocentrism is blatant. Even if you could somehow prove that this universe was designed or tweaked (which you can't) you still couldn't show that it was tweaked for human life, specifically. There are still many other explanations, such as the universe was designed to hold rocks, and human life is just a by-product of such a universe.
You're thinking is so shallow, you can't even remember what you said!!
--Now, for example, the nuclear weak force is 10 to the 28th power the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all hydrogen in the universe would have been turned into helium (making water impossible, for example) Hmmm, no humans in that universe.
--If the difference in mass between a proton and a nuetron were not EXACTLY as it is-roughly twice the mass of an electron-then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Chemistry as we know it would not exist and nor would life!!!!!!!
--Look at the nature of water. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it didn't, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. Not too practical for human life, eh Rem? This property in turn is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom.
There are a comprehensive list of these coincidences that can be found in John Leslie's book "Universes". Mere chance? I don't think so.
Even astronomer Fred Hoyle said that the universe has to know in advance what it is going to be before it knows how to start itself. So with the Big Bang theory, he essentially said at a time of 10 to the negative 43 seconds the universe had to know how many types of neutrino there are going to be at a time of 1 second. This is so in order that it starts off expanding at the right rate to fit the eventual number of neutrino types!!!!
Now Rem, to put it in simpler terms for your shallow thinking, to go from a big bang to life as we know it involved intricate coordination over vast differences in scale-from the galactic level down to the subatomic one!! An explosion in a junkyard just doesn't lead to sundry bits of metal being assembled into a machine!!!!
You my friend are the one that needs to do a lot more research on the anthropic principle, because you obviously know considerably less about the subject than you let on.
Rem,
Pascals wager makes perfect sense, if you put your faith in the oldest known manuscript known to man--the Bible! There is only one true God, but many false gods, so the decision should be easy what God to bet on!
Now my point, which so went over your shallow minded, tunnel visioned head, was this, and I'll put it in more layman terms for you to understand: Think of a lottery--YOU CAN'T WIN IF YOU DON'T PLAY!!!!!
Why would you just choose to remain atheistic--with nothing to look forward to, and no hope whatsoever of any chance of salvation, just simply living one day to the next, knowing that in an instant, time and unforseen occurence befall us all, and your existence could vanish forever?????????????????? Why not research the various religions, and then make a decision which one you choose to adhere to? (Obviously you wouldn't worship all of them, because that would be self defeating!!!!!!) You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain!!
Now, if your answer is, you'd rather lead a life of debauchery and have a "go for the gusto" lifestyle, because you "only live once", then I pity you.
Pascals wager makes perfect sense, if you put your faith in the oldest known manuscript known to man--the Bible!
The world's oldest manuscript? The collection of books you refer to as the bible is nothing of the sort. Being extremely generous, the oldest parts of the bible date back no further than 1500 BC. There are many extant manuscripts from earlier times. Perhaps we should put our faith in those and worship Osiris.
Why would you just choose to remain atheistic--with nothing to look forward to, and no hope whatsoever of any chance of salvation, just simply living one day to the next, knowing that in an instant, time and unforseen occurence befall us all, and your existence could vanish forever?????????????????? Why not research the various religions, and then make a decision which one you choose to adhere to? (Obviously you wouldn't worship all of them, because that would be self defeating!!!!!!) You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain!!What if they're all wrong? Or what if there's no way to tell for certain which one is right? Perhaps those who believe in the wrong god will be punished more than those who believe in none. Perhaps the gods are testing us and will reward those who use reason, and don't believe the silly superstitions of primitive goatherds. If it's a gamble at all, the best thing to do is to assume that the universe is the way it appears to be, and act accordingly. A just god would not punish someone for doing that. An unjust god is likely to punish you anyway.
--
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." -Robert A. Heinlein
