for a long time i have accepted that when a theist inserts god into some as yet not understood scientific matter, it constitutes a god of the gaps argument.
as a theist myself, the problem with this for me, is that it implies an arbitrary limit on gods ingenuity.
for example, the idea that god created automatic processes to do certain things in nature, and yet with other things the need for a direct hand to either tweak or directly organise!
Science often does a good job of explaining how. However some of us also want to know "why".
For the types of "why" questions that I suspect you're talking about (why is the universe here, etc) science has an answer. The answer to "why did x happen" is "because x can happen." Just because you find it unsatisfying doesn't invalidate the answer.
for a long time i have accepted that when a theist inserts god into some as yet not understood scientific matter, it constitutes a god of the gaps argument.
as a theist myself, the problem with this for me, is that it implies an arbitrary limit on gods ingenuity.
for example, the idea that god created automatic processes to do certain things in nature, and yet with other things the need for a direct hand to either tweak or directly organise!
Lets not overextend the metaphore. The point is, one is solid and proven, the other resides only in a land of fantasy and wishful thinking.
There will always be some problems that are mathematically impossible to solve, but barring that, I don't think there's any practical benefit to debating the limits of science, since we've certainly not reached them, and it doesn't seem likely to happen in our grand children's lifetime (or, as defined by the WTS, in 'this generation'). Asserting that god must exist simply because someone's hypothesized a limit to what science can review is asinine.
for a long time i have accepted that when a theist inserts god into some as yet not understood scientific matter, it constitutes a god of the gaps argument.
as a theist myself, the problem with this for me, is that it implies an arbitrary limit on gods ingenuity.
for example, the idea that god created automatic processes to do certain things in nature, and yet with other things the need for a direct hand to either tweak or directly organise!
Thank you, but I'm happy with my ladder. Turns out it's an extension ladder that's getting taller all the time!
for a long time i have accepted that when a theist inserts god into some as yet not understood scientific matter, it constitutes a god of the gaps argument.
as a theist myself, the problem with this for me, is that it implies an arbitrary limit on gods ingenuity.
for example, the idea that god created automatic processes to do certain things in nature, and yet with other things the need for a direct hand to either tweak or directly organise!
your stance is akin to someone who's shopping for a ladder, and keeps complaining that they might one day live in a house that's got a lightbulb that would still be out of reach while on any particular ladder. They then go off in search of a magic carpet that can fly you to any height instead.
Many theists want to see their religion as compatible with science and complain when there appears to be some sort of 'religion vs science' debate. The problem is, though, that religion is the polar opposite of science. Science presents evidence and draws conclusions, whereas religion relies on blind faith.
In short, I wish you the best of luck with your search for a magic carpet.
for a long time i have accepted that when a theist inserts god into some as yet not understood scientific matter, it constitutes a god of the gaps argument.
as a theist myself, the problem with this for me, is that it implies an arbitrary limit on gods ingenuity.
for example, the idea that god created automatic processes to do certain things in nature, and yet with other things the need for a direct hand to either tweak or directly organise!
Well, science may have it's flaws, but what's religion done for us lately? Nothing that I can put my finger on aside from making it a little easier to scare kids into behaving. Meanwhile science has given us practically every improvement in our standard of living for the past several centuries. That's not a preconcieved notion, it's an evaluation of the merits of science and religion.
i believe in god.
i don't believe he punishes or rewards people.
so by the same extention i don't believe any spirit beings can communicate with or influence humans.. many who do not believe in god though, have gone to fortune tellers.
Its a bit like UFO/Alien sightings, which always seem to have an up-tick when people start drinking.
There's also a number of relatively strange physical phenomena that, if you didn't know about them, they could cause you to present them as 'proof' of sprits. For example, when in the presence of low frequency sound waves (inaudible for humans) that match the resonance of the human eye, it can often cause you to see ghostly figures that pop in and out of your periphrial vision. This has been confirmed as the cause of a number of 'haunted' buildings.
Fortune tellers are just con artists taking advantage of the human weakness called confirmation bias, or in some cases, they do lots of prior research on clients in order to appear as though they posses supernatural knowledge. There's been so many examples of these folks being debunked that I feel like your inclusion of them in your question may indicate that you're attempting to troll us a bit. Just because someone doesn't believe in god, doesn't mean that their mentally acute and able to recognize when someone is taking advantage of them and manipulating them.
for a long time i have accepted that when a theist inserts god into some as yet not understood scientific matter, it constitutes a god of the gaps argument.
as a theist myself, the problem with this for me, is that it implies an arbitrary limit on gods ingenuity.
for example, the idea that god created automatic processes to do certain things in nature, and yet with other things the need for a direct hand to either tweak or directly organise!
In cosmology, many common theories require something to have existed prior to the big bang. In theology, the requirement prior to the universe is to have a sentient, powerful god that's always existed. In cosmology, the pre-universe state is typically a relatively simple environment. Depending on the theory, it could be essentially nothingness, or it could be large blobs (think of a soap bubble) floating around in 11 dimmensional space. Whatever the theory, though, you must agree that it seems more likely than a sentient, all-powerful being who's just 'always existed.'
Interestingly (and couther-intuitively) enough, our universe appears to be made up of a net sum of zero energy. This means that it can essentially spring from 'nothing.' There will likely always be questions to be answered by science, but saying that there are questions that science will never be able to answer is a bit pessimistic considering all the so-called unexplainable things that now are well-understood.
If you want to learn about science, don't only watch you-tube videos that seem to confirm your preconcieved notions, challenge yourself and challenge your confirmation bias. However, if you wish to remain a theist, best not look too deep.
i've never been called for jury duty and i'm not yet registered to vote, although i'm hoping to get that done this month.
i know someone who within a few months of registering to vote was called for jury duty.
i've read some articles that said voter records 'used' to be used to call on people but that was a thing of the past.
My sister had to do jury duty and (like any good JW) had never registered to vote.
just wondering if they still go door-to-door?
i never see groups of people walking around the neighborhoods all dressed up or out in fastfood restaurants on saturday mornings or groups of people driving around in cars.
.
I say its mostly tract work, but that may be a bit of a strech depending on how you want to measure it. It seems like we do 3-4 month long campaigns a year so it's still mostly magazines by that measure. However, I suspect there are more hours put in during those 3-4 months than the other 8-9 months. They reduce the barrier to getting the pioneer title everyone wants and everyone who does it pressures everyone else, so hours go up. Plus its so much easier since you don't have to put together a presentation or, really talk to anyone.
just wondering if they still go door-to-door?
i never see groups of people walking around the neighborhoods all dressed up or out in fastfood restaurants on saturday mornings or groups of people driving around in cars.
.
Mostly these days it's a 20 minute meeting for service, followed by a half hour of d2d* then a half hour at McDonald's, followed by 20 minutes of doing one of the old guy's calls, since no one else has calls on account of all the special campaigns.
*these days it seems like d2d more often than not is some special campaign that doesn't require that you do anything more than shove a tract at someone when they open the door, then run away.
