Proof that Satan is in control of the WT and THAT is why the new change will come..... (page 8)

EntirelyPossible

Within the secular explanation of everything, mathmatically morality would not originate on Earth, but somewhere else in the universe.

What math are you using to arrive at this conclusion? Just like in high school algebra, show your work or you don't get credit for the answer.

Based upon your reasoning I could simply assert that alien overlords exist and are monitoring every microbe in the gallaxy with a vastly greater intelligence and therefore greater morality.

In reality, that IS your agument. God, presuming he exists in the way you say, isn't from earth, that makes him an alien. You do think that he, with his raping, killing, abortion, forskin hoarding,, slaving, women-as-property and genocidal ways, IS superior. You have said you supported slavery and it was a good thing.

Do you not recognize your own argument when you make it?

I believe it's much more eloquent of an explanation to say that the Big Bang was caused by intelligence we don't understand and that morality was meant to be. I think it's more reasonable to say that we are being grown by a directed process instead of a random process (from Nothing).

What you beleive is irrelevant to the evidence around us that your belief is 100% out of line with observation.And, for 100000th time, it's not random. repeating that fallacy over and over doesn't make it right, it just shows you are willfully dishonest or just unable to comprehend the concept.

P.S. I did note that you are now using the word Nothing (and not nothing). It always warms my heart when you learn something from me.

Leolaia

I don't draw any theological implications as you do, or view we are the center of the universe, or anything like that. I don't agree either about what implications you say are to be drawn from such a view of morality. Nor does such a view of morality have to rule out the existence of other systems of morality that other intelligences may conceivably develop, whether "divine" or not.

To answer your other question, my personal views fit more with agnosticism or weak atheism. I find it more honest for me to admit ignorance and maintain disbelief in things I do not know, and beliefs about what I think I know (which is only a working mental construction, from a critical realist pov). Hence my allowance of unknown unknowns as potentialities (as opposed to believing in unknown unknowns).

Gotta run, got a plane to catch.....

Christ Alone

why is it so hard to assume that Egypt did not adopt religious concepts or ideas from another people, nation, civilization etc?

Another JW example of "Who cares about the details...isn't it possible that it COULD be true". They say this and then put it out of their mind so they can keep believing what they want to believe.

This comment almost doesn't merit any response. We were talking about the claim that Hislop made that Egypt developed its religion based off of the beliefs held by people in Mesopotamia. When shown to be false Elephant tries to defend Rutherford because Rutherford is associated with his religion. No admission that Rutherford and Hislop were absolutely 100% wrong. No, he just comes back with "why is it hard to assume". Because, Elephant, we are not assuming anything. We are examining what was written and showing that it was 100% false.

I guess this is what frustrates me. Every JW will SAY "We have been wrong in the past. We've NEVER claimed to be infallible." But when you get them backed into a corner with a cold and hard fact, they will defend the position of the Watchtower to the death. I've never heard a JW say, "Yeah...wow...the Watchtower was really off base there weren't they? I wonder WHY they said that..." I guess the reason is that they don't WANT to know why the Watchtower said it. If they discover that the Watchtower lied (knowingly or unknowingly) then that causes some cognitive dissonance, and that must be avoided at all costs!

Elephant, do yourself a favor and instead of defending the Watchtower (and the obvious quackery of Rutherford), try and do your own research OUTSIDE of the Watchtower so you can join in on an intelligent conversation with the big kids.

Christ Alone

To make things simple, I'll say that I don't believe in the ontological existence in any divinity from any mythology. And that is not to say that I am against the idea of mythology....I love mythology. But I don't accept the claims of any mythology as reflecting an outside reality beyond the culture and ideas that shape it, unless there is good empirical evidence to think otherwise.

Awesome statement, Leo! I've frequently wondered what your beliefs are, and this was great. It explains alot about you and your posts. Nothing but respect for you!!!

Christ Alone

To answer your other question, my personal views fit more with agnosticism or weak atheism. I find it more honest for me to admit ignorance and maintain disbelief in things I do not know, and beliefs about what I think I know (which is only a working mental construction, from a critical realist pov). Hence my allowance of unknown unknowns as potentialities (as opposed to believing in unknown unknowns).

Again, a VERY respectable statement and view, in my opinion! While I know you differ in belief, it reminds me of what Ray Franz said about deciding to keep silent where the scriptures do, or where he doesn't understand the meaning. I think the term he used was "a reverent agnosticism." I know that's a bit different from you, but I respect someone SO much more when they can say "I don't know" than claiming to know something that isn't definite.

sabastious

EP, I have decided I am going to stop engaging with you indefinitely on this subject. You are super smart and bring up great points initially (even now) that impel me to respond, but I am not content with how they typically turn out, so our conversations about this subject are officially halted.

-Sab

sabastious

I don't draw any theological implications as you do, or view we are the center of the universe, or anything like that.

With all due respect, I disagree. Humans developing morality means that morality exists. When something exists in one place there is a chance that it will exist in another. Since we have an estimated 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe it's reasonable to assume that if something exists on Earth it almost certainly did not originate there simply because there is such a vast amount of material to work with in the known universe (not to mention the multiverse). I think it's unreasonable to even be agnostic on this matter because we know how statistics work (being agnostic about where morality originated ignores math, imo, the answer is NOT earth). States, religions, casinos and insurance companies are proof of that we can take mathmatics and apply them to complex human social, governmental and economic structures. There's no reason to assert that we don't have enough data to make the assertion that Morality is watching us, in some form or another. This means that when we are alone, Morality is still present and it presents itself as a powerful cause and effect in the universe. Imo, God explains this concept best rather than Science.

-Sab

EntirelyPossible

You are super smart and bring up great points initially (even now) that impel me to respond, but I am not content with how they typically turn out, so our conversations about this subject are officially halted.

EntirelyPossible

When something exists in one place there is a chance that it will exist in another. Since we have an estimated 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe it's reasonable to assume that if something exists on Earth it almost certainly did not originate there simply because there is such a vast amount of material to work with in the known universe (not to mention the multiverse).

Well that's just not showing your work. You need to factor in how many starts can support life. Brown dwarfs, neutron stars, magnetars, etc., are right out.

How many of those remaining stars have planets.

How many of those have a main sequence long enough to allow life and a civilization to develop, etc., etc.

An assumption based on a raw number doesn't work. Show your math. I know you can if you try (or google it).

sabastious

EP you have a pm.

-Sab

Proof that Satan is in control of the WT and THAT is why the new change will come.....

Share this