by braincleaned 88 Replies latest watchtower bible
so in this game and it's playing field, it's goalposts and their locations, are we not talking
about our perception, our model of things?
In the meantime, reality, the universe is humming along just nicely, thank you very much.
There is more going on then
the play, the players, the field with its mobile goal posts.
even the posts on this site.
are we not glad that it is so?
perhaps the se-up is to keep moving rather then reaching or scoring a final goal.
is it better to travel then to arrive?
If the idea is to blame the other team for moving the goalposts, do not the Atheists seem to beat the Theists by a wide margin?
Believers in a creator: he/she/it is eternal, living in eternal time. and made in better and better understood ways the universe, life. a given, fixed position.
Atheists: the universe, time, life made ( for want of a better word)* themselfs out of the broiling virtual energy of the pre- big bang vaccuum, wich was preceded by a big crunch and is just one among the many other multi verses.
each creating* time, energy, dimensions, matter as they appeared. Goal post positions as far you can see, or rather imagine, back in time
The game is played with our minds,
we either acknowledge our limits or
see how far fantasies can be pushed beyond what science has really shown us.
"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"
Sure it is. But why ignore the fairies at the bottom just because the garden is beautiful?
the 'goal posts' move every time science comes up with a new answer and religion has to shift in their concept of "god" to accomidate what eventually becomes "common knowlege".
As prologos just said, that is science moving the goal posts.
Not everyone depends upon science to give the TRUTH. Answers, discoveries, current knowledge of the process of life around us, sure... but as I stated earlier, science gives us the process. Which can help us understand some things about God along the way, that we probably won't get from reading the bible.
For example,
"God created the world by/from His great power."
That is a huge statement... and science can expand upon the details as it catches up to what that power is, how it works, etc. When science discovers it all, the statement that God created the world by his great power, or that life came from God, will be no less true... it will just be 'fleshed out'.
Though I agree with you that religion has fought against science and scientific discoveries, but to no benefit for them or for science.
Because it is only our own limitations and lack of understanding of science and/or of God that creates the conflict.
Peace,
tammy
In order for there to be life in the Universe as we know it, there have be simple beginnings, very simple beginnings. Things that have been expounded on in both biology and physics shows that evolution has very simple beginnings
This is a guess. Taking from one observation of one thing (evolution) and applying that to another thing (God)... when one is a process and the other is a being. These two things do not have to co-relate. So if the rest of your theory hinges upon this, then it is this that must first be explained.
Ok folks what about this. There is no beginning or end for
the universe, so no need for God.
Except the big bang shows that there is a beginning.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
I have done some research and couldn't fine any evidence to support those claims. Only personals experiences, but those experiences don't count.
I think science has and is in the process of laying the groundwork for it. We are learning more and more about energy, and what energy does.
As for personal experiences, they don't count for you. But from your example about the aliens... if you HAD been abducted by aliens, would it matter to you that no one else believed you? Would no one else believing your testimony make it any less true?
Peace,
tammy
Prologos said-
If the idea is to blame the other team for moving the goalposts, do not the Atheists seem to beat the Theists by a wide margin?
Do you and others even understand what the expression, "moving the goalposts" actually refers to?
From:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
MOVING THE GOALPOSTS
| “”If at first you don't succeed, redefine success. |
| —Unknown |
Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve [1] into something that cannot be met no matter what. Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly.
It doesn't apply to "atheists" or "theists" generally, but to changing the definitions and standards during a DEBATE.
TEC said-
Sure it is. But why ignore the fairies at the bottom just because the garden is beautiful?
Uh, because there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to imagine fairies at the bottom of the pool?
TEC, do you sleep with a gun with silver bullets loaded into it, sitting next to your bed, just in case of vampire attacks? If not, WHY NOT?
Adam
You've moved the goalposts so much that the original goal is far over the horizon.
Once again... the statement that everything has a beginning, is not mine... so not my goalpost.
