by KateWild 199 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"This thread seems like what would happen if Ken Ham, Dorothy Murdock and Zercharia Sitchin got drunk in a bar, had sex and managed to have a 3-way baby." - Viviane
Are you saying - in other words - an Almighty (Ken Ham), Out-of-this-world (Zecharia Sitchen) Earth Mother (Dorothy Murdock) of all f*#&-up? Or what?
Val,
I don't really know, just philosophising now. Maybe it's like a chemical reaction in the lab, or a recepie in the kitchen, God provides the genes or ingredients and observes the reactions. If this were true, God is no better than Stalin or Hitler then, but if there is more to evolution than we know now, God could have more in mind than just observing reactions.
Good question, I will ponder some more................
Kate xx
More to evolution? More to evolution than change through natural selection and the associated mechanisms recognised by science? Evolution with a plan or a purpose? That would be edging towards design.
I am glad you are thinking this through Kate as I think the concept of God as an intelligent creator who simply kicked things off has less going for it than the idea of a God with a plan, a purpose and attributes reflected in a human creation. I would hope your thinking on the matter will help you rationalise things further to something that is far more logical and intellectualy honest.
Earnest said- My own understanding of a spirit being is that such is beyond the physical world, and so physical laws would not apply. Both matter and energy are physical.
First off, you have to tell me what the hell this 'spirit' thing is that you speak of. No scientist in the entire history of the World has isolated (let alone studied!) anything remotely resembling this 'spirit' concept of which you speak.
Then, perhaps you can explain how you obtained "your understanding" of these spirit beings, since that's like claiming to gain an understanding of fairies or leprechauns. YES, someone might become an expert on the mythical properties of fairies as told by humans over history, knowledge obtained by studying the written stories about them, but it's obviously impossible to claim to understand them via direct observation, since again, see my first point.
Earnest said- It is not special pleading to maintain that the spirit and the physical world are distinct. That is obvious.
Again, once you prove a "spirit World" exists, then we'd be able to proceed with a discussion.
Until then, it is obvious to me that you're simply jaw-flapping about some nonsense jibberish you've heard about from a friend of a cousin of a distant relative, etc.
Earnest said- It is special pleading to equate the spiritual with the physical as you do, referring to human consciousness and then immediately drifting into keeping God alive as an ethereal spirit being.
Well, you've managed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you really don't have a CLUE what the term "special pleading" actually means, since once again, you'd have to prove the existence of these spirits of which you speak before you can say I'm engaging in "special pleading" (when you're on your knees right now, begging and pleading for "spirits").
I simply pointed out how Einstein's own equation implies that the claimed traits of a disembodied intelligence existing apart from matter (which is generally what most claims pertaining to spirits involve) would suggest such a being would be quite impossible in OUR physical Universe.
I also said most believers would want to do exactly what you did: expand their concept to include an entire spiritual realm, which is just outside of our ability to perceive it. Yet most believers ALSO have no problem claiming that this being had a profound and dramatic effect in the past, causing miracles (eg the Flood?) which oddly enough, left NO PHYSICAL TRACES that remain in the geological record of our physical realm? Usually only dismissed with only MORE claims of supernatural forces to cover up the tracks....
All that constant goalpost-moving that's required to continue to believe must get rather tiresome at times, no?
Adam
Prologos said-
why can energy not exist as an independant 'entity"?
How much physics have you studied? High-school? College-level?
(I see you've had some, since you understand that 'time' is buried in 'c', the speed of light constant, measured in m/sec).
Adam
I do not believe however in a God that punishes and rewards, but I believe in a creator. Kate xx
I, like you, do not feel God is a punisher. I don't buy that all of this complex material world we dwell in has no design in it. I don't buy that self-aware life just happened along the way, in a series of coincidences. I see intelligence and design, as well as purpose. I don't pretend to know all of the answers. It's interesting to note that among men and women of science, you will find a significant percentage of believers. They aren't necessarily typical among believers, but neither are they atheists. I know Christians who believe in Evolution. I don't have a fully formed opinion on it. I view evolution as an evolving theory that does not negate the existence of god(s). I am not a Christian. I am a universalist. My dad was an oceanographer who was a staunch evolutionist, yet he was deeply spiritual true to his Native American roots.
adamah, this is not about credentials. may be the creator was an autodidact, and that explains some of the cul-de-sac in nature that we appear to see.
my point was that the first cause was time(movement)less, beyond the horizon,
I am with flyinghighnow and Kate,- I am a deist. concentrating not on Atoms, but WORKS. I am astounded at the workings of Nature.
I think it is a monument to the maker. but
like Einstein, who in 1915 wrote in a letter, commenting on the developing mass murders on the fronts:
"WHERE IS JEHOVAH??" implying the absence/non-existence of the loving interventionist god of my people?. or confirming his sceptisism about the existence a personal god.
