Posts by Mephis

119

Jehovah's Witness Recovery is no more...

by TimeBandit in

jw
friends

i just tried to go to the site and there is a goodbye message.

i was a member there since 2010. i was really surprised.

i had just started posting there again after being away for a while.

Mephis

Zebedee here. I was just really in the process of moving on myself, other than the odd post and contact with a few people who for practical reasons can't use social media to stay in touch. Posting here because I suspect others will be doing the same for similar reasons.

Otherwise, thanks to the staff and mods at jwr for what they put into the site. Would have been nice to have notice to just pass on details to a few people, and it's sad that so much knowledge is now gone, but so it goes. Good luck to everyone.

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

Mephis, --You introduced the very interesting term "linear time" not much different from one dimensional time, or the "arrow of time". What I like Perry to consider is that time is more pervasive than that, Any entity in stationary time would not be subject to the law of cause and effect, that our movement through time subjects us to. Time not as a flowing river, but an endless ocean, through which we move, surf, To quote he discredited bible," --Hovered over the [endless]water--"

Well, yes, I used a term to describe the causal nature of our universe. If you wish to place God outside of that, fine, but no amount of wet metaphors are going to handwave away the consequences which follow from that. Nor conflate the idea with static time.

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

The post you decided to quote was talking about intelligence and its relationship to linear time. So I remain perplexed as to what point you were hoping to make there.

But, yeah, sure one can have other conceptions of time. Not sure how that helps with Perry's problem here? A one shot intelligent actor existing between the lines of theoretical physics outermost limits? Deus ex algebra?

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

Why say that time is linear, one dimensional? In our graphs it is always at right angles to any of the three space dimensions. Time is more pervasive than space dimensions, and can therefore predate space. When we speak of time we really mean movement through time, and that does not have to be, and perhaps was not for an eternity.

I stated linear time because I was talking about linear time. If you can demonstrate that intelligent life exists outside of that paradigm, please do. Otherwise I'm not seeing what point you're attempting to make with that post.

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

How do creationists explain virtual particles with reference to their unique understanding of the second law of thermodynamics these days? Is it still silence and a quick change of subject? Or how about the fun part where invoking the second law means you're making God die? Just curious.

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

Then where are the beginnings which we can observe today that do not have a cause or a causer?

I want nothing to do with your strawman 'causes' argument Perry. Take it in a field, stick a hat on it and call it Worzel. I'd say that the universe is jam packed full of things which do not have a causer behind them. You could easily disprove me by providing evidence there was one. The standard of evidence required to do that would win you a Nobel Prize, so looking forward to it. :)

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

Why don't we see things beginning now without causes? If they are unnecessary for beginnings, we should be able to see many examples of this.

You'd have to find another believer in God to ask Perry. I was talking of a causer, you want to talk about causes. They're not the same thing, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

Doesn't imply a Causer? What kind of a beginning doesn't have a cause?

Causer. That something begins doesn't imply a causer. Otherwise you'd have to have a God for God ad infinitum, wouldn't you?

160

Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry in

the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

whatever begins to exist had a cause.

therefore the universe had a cause.

Mephis

Only the universe having a beginning isn't news. The problem is more whether the concept of 'before a beginning' is even useful, and it certainly doesn't imply a 'causer'.

Here's a simple truth. To perform an action, any action, takes time - no matter how brief a moment or how long. Linear time began with the big bang so far as our physics allows us to tell currently. So how is an action performed in the absence of time? No matter where one inserts it into the process, 'God magic' will never be a useful answer.

32

Are the anointed really "lovely people"?

by purrpurr in

i've personally never met any of those who claim to be anointed but the other jw's who have are always unanimous in their praise of how lovely and what wonderful people they are.

and i don't mean the gb i mean common or garden anointed.

i was told that when they speak about being in heaven that they almost "seem to glow".. is this right?

Mephis

Knew a few when inside. All women. Just elderly women like any other randomly picked group of elderly women. Some nice, some a lot less so. The only common factor was that for some reason they thought they were going to heaven and ate crunchy bread and drank wine once a year while everyone else looked on.

One of them was a wee bit kooky and had her own personal guardian angel who went on the ministry with her. If I'd been old enough I'd have asked what his name was.

But then that's not considered kooky at all at some congregations I guess.

One was much younger who woke up one day to discover she was anointed. For her it seemed like it was a power trip thing. At the time I wasn't impressed. Perhaps a little more understanding of why it would appeal looking back with hindsight. Although even allowing for that she was still an utter ass who thought it gave her free license to be rude to people.

So no, no 'glow'. People tended to defer a bit, but that wasn't from anything they were doing other than claiming to be anointed.