My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  I do not refute the claim about DNA common ancestors so why discuss that? My entire point is that could be the case with chance or design. This is my point, why is there any dispute about this?

  So you're telling me that ...

  1 - you accept the scientific proof that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years through evolution by natural selection.

  2 - you think it is possible/likely that an intelligent being of some sort was responsible for the ultimate origin of the universe and perhaps the origin of life.

  Have I got that right?
• 

  joey jojo

  The 'god of the gaps' theory is one interesting idea that I became aware of later in life. For anyone that hasnt heard of it, it basically states that belief in god begins where our own personal understanding ends. Put another way, the existence of god is needed to explain things that science hasnt currently explained to someones personal level of satisfaction.

  To me its interesting because one person might be overwhelmingly convinced by scientific evidence and another may totally reject the exact same evidence. This can be a result of their own education, family beliefs, personal or religious beliefs.

  The idea that we reject something we personally dont understand is extremely vain when you think about it and all of us have probably been guilty of it. The fact that an idea has not been proven is not proof that the idea is false.

  Church attendance is apparently in decline. Is that a sign that freely available information on the internet has filed in a lot of gaps for formerly religious people?
• 

  Beth Sarim

  I think that the internet age is the kryptonite of these bronze age religious groups like the Borg.

  Exposing them left and right. We've entered the information age.
• 

  LV101

  
  
• 

  ExBethelitenowPIMA

  Cofty you are trying to put me in a box and I will not be put into one. As this thread says my conclusion of the matter is it may be true or it may not be, there is probably more to the story than we could ever understand.

  As I have said many times if you can’t prove if the origin of everything was by chance or design then you are by definition agnostic.

  This means that all JWs, Muslim, Jews, Buddhists, every other belief system including atheists are all agnostic even though they don’t know it.

  Im just at the end the conclusion of the matter.

  Some have absolute faith and confidence in their beliefs either chance or design they have absolute conviction and their reasoning makes sense to them. But they are still agnostic by true definition because they can’t provide irrefutable proof of which one was the origin- chance or design.

  I have not lost hope that there was intelligent design involved and maybe the intelligent design had something to do with the Bible. It maybe true or it may not be, I won’t be put into a box.
• 

  PetrW

  @ExBethelitenowPIMA

  This means that all JWs, Muslim, Jews, Buddhists, every other belief system including atheists are all agnostic even though they don’t know it.

  *

  At this point, they are putting you in the box for you!? Most would disagree with you and some more respect Quran 8:55 "The worst of creatures in God's view are those who disbelieve. They have no faith." Of course, Allah is gracious and merciful, so don't worry too much about it... :-)

  No, more seriously, I just want to speak for myself: There have been times in the past when I have vehemently defended my beliefs. The world saw black or white. 1 or 0. Binary. With the passage of time, it has come to pass that I am also able to former "enemies", to admit sincerity, truthfulness or in general, the pursuit of truth. If I were to put, with permission, you, as a symbol of agnostics, and Mr. Cofty, as a symbol of modern, scientific evolution (with all the knowledge, but also the natural degree of doubt inherent in science), and my view (the God of the Bible exists), in the same line, then in effect, I only PRIORITIZE my view, without the other two, having to see you capitulate... I ascribe all possible truth and sincerity to your opinion, or Mr. Cofty's opinion. The difference between your opinion, or Mr. Cofty's opinion, and mine, is minimal. A hair.

