by EndofMysteries 147 Replies latest watchtower scandals
CA, you DO understand the difference between animate and inanimate objects? Between living and non-living matter?
Do you? How does something BECOME living that was not living? If you have this OVERWHELMING evidence, then tell me how life begins from NON LIFE.
This is hijacking the thread, and I apologize to EOM. But same something CAME TO LIFE from something that was non living seems the very difinition of irrational to me.
Have you taken ANY chemistry, or are you willing to dismiss a subject based on your uneducated opinion since it seems non-sensical to you?
Yes I have. And I may be more educated than you give me credit for. According to you on nearly EVERY thread you post on, you have this egocentric view of yourself that you are more intelligent than everyone else. And if they don't see things your way you call them names. No love. No respect. Just bitter name calling and ridicule.
It sure does Christ Alone. We are all made up of dust. Food, meat, vegatables were all at some point dirt. sperm, eggs, were at some point dirt. So how does dirt turn into a thinking, intelligent form of life? Great question!!
dirt-vegatation-human or meat then human - egg/sperm - new human
But same something CAME TO LIFE from something that was non living seems the very difinition of irrational to me.
I know, like dust turning into a person. Wacky talk!
"Ghosts", "Angels", and "Devils" are all real
Well, even if we don't understand the science behind them, we SHOULD be able to use science to conclusively prove they exist. Can you do that?
can you prove wind exists? we see the effects but we don't see it. How does something invisble able to destroy?
can you prove wind exists? we see the effects but we don't see it. How does something invisble able to destroy?
Yes.
Well, we've got you on record admitting that you believe in boogey-men. Do you believe in Santa, too?
I believe in the spirit of Christmas, don't you? I don't believe in any boogey-man, I believe that science will eventually perfectly answer what we now call "Ghosts", "Angels" and "Devils" and we will all wonder why we were so scared of them in the first place.
Listen to you: you KNOW that the "wait on Jah" line was a bunch of BS, a favorite one that JWs use to explain why God hasn't acted and won't be acting, yet you're willing to use the same approach for YOUR currently-favored invisible supernatural being(s)? WOW!
No, I am suggesting that approach for you since you are jumping to wrong conclusions about spiritual things. Instead of grappling with nothing and creating desperate conclusions, it would be better if you just waited and said nothing. I on the other and am not waiting on science, as you can see. I have my own methods that work better than nothing as I wait for science to catch up to spirituality.
When you approach the World from a rational viewpoint, you start with an empty slate, where EVERYTHING needs to be proven as having a valid reason for believing in it, VERSUS what you do: accepting EVERYTHING and then only rejecting if disproven (or maybe not even then?).
You shouldn't approach the world from a 100% rational viewpoint. It's a mistake and creates wrong conclusions about existence, like you are giving right now.
That's why some accept that Russell was a Mason based on extremely flimsy circumstantial evidence that is easily dismissed (as in the OP's allegation, where the Masonic Hall was built long AFTER the pyramid was). They WANT to believe, and won't let the facts get in their way, since they are seduced by their own conspiracy hypotheses.
The rational evidence could be best described as flimsy and circumstantial, but that just shows us how good of liars they were and still are. Lying is an art to them and they have thoroughly fooled you and many others into non action, this is by design. It's the spiritual evidence that is compelling, but only to spiritualists. You should sit on the sidelines for this one. Here's a pom pom.
-Sab
Well, even if we don't understand the science behind them, we SHOULD be able to use science to conclusively prove they exist. Can you do that?
You can't use science to understand something that wont let you apply science to it. What if when attempting to test "it" what is given back only appears to be a negative result? What then? If such intelligence exists then science would not be able to penetrate it until that intelligence allowed for it.
-Sab
The rational evidence could be best described as flimsy and circumstantial, but that just shows us how good of liars they were and still are.
This is the exact same as the current argument from the NRA about scary black Muslim man Obama. He hasn't said much of anything about regulating guns or taking guns away from Americans, so that's obviously proof that he MUST have a secret plan because he is a lying Democrat.
