A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  What happened I missed it?

  If it could be proved that the material universe operates independently of observation that would probably be a disproof of biocentrism. Lanza's main argument seems to be that there is evidence that observation affects causation in the material world. He is suggesting a paradigm shift is in order because the irregularities in the traditional conception of the universe are mounting up. Anything showing that observation does not affect the material world would undermine his argument.

  If we ask Lanza how his idea is falsifiable it might be a fair question to ask how the traditional view of the world is falsifiable. If either consciousness arises from the material universe or the material universe arises from consciousness. Why assume it's the former and not the latter? Is there any rational or falsifiable basis for prioritising one explanation over the other? Just because it seems a bit Star Trek or Twilight Zone, doesn't mean it's not true. Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power.

  Yes I was a postman for a few months only. It was much easier then because deliveries were only 2 hours long and sometimes finished by half past 10 on a Tuesday which was the lightest day.
• 

  never a jw

  Lanza's main argument seems to be that there is evidence that observation affects causation in the material world. He is suggesting a paradigm shift is in order because the irregularities in the traditional conception of the universe are mounting up

  That's all fine and good, but we shouldn't look at the superstitious tales of the past for explanations and answers.
  
• 

  flamegrilled

  Hi Xanthippe. Paul said that if christ was not resurrected then faith is futile. Christ definitely was not resurrected, that's a cast iron, 100% certainty.

  nicolaou,

  What is your certainty based upon? Following the laws of science and logic, cast iron 100% certainty has to be supported by some irrefutable affirmative evidence, not simply a sense of doubt, no matter how well founded that doubt may appear to be.
  
• 

  Zaccheus

  I think it's interesting Paul said, "IF the resurrection of Christ is invalid, our faith is futile." It seems he is questioning it. With all of Paul's ranting and raving on the issue, why don't we hear more on the resurrection from James, John or Peter?

  It's because Paul was mentally disturbed. "I reply as a madman!" Basing the doctrine of the resurrection upon his words makes no sense.
• 

  Viviane

  Lanza's main argument seems to be that there is evidence that observation affects causation in the material world.

  There is zero evidence for that. If that is his argument, he is misunderstanding the observer effect.

  He is suggesting a paradigm shift is in order because the irregularities in the traditional conception of the universe are mounting up

  Such as?

  If we ask Lanza how his idea is falsifiable it might be a fair question to ask how the traditional view of the world is falsifiable.

  Pick an example I will explain it to you.
  
  

  Why assume it's the former and not the latter?

  Because every example of consciousness requires matter and every example of matter we have requires a universe. All of the evidence is on one side of the argument.
  

  Just because it seems a bit Star Trek or Twilight Zone, doesn't mean it's not true. Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power.

  Such is the justification for every ridiculous idea and crackpot theory ever put forth with all of the evidence against it. "Well, you can't prove it's not true". Not only is it a pointless argument to be dismissed without consideration, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about science.
  

  Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power

  If it has more explanatory power, then that means it must be a hypothesis that is falsifiable, testable and have evidence. So far none of the crackpot theories mentioned have any of that.
• 

  nicolaou

  SBF: If it could be proved that the material universe operates independently of observation that would probably be a disproof of biocentrism

  I think the universe did just fine for the 14 billion years before observers came along.

  flamegrilled: What is your certainty (that christ was not resurrected) based upon?

  That really is the nub of this topic. Throughout human history, the resurrection experiment has consistently failed. We're not talking about the revival of a child who fell into a freezing lake or the carefully controlled conditions of a hospital theatre where a heart is stopped to perform delicate surgery.

  There has never been a recovery from biological death. This is repeated every day and is never falsified. Christ was not resurrected.
• 

  Xanthippe

  Paul is saying if there's no resurrection then Jesus wasn't resurrected, his teachings weren't true, there's no ransom sacrifice and therefore no resurrection for us. He says in verse 32 if there's no resurrection let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

  This is the crux of the matter, no pun intended. If Christianity isn't true then why all the slaving away, following beliefs that do not give you eternal life.

  All that time and millions of dollars wasted appeasing a deity who isn't there to persuade him to give us eternal life. I've seen the inside of the Vatican! How about working so that everyone can eat, drink clean water and be happy? Then we can in good conscience enjoy our own lives, our own food and raise a glass with friends. We can stop worrying about death and let eternity take care of itself.
• 

  nicolaou

  Disappointed that believers on JWN are so unwilling to engage in these debates in recent years. Vanderhoven, where are you?

  A part of me remembers what it was like but I always felt the need to defend my faith when I had it. Perhaps, more than two decades into the Internet age the quiet faithful know better than to get drawn in.

  Our starting points are a Universe apart as the Apostle himself knew.

  For we walk by faith, not by sight. 2 Cor' 5:7

  I choose to look and see where I'm walking.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Maybe biocentrism was a blind alley. I only meant to mention it in passing as saying maybe the universe is very different from what we imagine. That may be the case biocentrism or not. Lanza is not as plausible as I first thought, although there do appear to be some prominent scientists who approve of his ideas.

  But about the resurrection of Jesus.

  I think the best argument against the resurrection is the fact there has never been anything else like it proven to have happened in the history of human experience.

  And maybe the best argument for the resurrection is the fact that Jesus' followers were energised to catapult Chritianity to be the leading world religion and shaper of world history following his resurrection. The history of the Jews and then Christendom may be the best evidence that there is some sort of meaning in the unfolding of events, depending on your perspective. And the resurrection is at the core of that story.

  But the best reason for reserving judgement, in my view, is that the question of the resurrection is inextricably bound up with the idea of there being a supreme being. If there is no God then there seems little point talking about a resurrection of Jesus 2000 years ago. But if there is a God there is no reason to suppose he could not have resurrected Jesus if he wished. From that point of view it doesn't matter that we haven't seen a resurrection since, because God can obviously do so if he wishes. Unusual or even unique events are possible if there is a God.

  So I don't see much evidence for positively claiming the resurrection did happen. But at the same time I don't see any reason for saying it could not have happened. Because there may be a supreme being and he could have resurrected Jesus if he wished and could have guided the course of Christian history if he wished. I guess that's why some people read the Bible and Christian theology and experience Christian ritual and decide it makes sense to them. On that basis they find the complete story plausible as a way of making sense of reality, and that includes the resurrection. We don't need to agree with it to acknowledge it's a reasonable interpretation of events.
• 

  miss.ives01

  Hello everyone. I am new to the forum and I find all the discussion boards incredibly edifying and cathartic.

  I was thrilled to find this forum but I must admit, it would be consequential if my fellow JW's found out.

  I do appreciate the ability to talk without censor- as long as Im not "mean" or "name-calling". I can appreciate the need to be civilized.

  On the subject mentioned, putting aside the complicated talk of biocentrism and the atheist doubts of the existence of God and everythng related to God. I find that most atheist views, fly out the window if they encounter a spirit being, force, ghost whatever they want to call it and cant explain it scientifically. Some will change others will not, no matter what, because they dont want to believe. Science is like religion, it is dogmatically argued, you have believers and nonbelievers always.

  I do appreciate research and the science behind it. I always go back to my college days of seeing idiotic teachers rejecting a proven scientific thing. You cant change ignorant people who want to remain ignorant.

  I just want to let you all know I do attend meetings periodically but I do have my own doubts and feelings about the Jws just like you. I go to placate to humans because I have family who would disown me if I didnt show up periodically. I learned a long time ago that you question nothing, but if you do keep it to yourself.

  Also a very painful lesson, friendships in the organization exist only if you are doing well spiritually.

  So I, like all of you, are fascinated by thougts of "worldly people" and love to explore them all.