I don’t know. How will we talk about it then? I am reading Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel a second time, an atheist who doesn’t believe in materialist reductionism, very fascinating. Maybe he can produce a new vocabulary. It’s not easy.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
The idea that everything that exists stands in an infinite chain without anything outside as the ultimate cause is an interesting idea but I think it calls for some evidence if we are to accept it. It’s the sort of “extraordinary claim” that some sceptics are fond of demanding “extraordinary evidence” in order to believe.
The atheist position is actually quite a demanding propositIon when you really think about it. Describing it as the fallback position or null hypothesis is a rhetorical strategy disguised as science. Why shouldn’t God as a hypothesis be the starting position? “Because I say so” seems to be the best atheists can come up with.
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
Atheism is only a lack of belief, nothing more. It does not claim that there are no gods.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy argues against this definition of atheism at length, beginning with these comments:
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
It solves the problem in the sense that God is the word we use to describe how anything is able to exist at all. And it provides the idea that, while everything we know has a cause, there may be something outside of the world as we know it that accounts for everything. It may also be possible that nothing is uncaused and there is nothing outside of the world as we know it. But somehow this just does not “seem” as likely. It is difficult to explain why, but people who see it this way know what it means. As Krauhammer says, we are not in a position to know for sure about whether God exists, but atheism just appears to be the least likely of the available theologies.
There are some items of knowledge that are not discovered by research. For example we don’t know the square root of 2 by research, or what is sadness, or whether it is wrong to steal. These things were not discovered by experiment or scientific method, but we count them as things we “know”. The existence of God seems more like this type of knowledge, rather than something that’s discovered by science such as the boiling point of water or the speed of light.
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
It means that everything we are and know and experience derives its existence from something else, whereas God does not derive his existence from anything else. You may disagree with the idea, but I don’t see why it should be difficult to understand. Even if you don’t believe in God there is still the problem of accounting for the original cause, or if there is not one, then accounting for the infinite chain of causes. So disbelieving in God doesn’t solve the problem. .
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
I agree that there being something rather than nothing is evidence that God exists but is not evidence for what kind of God he is. God is the source of being, so he does not add to the “things” in existence which require explanation, but is rather in himself the explanation for everything else which is dependent upon him for existence. If you look outside and see lots of trees blown over you might remark that the wind caused the trees to fall over. If someone said that answer was no good because “it doesn’t explain anything, because where did the wind came from?” we would think the objection doesn’t really fit the conversation. One gets the sense that skeptics who ask for an “explanation” for God, as if he is the next on the list after the universe to be explained, are not listening to what believers understand by “God”. Because God is understood by many believers to be the uncaused ground of all being, not an item or thing in the universe to be explained like any other.
Saying that God is the reason for existence may not exhaust everything there is to be said or that pertains to existence, or to God himself. But it doesn’t mean the utterance is without meaning or content in itself either.
-
34
I Think Their Is A Move Coming From Higher Ups To Get These Insane Idiot Out Of The Drivers Seat Of Jehovah's Chariot
by Brokeback Watchtower inlook at all the lawsuits, scandals, unsuccessful cover up, contribution shrinkage, stopped building project, and much more.
these guys are steering jehovah's chariot off a cliff if someone don't put the breaks on these delusional clowns.. so what do you think is there something a foot there at chemical dump clean up site warwick?
i bet you a coup is in the offing, because you know not everyone close to the governing body believes their bull shit but are playing along until the time is right to keep the wt ship from sinking like the titanic..
-
-
slimboyfat
The GB themselves have little to no direct control over anything.
How anyone can watch all those internal videos and still conclude that the GB are “not really in charge” is beyond me. The GB micromanage things to an amazing degree, even the accounts department, and planning, things they clearly know nothing about, yet people in the various departments still follow orders from the GB, because they are the spiritual leaders.
As for the OP, I think it is possible that others in the organisation may want to take over control. Who could look at the mess the GB have made and NOT think that it could be done better?
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
Yes that’s right. For people who see no reason to believe in God in the first place then there is no reason to excuse the contradiction between God and suffering. And for those who do think there are reasons to believe in God it is reasonable for them to think there may be a reason for suffering that God knows but we do not know. Some reasons people have for believing in God in the first place include: 1) the fact that anything exists at all rather than nothing 2) personal experiences or encounters with the divine 3) indications of God acting in and through human history. -
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
Well of course. The point is that what may appear to be a contradiction to one person, may not appear to be a contradiction to another person, if that other person has greater knowledge or insight. It is rational to at least leave open the possibility that God has a better grasp on the nature of reality, goodness and justice than we do.
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
slimboyfat
The New Testament says that God is good and cares about his creatures. It also says that we cannot understand the mind of God, and that when his actions seem unjust we have no right to challenge him. It does not say anywhere, as far as I am aware, that God’s goodness is dependent on whether we understand or can justify how God acts. In fact it explicitly says the opposite (particularly in Romans 9) that God is just even if we are unable to see how that can be the case.