T
he claim that 'God' (and the redundantly capitalised 'Himself') 'always existed' relies on
belief
in stories written by primitive tribesmen, which have been subsequently retconned by modern believers. Belief in the god of the Bible - a complex vindictive magical alien who requires worship - isn't even a reasonable
alternative
to the universe arising from
nothing
.
Who says it is an alternative?
It is based upon God.
In this case it IS science that moves the goalposts. The universe always was... to... the universe had a beginning. (which IS what is stated even in the bible... science just 'caught up' ; ) )
Positing the God of the Bible as the only possible alternative to the universe arising from 'nothing' is also a pathetic false dichotomy that ignores other scenarios, such as that the universe always* existed (for example, multiple big bang - big crunch scenarios), or that our universe is one in a larger multiverse, or even that there was a 'creator' (sentient or not) that may or may not still exist and that doesn't care about selfish human desires for 'worship'.
Again, it is not an alternative... and it does not ignore the other possibilities that have arisen.
*The more widely accepted theories about the beginning of the universe indicate that time didn't exist independently from the start of the universe, so there actually was no 'before'.
Well that explains some people's problems with the need for a 'before' God, too then, doesn't it.
Peace,
tammy
Snare, I don't think there is a problem with any of the science you brought up. I brought up Krauss myself, and I am certainly NOT a big bang denier. That seems to be counter-productive anyway, lol.
It is just that there is no conflict and so no need to fear knowledge (for the theist)... except that man creates the need to fear knowledge, thinking that God is confined to a book that has to be interpreted as they have stated... leading to things like Galileo, and others who probably WERE executed for heresy. Now, science isn't fool-proof either. It can and does change as more things are discovered, new evidence, new tools. Doesn't always do a complete turn-about, but sometimes. (like positing the eternal universe, and then discovering that the universe DID have a beginning, after all) If we were compared to people a thousand years in the future, we might well seem as backward and unenlightened as those a thousand years behind us. Not regarding the physical universe... but regarding the SPIRITUAL. I don't mean spiritual as in your head, but the actual 'realm', with actual beings, etc... not yet 'scientifically' discovered, but always here.
Also "Just because it is very hard to understand, does not make it untrue."
Yes... but, Just because it is simple to understand, it does not make it untrue either.
There's nothing of value in that assertion.
Has to do with something specific discussed earlier in the thread, Jeffro.
Peace,
tammy
Uh, because there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to imagine fairies at the bottom of the pool?
You missed the point.
In the counter-analogy there ARE fairies at the bottom of the garden. No need to ignore them just because the garden is beautiful on its own merit.
TEC, do you sleep with a gun with silver bullets loaded into it, sitting next to your bed, just in case of vampire attacks? If not, WHY NOT?
Of course not. Silver bullets are for werewolves.
Peace,
tammy
Uh, because there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to imagine fairies at the bottom of the pool?
TEC SAID-
You missed the point. In the counter-analogy there ARE fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Illogic much?
Your statement:
No need to ignore them just because the garden is beautiful on its own merit.
is not a "counter-analogy", since Adam's statement:
"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"
is NOT an analogy: it's an appeal, where the conclusion (AKA the argument) is implied in the question. However, there's certainly no analogy in there, and hence no analogy to counter.
Please spend some time learning something about 'figures of speech' before abusing the rest of us with your ignorance of them; your continued insistence on defining the World as you see fit SHOULD be some cause for embarrassment?
TEC, do you sleep with a gun with silver bullets loaded into it, sitting next to your bed, just in case of vampire attacks? If not, WHY NOT?
Of course not. Silver bullets are for werewolves.
And why are you not concerned about the threat of vampires and/or werewolves?
Adam
You just like to argue, don't you, lol.
I'm not explaining more on the fairies. You get what i was saying or you don't.
And though I have no evidence or reason to believe in werewolves or vampires (or that silver would kill either of them)... I DO have evidence of the 'fairies'.
Peace,
tammy
