Sorry Kate - it's going slightly off topic so I will post a response to your question in a mo.
Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?
by KateWild 199 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Ruby456
Interesting questions katewild
I do not think God is A'morphic. Do you?
God is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know God better and to understand him better I study science. There has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than Einstein believed. This is reported in New Scientist.
If we understand space-time better, what could be the possibillities that time travel may be possible and all the consequences of natural disasters undone? Rev 21.4 could be possible?
I would like to think so. Would you?
Do you think if God existed, he is A'morphic?
Love Kate xx
I guess you could rephrase the question and raise the same issues but dispense with time? If we did this we could put anthropomorphism and time travel out of the way to take a more objective view of suffering. that way we could ask if there is something about suffering that makes it relevant to the journey
-
jonahstourguide
Konceptual99 Oh no, Hypothesis that has been falsified after experimentation is called
Bullshit in the part of the world i live in irrespective of whether it's in the rubbish bin
or not. Thats gotta be obvious!! I don't believe I stated that a scientific theory was or was not falsified.
Actually I don't understand where this concept of "Falsified" came from.
(Does trash canning something mean it's falsified in some parts of the world?)
Perhaps the Australian idiom I'm using is not working internationally. My point was that many theories
are formulated calculated and abandoned as they don't have or cannot be proven at that time.
Then others take their place. Mate I've had this new light argument with others,,, there is no new light.
It's called "we got it wrong and we're not telling you so"
-
cantleave
When a scientist proposes a hypotheis it is formulated using known and proven scientific principles. This mean that every facet of that hypothesis can tested against those principles, ie it can be falsified.
What part of your god hypothesis can be scientifically falsified kate?
-
DJS
Kate,
You seem to be well on your way to becoming an atheist. I've observed your posts; you are trying to hang onto your theism, but seeking reasons not to. I've been there. Good luck on your journey. I give you a year at most. Welcome a bit prematurely to the club.
-
besty
@DJS
You seem to be well on your way to becoming an atheist. I've observed your posts; you are trying to hang onto your theism, but seeking reasons not to. I've been there. Good luck on your journey.
It's a common theme - for those that have been around the block on JWN it has been played out many times. Just one example that springs to mind:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182113/1/Is-Atheism-a-Form-of-Blind-Faith#.UslwaWRdV90
followed a few years later by:
-
konceptual99
Sorry Kate but I find your OP slightly confusing.
In your OP you describe God as a "he", thereby anthropomorphising (sp?) God right away. Is this what you meant to do?
In broader terms however, can you describe your concept of God if you are not prepared to assign any human atrributes to "it"? Are you saying that as you reflect on the world around us as described by science you conclude that there must be a supernatural and intelligent force that instigated the creation of the universe and defined the parameters by with the natural laws operate.
Are you then also concluding that since there is much that science has not (and perhaps never shall) explain there is plenty of room for the existance of God since one cannot ever be 100% sure that "it" does not exist.
Assuming I am broadly correct, and ignoring the elephant in the room regarding where did God come from, then do you ascribe any purpose to what God has done in creating the universe? Where do human traits such as love, wisdom, justice and power come from? Is it anthropomorphising God to ascribe these qualities to "it". What is God's plan for humankind? Is there a heaven? What is the purpose of Jesus? What about God's Kingdom? Was the Bible in any way inspired by God? Is there anything to Armageddon and restoration prophecies?
Your suggestion that time travel may be possible and that this is potentially a way of undoing the harm done through natural disasters also implies that God, anthpromorphic or not, does have a plan (and therefore purpose) and will do something at some point in time to rectify things. I have to say that this seems a remarkably complex way of resolving a problem. If God can go to that much trouble why the heck would he not just stop the thing happening in the first place?
The other thing is that time travel is pretty much fantasy. It is theoretically possible to have forward moving time travel. For example, if you were to move at 95% the speed of light away from the earth for 5 years and then back again then the time on the earth would be something like 20 or 30 (can't remember the precise details) years ahead than the time according to your watch. This is down to the passage of time being relative to the observer. Of course the practical realities of this are so far off as to be unrealistic. Moving back in time is a completely different matter and whilst I don't believe it has been falsified there is no hypothosis that would make it possible. I am more than happy to stand corrected on this by anyone with more detailed knowledge than myself but I am pretty happy that sums the situation up reasonably well.
As to where I am on this (since you asked)... 18 months ago I was well and truely in. Since then I have reformed my view on many things. I have to say I am not 100% atheist so nominally agnostic however I cannot see any reason for believing in Jehovah as described by the WTS. I also cannot easily subscribe to the view that there is an intelligent force responsible for things. The ability to intervene to create yet the lack of purpose beyond that simply does not make sense. My heart is still clinging on to the notion that there could be something out there and everything is going to be rosy but my head says it simply does not make sense and has zero evidence to support that notion.
-
konceptual99
Hey JTG
I get your point but I am just saying that you are talking about hyposthesis and not theory.
How many reams of mathematical calculations are in the trash can ????
Every formulator of those had the same strongly held theory.
Like wise those who try to prove or hold on to these theories regarding god
continue to fill trash cans with theories ad nauseum.
As with any theories or mathematical calculations we wait for the final proof.
Dna computing was gonna be hot too but I haven't heard how that's going so far.
I understand the first part to be suggesting that there many scientists have developed calculations to try and prove something that you have described them as believing to be a "strongly held theory". My suggestion is that in fact what they have done is developed a hypothesis (perhaps strongly held) and during experimentation have found it to be false. Their proposition has never developed into a theory since experimentation has falsified it. It then goes in the trash can.
Some of these hypothsesis would be bullshit. Some may be proven wrong (falsified) but lead to other types of hypothesis that do develop into proven theory so it might be unfair to disregard them as complete bullshit.
I would argue that theories about God are actually hypothesis since the existance and nature of God cannot be proven by observable experimentation.
You then mention that we are waiting for final proof or any theory or calculation. I guess that's where the philisophical arguments about what is considered true, false or a proven fact come into play. I can't be bothered to get into that sand pit as it's about as intellectually worthwhile for me as arguing about some of the bullshit in the trash can.
You also say:
My point was that many theories are formulated calculated and abandoned as they don't have or cannot be proven at that time.
You are saying a scientific theory is or is not falsified - I just think you really mean hypothesis.
It might seem pedantry or an unnecessary argument about sematics to talk about hypothesis when someone refers to a theory but to me the correct understanding of the scientific process is key to being able to build an argument and support it.
I'm not trying to be an arsehole about it and do get your overall point. I am just saying that your argument would be even stronger if you were clear about if you really mean theory.
-
KateWild
Sorry, but it is just off-topic.- bohm
I stated the topic, can you answer the questions in the OP? Kate xx
-
KateWild
It is a bit funny you say we should not anthropomorphize God and in the same sentence you call God a "he".-bohm
I am just using a pronoun, replce all my his/he/he's and any others with God. Okay ? I will be mor careful with my literary skills when Italk about God if future and God's personality as a being.
Kate xx