I believe it is a great leap to think that this great edifice, the universe made itself. We have life, are sentient why not accept pain, upheavals that come with the territory?
Prologos said- adamah, this is not about credentials.
I didn't ask you about your credentials, but your EDUCATION; have you taken any formal courses in physics?
If NOT, you should; you'd likely enjoy learning about the basic principles of what IS known about the Universe, so then you wouldn't have to waste time reinventing the wheel by imagining what is known not to be so...
Prologos said- I am with flyinghighnow and Kate,- I am a deist. concentrating not on Atoms, but WORKS. I am astounded at the workings of Nature. I think it is a monument to the maker.
Then you really should formally study physics, which is exactly what Einstein meant when he proposed a Godless religion (he called it "cosmic religion") that arose from engaging in scientific study and education; this is what Einstein meant when he said he was 'religious'. For Einstein, the church was the science lab, and he made it perfectly clear that this sense of awe was encountered by studying the principles of the Universe itself, and the sense of wonderment that arose in him by studying nature via the sciences, and to a lesser degree, via the arts (Einstein was a violinist, although rather non-talented as a musician, from what I read....). Einstein never proposed an intelligent God who made all of this, and certainly not a God that should be prayed to: rather, he believed that religion and theology was a useful means devised to control other men as sheep.
Per Einstein's definition, I am a religion person, and I also believe in Einstein's God (although I'm an atheist for YOUR and Kate's definition of God).
Irony is, you likely are not religious, per Einstein's "cosmic religion" (that is, if you haven't formally studied science, and cannot relate to what he's referring to: the excitement of conducting investigations via clinical trials, and untangling the mysteries of matter via conducting basic research to answer questions).
Prologos said- but like Einstein, who in 1915 wrote in a letter, commenting on the developing mass murders on the fronts:
"WHERE IS JEHOVAH??" implying the absence/non-existence of the loving interventionist god of my people?. or confirming his sceptisism about the existence a personal god.
Read a biography on Einstein, and get back to me afterwards. Did you read the article you cite? His mentioning of Jehovah in the title didn't mean he actually believed in the Hebrew God.
In fact, Einstein wrote an autobiographical work/collection in the 1950's on various topics (including his "cosmic religion" which Kate persists in quoting out of context, as if it carries the common meaning that the word "religion" carries), so accept no substitutes: get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Prologos said- I believe it is a great leap to think that this great edifice, the universe made itself. We have life, are sentient why not accept pain, upheavals that come with the territory?
Oh, take some basic biology courses, while you're at it, too. Otherwise, you're simply going to be able to do nothing more but argue from your own personal ignorance of the evidence, when that grows real tiresome really quickly for those who've "done their homework" decades ago.
Adam
adamah, thank you for your suggestions.
""where is JEHAVAH?" a whole chapter heads this question in the book "Einstein in Berlin".
while at one time or another Einstein would not have denied his Jewish heritage, something to be proud of, and with it the ONE god as defined in the Torah, it seems he had reservations as many of my jewish acquaintances have, of how this really works out.
As to taking up a lengthy study of the SPECIALTIES you recommend. as you may guess, getting embroiled in the details will prevent you from getting the big picture.
Just because we know how it works (the Universe, the process ofEvolution) does not mean it is not the result of the work of a worker.
Just because we have cleverly discovered the means by wich things functions we have not become the origoinators. Naming natural laws after their formulators: such as (KEPLER'S 3 laws of planetary motion) gives due credit to the hard math that the man did. But the Law is more ancient, embodied in all the moving mass of the universe.
Exiting stuff comes always from "out- of- the- box thinkers", so why crawl into the box? it is aready so crowded. so:
while I can see the reasonong of awowed atheists form the standpoint of the religious, the varioes god's record,
It is the quality of the Universe, the quality of live that gives me pause.
I like to linger a while and work.
to add:
The tremendous ingenuity, expenditure, energy used at CERN to just have, with two counter-revolving protons colliding, a recreation of the near- big- bang conditions is enough of an indication to me, that the the REAL THING did not happen by happenstance either.
Give credit not only to the H-Boson replicators but the source of it all, hidden as it may be.
Dawkins tomes, with it's good graphics (including "REALITY") give credit to it's author.
but the worker that made this all possible and provided the "models" that held still for the artist in my thinking deserves a moment of recognition too.
It took more effort to make the original than the depiction, description.
Even if we created, -(and it is possible we will)- a second generation, artificial, life, that would only show it was done, worked at in the first place.
based on the observed existence phenomena, it all is the result of work,
work=energy acting through time and distance
