by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
But I don't want to be given the label of nihilist
But you really is a nihilist punk. LOL
What's the problem with a true definition?
I just don't agree with you in the grumpy label. ;)
You being a nihilist I can't give any meaningful statement to you but I can say to you someday you'll be very surprised with the fact that oblivion doesn't exist at all.
MAN punkofnice!
I feel just like you:(
Good gravy, this is tedious reading.
I would agree in the sense of being surprised that a post with such an obviously anachronism spawned so many pages of discussion.
It's only been in the modern period that the word, "atheist" became a term people applied to themselves as a statement of their worldview. And when they did so, they were operating within the confines of whatever language they happen to be speaking, not some ancient language of which they might only be dimly aware.
Even were that not the case, the word in Ancient Greek was not an implicit claim of absolute knowledge; it was a pejorative used to describe both those who rejected the gods of their society and those perceived to be forsaken by those gods because of a lack of commitment.
Actually infinite regress is indeed logically impossible. Proved by several thought experiments.
No, it has not been proven, and if it ever does, it will not be via thought experiments.
But if it's indeed impossible, then let's say :
Y = X + 1
So for each number represented by Y, then X must have existed before. Now have fun regressing that until it ends. Now, yes it's not matter, but it's logically possible.
The infinite regress can only be treated with logic.
And thought experiments are in realm of logic. You can't apply the scientific method in this case. No matter what Scientism says about this.
The most popular thought experiment about the infinite regress is the shooting soldiers.
We start with the axiom of the existence of something.
Something exists. Why there's something instead of nothing? Because there's a cause or infinite regress?
There's something. Let's say this something is a gunshot.
Imagine a row (tending to infinity) of soldiers. Every soldier ask to his superior behind (representing the hierarchical chain of cause and effect) an order to shoot.
Let's suppose that a soldier wants to shoot a bullet, but in order to so he must receive an order from his superior, and his superior must himself receive the order from his superior .... if this chain goes to infinity, the first soldier will never shoot a bullet.
If infinite regress is real the order to shoot would never be made. But there's a gunshot (something) so must be a first cause who gave the order to shoot.
If infinite regress is true then the inevitable question arises "why there's something rather than nothing?"
If the greatest equalizer is oblivion or nothingness.
What and why disturbed this nothing?
Why there's something rather than nothing?
Why there's something rather than nothing?
Because if there wasn't anything, we wouldn't be thinking about something.
Because if there wasn't anything, we wouldn't be thinking about something.
This is the answer for "there's something?".
But if everything inevitably returns to nothing then something is not the default but a disturbance.
What caused this disturbance? And why? Must be something beyond nothing.
To Redvip 2000
As other have said, you don't get to define what atheism means for everybody. My type of belief is not regulated by what is written on a dictionary. But even your interpretation is wrong. Stop making leaps base on your custom interpretation. It's making you look like a tool.
When it comes to the deity question there are only three positions one can take. 1 Theist, 2 Atheist, 3 Agnostic. Position 1 and 2 either affirms or denies the existence of deity and has to provide support. Position three is the only one that gets to sit on the fence. Amazing how many want to be identified as atheist but then want to change the definition. What it comes down to is that many want to deny the existence of deity based on irrationality, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas. Following Atheism to a logical conclusion there is no meaning or purpose in life, no objective morality. Basically want to sit on the fence with the Agnostic and reap the benefits of both sides of the debate. I say man up. If Atheist embrace everything that is Atheist. Cut the umbilical cord from Theism, and go happily into oblivion with fear and despair to which only a Nietzsche or a Jean Paul Sartre can do full justice.
We don't know. What a simple amazing concept that is....not knowing. Much better than pretending you know by crow-barring a made up sky daddy into the equation.
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted… But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature… The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.
The Beginning of Time. A Lecture by Stephen Hawking
According to the leading expert the point of singularity would have to have been supernatural.
And even if there was a god, and since he supposedly exists, what caused him to exist then? Or are you arbitrarily saying the same rule doesn't apply to him? Cause if you do, then i'll arbitrarily do the same for the universe.
Who make the watchmaker?
•Necessary or Contingent =
Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It belongs to their very nature to exist.
Things that exist contingently can fail to exist and so need an external cause to explain why they do in fact exist.
• there are two kind of things;
[a] things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It is impossible for them not to exist. Many mathematicians think that number sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. The are not caused to exist by something else.
[b] Things that are produced by some external cause. Things that re caused to exist by something else do not exist necessarily. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.
o everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, the explanation may be found either in the necessity of a thing’s nature or else in some external cause.
• The explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of His own nature, it is impossible for God to have a cause.
{William Craig}
ToBerengaria
Etymology
The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was impartial in its initially intended use.
Even if a grant you that ‘a’ means ‘without’ we have not come to the conclusion that Atheism means ‘without belief in God’. What is negated in the word is ‘God’ not ‘belief’. In the etymology of the word there is no concept of belief. We can go as to meaning ‘a universe without God’ which is another way of saying ‘God does not exist’ , affirming the non existence of God.
