by Knowsnothing 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Well betsy, no one can really claim to KNOW anything. We are always learning and I am certainly open to learn more. If you easily knock down my arguments, fine. It benefits all. It benefits me in that I can start to see the flaws in my logic. It is placed on an open forum where others can see my flaws as well and perhaps learn from them. It benefits the arguer in sharpening their rhetoric.
Believe me, my username was chosen with all the unwitting wit available.
someone or something must have interfered in order for things to work (a designer), then it only get's you to that point.
Why?
the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.
Why not?
someone or something must have interfered in order for things to work (a designer), then it only get's you to that point.
Why?
Why the exact laws of physics, for example? Perhaps for me it is difficult to see that the universe simply has these laws? Especially from a random explosion.
the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.
Why not?
Because, as far as we know, there was nothing and then there was something. Unless you want to get into m-theory, which is really theoretical, abstract, and so far has no concrete evidence. So, matter simply came with these properties (point of melting, chemical reactions, gravitational pull, etc.?)
You are arguing from personal incredulity. You can't imagine how these things happened therfore they didn't.
Newton couldn't work out how all the planets revolve around the sun on the same plane so he declared that this part was the work of god.
We still refer to Newton for a lot of things but not for this particular insight.
Beware "god of the gaps", its ok to say we don't know some stuff yet, we don't need to inject a supernatural designer.
KN: As one continues to analyze natural properties, there is a basis or axiom from which one derives all hypothesis and observations. At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is." Maybe, with the designer, that's just the way it is. Maybe he need no one to create him. But the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.
Suppose your argument is correct. You can replace "designer" with "the fundamental law of the universe" and your speculation applies equally well. On the other hand, a "fundamental law of the universe" need not have (for instance) a son or emotions like God has (and which is rather strange, how can God have emotions without a brain? How can God have a son without a body?), so it is a simpler hypothesis. Why should i then choose God?
"Junk DNA" aside, why is there even information to begin with?
Precisely because the universe contain matter in a non-trivial (ie. non-equilibrium) configuration. You can ask why that is so, and modern cosmology can give you the answer: the universe underwent inflation some 13.7 billion years ago. You can argue that God pulled in the universe and caused it to inflate, but that is another mystery -- why there is information is an answered question.
And honestly, are you arguing that DNA does not need "decoding"?
I dont think anyone argue that...
Because, as far as we know, there was nothing and then there was something. Unless you want to get into m-theory, which is really theoretical, abstract, and so far has no concrete evidence. So, matter simply came with these properties (point of melting, chemical reactions, gravitational pull, etc.?)
The big bang theory is not the theory that there once was nothing and then something. It is a theory which describe the very early stages of the universe, nothing else.
If you assume "absolutely nothing", our language simply stop working in terms of making any explanations. To me your argument boil down to this:
If your argument is more sophisticated, please make it more concrete.
imo, there is a huge difference between an atheist/agnostic stating that he doesnt know or cant prove with 100% certainity there is no god, and that meaning that god is the christian god of the bible.
one of the things that i liked about Richard Dawkins is his honest and frankly wise admission that he doesnt know for a certainity if there is a god or not. now, some christians have taken that comment and run with it. but when you read what dawkins said in context, he says that also he cannot disprove there being a teapot flying around in space.
now, i dont fall into the atheist catagory, i guess i would consider myself agnoistic, of course everyone has their own definition of what that means. i believe that god very well may exist, however if he does he sure as hell is not the god of the bible.
in my research one of the things that made me realize that christianity wasent for me was just like JW's, when it comes to debates and discussions about evolution, or bible problems, the vast majority of christian apologists use dishonest debate tactics as well as logical fallacies. once i learned about logical fallacies and started to apply them to what read and the debates i watch, that is one of the things that struck me. also many of them outright refuse to even learn what evolution is and how it works.
imo, if your position requires that the only way to defend it is to use those kind of tactics, that should tell you something.
so while i agree with the majority of the stuff dawkins says about religion, and accept evolution as a fact, i at this point cannot dismiss the possibility of some kind of intellgence/force/god behind the whole thing.
i feel like since humans have worshipped dietys for amost their entire existance there are 1 of 2 things going on. 1. their is a god, and all the holy books, writings, religions, etc are mans way of documenting and showing their belief in god. and just like humans, there is good and bad in all of that. or 2. our minds have evolved with something in it that gives us a desire to worship god, and perhaps if there is not a god, whatever that is, in our brain is a defense/survival thing.
and the bottom line is that we are going to find out when we die.
