What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat 583 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  konceptual99

  JM...

  Science as we know today was invented in a recent time by Christians.

  k99

  Erm... what about the Book of Optics by Alhazen, a muslim?

  JM
  

  Science is a method not books. A book about optics is not about the scientific method.

  Some books are validated by the scientific method and assimilated to scientific knowledge.

  One idea from a Catholic friar became directly a part of the very scientific method, for example.

  Of course science about the method and you claim the scientific method was invented by Christians. If you knew anything about this book you would see that it is acknowledged as one of the earliest examples of the scientific method being applied to a present empirical evidence on a subject. Alhazen (or to give him his Islamic name Ibn al-Haytham) was one of the first theoretical physicists and was just one of a number of scientists using experimentation to produce empirical evidence in the middle east during the middle ages.
  

  Their work fed into the renaissance scientists in Europe.

  You can dismiss the Greeks if you wish but it is completely disingenuous to ignore the influence of the work done by middle eastern, Muslim, scientists some considerable time before scientists in Western Europe further developed the scientific method.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Then the god of Jesus is a delusion and theism retreats into esoteric bullshit masquerading as sophisticated theology.

  How does that follow? The New Testament describes God as beyond human understanding.

  I suggested there may be a solution to the problem of evil that humans either don't know yet or are not able to understand. Is this really the best reply you've got? "Esoteric bullshit masquerading as sophisticated theology"? That's just rhetoric, not an argument.

  
  

  couldn't this have been a great thread with people discussing what they think reality is and then offering what gives life purpose for them personally

  Yes it could but SBF failed to deliver on his OP. He ended up waffling something vague about some Scottish poet. Then he spent a couple of pages criticising a book he has never read.

  What a strange comment. The poetry was precisely about finding meaning: "larks for no reason but themselves". And I have read some of the book, watched the talk, and read his other books, and given reasons for my objections. When are you going to read a book on pragmatism or postructuralism before dismissing them?

  
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Like I said above, given suffering in the world, and our inability to reconcile that with a loving God, it seems to me there are two possibilities with respect to an almighty, loving God.

  1. Suffering shows there is no amighty, loving God.

  2. God is both almighty and loving but the human mind is not equipped to understand how this is possible in a world with suffering.

  Can anyone tell me any logical reason why the first must be true and the second cannot be true? I am really interested to know if there is a good atheist reply to this, involving more than simply name calling and rhetoric.
• 

  John_Mann

  Here's some reasoning of mine about the cause of human mind:

  Premise A: No animal can conceive infinity.
  Premise B: Human mind can conceive infinity.
  
  Conclusion 1: The origin of human mind cannot be traced to any animal.
  
  Premise A: The human mind must have a cause.
  Premise B: Only infinity can contain infinity.
  Premise C: The cause of human mind must be infinity.
  Premise D: This cause must possess the intentional ability to manipulate infinity.
  
  Conclusion 2: Human mind was caused by an infinite mind.
  
  C1 + C2: Human mind have no natural cause. It's cause must be supernatural.
  
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Lots of problems of definition there John.

  When you say "no animal" can conceive infinity you are assuming that humans are not animals, and you are drawing a distinction that needs to be proved rather than simply asserted.
• 

  John_Mann

  K99

  Actually I don't have a lot of knowledge about the scientific method among Muslims. I know they made significant achievements in scientific knowledge. I'll research about it.

  For now I can rephrase what I said. Instead of "Christian" you can read "Abrahamic tradition".
• 

  John_Mann

  Lots of problems of definition there John.
  When you say "no animal" can conceive infinity you are assuming that humans are not animals, and you are drawing a distinction that needs to be proved rather than simply asserted.

  Yes, I see what you mean.

  But you know what I mean right?

  I accept suggestions about the phrasing.

  I accept humans are animals anatomically speaking. But I'd in mind the "software" in them.

  C1/Premise A: No other animal specie can conceive infinity.

  Better?
• 

  cofty

  Premise A: No animal can conceive infinity.
  Premise B: Human mind can conceive infinity.
  Conclusion 1: The origin of human mind cannot be traced to any animal.

  Premise A: No infant can understand Shakespeare
  Premise B: Adult humans can understand Shakespeare
  Conclusion 1: The origin of adult humans cannot be traced to any infant
• 

  cofty

  Premise A: The human mind must have a cause.
  Premise B: Only infinity can contain infinity.
  Premise C: The cause of human mind must be infinity.
  Premise D: This cause must possess the intentional ability to manipulate infinity.
  Conclusion 2: Human mind was caused by an infinite mind.

  This one is a logical train wreck. It's so bad I am not even going to try to correct it.
  
  
• 

  John_Mann

  Premise A: No infant can understand Shakespeare
  Premise B: Adult humans can understand Shakespeare
  Conclusion 1: The origin of adult humans cannot be traced to any infant.

  Shakespeare is not the sense of infinity. But Shakespeare can be learned. The sense of infinity just appear some point in our minds, it's not learned.