Glory of CREATOR is that

by exWTslave 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  prologos

  Abe, because they fear to being mis-understood. The word "God" is so linked with religion, worship, distinct religion particular worship, that it is not a fitting term for a Deistto use AND be understood.

  There is nothing in Nature to indicate that a possible creator wants or needs to be worshipped. Because the care needed to nourish new and old life, we might be tempted to ascribe paternal, maternal qualities to a creator, and be thankful for the care of our nautural parents.

  Even the flawed bible agrees that religion is a human invention, with either Cain or Abel holding the patents.

  Since the Creationist Creatist names are already taken, let us not use the G word. or C word to avoid confusion, spell it out instead.
• 

  cofty

  I find it really entertaining when these scientists refer to the ultimate mind as a "singularity" - Abe

  No they don't. That is utter bollox. Why do you just make stuff up?
• 

  poopsiecakes

  Go get 'em, Cofty.

  
• 

  Master_Bob

  exWTslave I asked those questions to help you understnad the flaws in your system. The mere act of creation by a God (even if sb accepts it as valid) does not make that God good or evil. If you stress your view on the joyful side of the life, then you may conclude that it (God) is good. But when you stress your view on the suffering of the billion of peolpe and animals you may very well call it is bad. So creation is not a moral feature.

  But that is just a philosophical exercise and has nothing to do with the real world which does not require a creator and to which remaining-away entities are indifferent.

  Also there were more interesting poionts in my post which remain unaddressed...
• 

  ablebodiedman

  No they don't. That is utter bollox. Why do you just make stuff up?

  Singularity is the word that scientists use to describe what existed before the "big bang".

  Scientists have been cornered into this position by the real scientific evidence!

  It is too difficult for scientists to say that "nothing" existed before the universe was created because they would be bombarded with questions about what nothing is.

  For example, how could space, time and ALL the laws of physics suddenly appear with such suberb and immaculate precision, .. out of nothing.

  So they invented a word called the "singularity" which dupes people into thinking they know what they are talking about.

  They have reached a time where the evidence all points to a creator and yet have to find some way of denying it.

  Their jobs depend on it because they have families to feed too.

  Afraid they would lose their tenure because to admit that there must be a God in a world full of Coftys would kill their career.

  They cannot say the "G" word!

  It is entertaining!

  abe
• 

  prologos

  Abe, with due respect, was not the idea of a singularity the un-imaginable condition that exists in a single point with no dimension, or Planck-size, with infinite energy, gravity?

  the Cosmos is thought to bigger than that. please read Sir Roger Penrose, and others on that.
• 

  ablebodiedman

  Prologos,

  The "big bang" theory and the actual real evidence leads scientists to the conclusion that something occured out of nothing!

  Not a good position to be in for a secularist because it denies the cause and effect theories and leads to the existence of a creator God!

  How can there be an effect with no cause?

  The only way they can get out of this is to say that something existed inside that nothing.

  With absolutely no evidence for their statements.

  Pretty crazy!

  Check this link which includes the imagined theory of Sir Roger Penrose:

  http://creation.com/before-the-big-bang

  It is entertaining!

  abe
• 

  prologos

  Abe, I just thought you pushed the 'singularity' idea too far. Everything that ever existed was not squeezed to that size.

  When reading some of the material like "something out of nothing" it always ends up that nothing is really not empty, but seething with vrtual fluctuations (therefore in time^2) i mean too, so,

  I just think it is best to stick with the existent reality we have.
• 

  Kalos

  ablebodiedman, THANK you for that ROARING, RESOUNDING sentence!

  "They have reached a time where the evidence all points to a creator and yet have to find some way of denying it."
• 

  rebel8

  There have been a lot of assertions without evidence presented.

  For example, please provide evidence that "scientists think everything came from nothing". That is the opposite of everything I've ever heard and read. (Atoms and molecules are not "nothing".)

  And then we have the assertion that there is a god and he/it prefers to not communicate with us. Evidence?

  Thanks.