  The reason is that I think that both you or others, and I as well, use trust as a cognitive means by which we learn about the world around us. Also the past or the future. From a psychological point of view, it makes no difference if someone trusts a text in the Quran, the Bible or Nature. Belief is "trust" with some content. Trust has no positive or negative value in itself. Do criminals trust each other when planning a crime, do politicians trust each other (ugh, why the same thing, am I typing twice in a row?:-) ), but do nuns from a convent trust each other.Trust is not just interpersonal, but we trust things, events or have trust in animals. We trust our own abilities ("hold my beer!").What do I do more than Mr. Cofty or you? I, by that small margin, a hair's breadth, choose to also trust the option that God exists. Everything you believe, I am able to accept as well, but if I have tried to believe something extra, then from that perspective, I revise some things, for myself, from evolution or agnosticism. I don't have to agree 100% with their views. But I don't have to vehemently deny them either. I don't have to create enemies out of the people around me, just because of some verbal phrase or chemical formula of some acid.
  If you honestly and consistently question what you trust, you will discover how fragile and unstable the world around us is. However, trust does reduce the complexity of the social world, but it is also highly risky. But even without trust completely, it can't. We are all trapped in trust.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Ex-B You used a confusing phrase saying you accept - 'DNA common ancestry ' .

  I was simply asking you to clarify. If stating your current understanding clearly, amounts to putting you in a box then conversation becomes impossible.
• 

  cofty

  Peter - The earth is not flat.

  Viruses cause disease.

  Tectonic plates move.

  The sun is at the centre of the solar system.

  Are these subjective beliefs?
• 

  PetrW

  @Cofty

  The debate about whether the Earth is flat or round is more about the (successful) results of science. Everything you described was so different in 1210, in the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system of science, almost everything was different than today. The Arab-Jewish world, or China at that time, might have been better off...?

  But about trust: we can imagine trust as "black" or "white": trust in God, in a winning football team or in a winning ticket. But trust is often made up of individual smaller "trusts" that - because they have been repeatedly confirmed, so based on repeated experience, we rightly assume the same will occur in the future, even though we could not control it with our senses (sight, hearing, etc.).

  I didn't fly around the earth. But movies or photographs prove the roundness of the Earth. But what if it's fake? Aren't other, more important things being faked? In deciding whether the Earth is flat, I trust science more because it has more arguments - although(!!!), I myself, have no way to verify the roundness of the Earth except by visual inspection of a photo or film. I do go to the seaside, but there is a cove with little view and I am short-sighted😊

  We all, this applies to almost all of us: I get in the car and I know the brakes will work. I don't check the fluid, the brake pads or the brake disc. I assume - I have confidence - that the manufacturers have done all the proper procedures in manufacturing or inspection. They used the right materials and the right temperatures. The manufacturer has then assumed - based on past experience - that the raw materials used to make the brakes will also be of the specifications stated by the supplier. Of course, they checked with some tools/instruments/equipment that someone certified that the values that will be there correspond to those that are generally agreed upon...etc. etc. Very little, or none of it, I can check myself (they should be documented), but since I know the whole process was done in a controlled manner, then I trust it. This description applies to anything: a peer-reviewed article in Nature on amino acids, I take it, I can trust it 99.999% because the journal's editors adhere to high standards of scientific work, that the article has gone through a rigorous, anonymous peer-review process. That the process described there is replicable anywhere in the world... I trust it without putting on a white coat and opening a canister of amino acid...😊
  However, because trust is very risky, then people try to discover practices that allow them the "luxury" of not having to trust. Banks and credit are typical examples. The word credit is derived from "trust", but the bank will do anything to not have to trust you😊 They will change the laws so that a credit scam on the bank will not pay off, they will ask for some collateral, guarantors or they will know that if the bank should go bankrupt because of unpaid credits, the taxpayers will pay for it and not the bank management...But even in this case, you only have security in the 1st round. Then you still have to trust that the scenarios you wanted will happen and not others.
  So, if, you have certainty(!!!) due to some/any scientific texts, books, your own research, etc., then upon further, careful examination, you must conclude that from a certain point, you are forced to trust those sources that have contributed in a small way to your overall certainty.
  You don't have the opportunity to verify everything. But even if you have verified one area perfectly, you probably won't have time to verify other areas. Either way, there will remain many areas where you will have confidence. And since you haven't verified, then it's risky. And failures in these unverified areas can lead to the collapse of the entire assurance system. The circle is closing.
  
• 

  cofty

  Succinctly - Comparing trust in the scientific claim that the earth is not flat with trust in the veracity or divine inspiration of the bible is obtuse.