2. our minds have evolved with something in it that gives us a desire to worship god, and perhaps if there is not a god, whatever that is, in our brain is a defense/survival thing.
I completely agree with this statement. This was a trait that would have bound together little foraging bands, and given them some confidence in a mysterious world. But as our environment changes, some traits can become maladaptive. Those that reject science, are not adapting to our new environment. I suppose it is okay if it only affects them, but when they try to manipulate education and keep young people in ignorance, I get kinda---uhm---enraged. But I haven't seen much of that on JWN.
At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is."
Really? Who are these 'all' you speak of? Generally the real end is the idea that this is just the way god made it. As Cofty already pointed out, a brilliant mind like Newton's was stopped and simply decided this was just the way god did it. Had he pushed passed such a notion, perhaps he would have come up with something valuable there too. So much knowledge stops when the god factor goes up. But does a scientist today say 'that's just the way it is'? I hope not.
NC
How would atheists respond to this?
First, I cried. Then I wept. Near the end, I sneezed and pooted at the same time. (I believe it was providence.)
I'm not sure how Flew's position late in life could be considered a threat to atheism, as if atheistic views are cherished beliefs like those of theists. After all, atheists don't have the fear that crossing over may cost them an eternal prize, redeemable at death. Of course, I'm not a hardcore atheist and I don't mean to speak for those who are. It's just odd to me how Christians were excited by Flew's move from atheism to deism. From where I sit, nontheism is still nontheism. That hardly bolsters Christianity or other theistic views of an intervening, personal deity. Those who hold nontheistic views reject traditional self-refuting descriptions of a creator.
Of course, that doesn't stop Christians from invoking Flew as a near-convert for their brand of theism. I remember when Flew was quoted in the WT propaganda: "If I wanted any sort of future life I should become a Jehovah’s Witness." Of course, that was a fancy bit of quote-mining. Here's the context:
HABERMAS: C. S. Lewis explained in his autobiography that he moved first from atheism
to theism and only later from theism to Christianity. Given your great respect for Christianity, do
you think that there is any chance that you might in the end move from theism to Christianity?
FLEW: I think it’s very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if it did happen, I think it
would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully orthodox form: regular religious practice perhaps
but without belief. If I wanted any sort of future life I should become a Jehovah’s Witness. But
some things I am completely confident about. I would never regard Islam with anything but
horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam. It was
because the whole of Palestine was part of the land of Islam that Muslim Arab armies moved in
to try to destroy Israel at birth, and why the struggle for the return of the still surviving refugees
and their numerous descendents continue to this day.
So there you have it - Flew giving whole-hearted support to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
"i feel like since humans have worshipped dietys for amost their entire existance there are 1 of 2 things going on. 1. their is a god, and all the holy books, writings, religions, etc are mans way of documenting and showing their belief in god. ..." YourMomma
Ironically, it was my research into religion - ALL religions, especially the earliest forms - that convinced me that there cannot be a "god" - or the MUCH earlier forms of worship, "goddess" - more accurately, "goddessES"....
I am constantly astounded at the total lack of knowledge regarding the earliest forms of worship - which were [as far as I've learned, at this point] ALL goddesses.....
There weren't any Middle-Eastern male gods around, for almost all of the hundred thousand years or several hundred thousand years of human evolution.
And that rules them out, right there.
If you boil it down - attempts to make scientific awareness into god-magic are still just opinions.
Seems to me those who seek to find 'god' in detail are inverting the pyramid. As we dig deeper into genetics, we find reason to marvel - but no one can conclude without exception that we should marvel at 'god', as opposed to marvelling at the wonder of time and circumstance.
The movement by believers away from pure fundamental acceptance of their holy writ is evidence that science moves our perception toward more correct viewpoints, and that over time those viewpoints will continue to move toward science, not toward religious tales.
If you don't accept the above, take a look at your Christian religions 200 years ago. Many of the 'stories', that today are viewed by those same sects as 'allegory' or 'figurative' or 'metaphor', were viewed as absolute truth and detail. Without the light of science, Christians would still believe the silly tales as absolute.
On the other hand, cite where/when/how Christian dogma/religious writ has acted to correct science? Though perhaps someone could state factual areas within the historical portions of some texts as giving science a 'direction' to investigate and confirm or deny - I know of no example where science has had to admit that 'the holy book' was paramount in explaining a problem and solution.
So, put your 'faith' in invisible people in invisible places doing their work invisibly if you like. Me? I would rather watch and learn from science, though I admit that likely we are just in the infant stages of that discipline as a species.
Jeff
