by smiddy 107 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
for goodness sake New Chapter...If you're gonna come on this thread and spout your....so blatantly ex JW stuff....and have your ex JW slip showing...and least get Itshehe's name right!!!
Its a she he not a he she....LOL....Itheshe sounds more like a sneeze....bless you.
AND....where is your life jacket!!!
No Still Thinking---I will not back down.
Nearly all of us on this board were JW's at SOME time. Therefore, we are flawed. We are not qualified to ask the big questions. We are never, EVER, allowed to hold strong convinctions. We can never debate an opinion, because this will be proof of our JWishness. Any attempt on our part to define the world, and disagree with anyone, will be further proof that the WT still holds us in its iron grip!
Don't you see? If you disagree with me, you are still acting like a JW. Because ONLY JW's ever have strong convinction. ONLY JW's ever support their own opinions. Yes----ONLY JW's EVER would disagree with my sound and moderate logic.
NC
Yes----ONLY JW's EVER would disagree with my sound and moderate logic.
LOL
what do you expect with circular reasoning....it taints EVERYTHING
And more importantly...say five hail Itshehe's and whip yourself with a feather to atone for your sinful behaviour.
I have started a thread where I admit to being an EX JW, and investigate how deeply flawed I will forever be. Come over and tell me how I used to be a JW. It's fun and easy! I can't deny it.
Since spirits and gods were derived from human ignorance of the world we live long ago, human ignorance is a known and accepted fact.
The question of god or science depends where you want to exercise your rational logic.
Since science is really not empowering for men and its quite a bit harder to cultivate money from it, religion
is a viable vehicle that can create that sought after power and money.
I think OGD's analogy between proving *God's* existence and proving one's *love* for another only succeeds if you view God as just a poetic idea or something Platonic like "goodness" or "treeness" or the like. And even then only partially. Love, though not easy to define in precise scientific terms, is at least partly defineable, if in no other way but the subjective 'I know it when I see it' variety. God isn't really like that as God isn't an idea that corresponds to a strong emotion i.e. something you can (again) sort of measure.
I don't see how God can be defined either poetically or scientifically.
The word and concept of Science means nothing less and only knowledge, not guesswork. They acquire knowledge of only what is already there and been placed there, wherever THERE might be, nothing else.
In the manner of: 'I think, therefore I am' is: 'I am, therefore I was made' I did not do that myself. I did not make my own incredible, yet to be comprehended in all its briliance by science, miracle of my brain and everyone elses. It is already there. All science can do is to discover more of it. Whole university departments are devoted to brain research. Greater minds than mine devote untold years to research its wondrous folds that are yet to unfold to the scientific world. Am I labouring the point? Sure am!
To coin the origin of everything accurately has, as you are all aware, two sides. Discovered reality and so-called scientific fiction
Here for the summary of the latter:
The big bang occurred when the fickle lance of fate penetrated the virginal womb of universal space via the hymen of ignorance r
esulting in the chaos of a cataclysmic orgasm which ultimately gave birth to a self-fertilizing virgin who became known to her progeny as mother nature.
That should even things out between the two protagonist religions: scientism and creationism, the latter of which have their own sets of fairytales at odds with reality.
The question asked about the beginning of God, if there was one and if so what was there before if anything, is impossible to answer. Religion of the christian kind, or unkind, goes to the Bible where Jesus said that God always works, yet He rested and there was a beginning of His Creation. Try to get your heads around that. Our mind in its current state of relative infancy, is just not equipped to cope with these imponderables, other than that He rested only with reference to the earth, to allow humans to make their own way after they refused to listen to His good advice.
There was a BBC series of 10 episodes recently, entitled Dangerous Knowledge, which documented the endeavours of a number of brilliant scientists' to understand infinity and, in consequence, the theory of everything and beyond, who were finally driven to successful suicides by the futility of their quests that remained perpetual enigmas. Some matters are just not explainable. Everything we relate to during the whole of our lives, is already there even as we are. We just discover and make use of them. For those who once were JWs, still are and others needing some answers please have a look at my website: http://www.sanctifyname.com where I deal seriously with many of such issues without taking myself too seriously.
Scientists should not monkey around with God. OK?
Please someone, explain scientifically how an omnipotent,omniscience,omnipresent,almighty GOD came from nothing
Natural sciences can't.
Who says God came from nothing?
(and yes, I know this is a spin-off from that other thread)
Peace,
tammy
Who says God came from nothing?
Who says it came from anything?
