Who knows, in twenty years time you may be embarrassed by reductive Darwinian and materialist arguments. Have you read Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel yet? I am reading it again. What a fantastic book, surely ahead of its time.
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
I didn’t mean to say that God is not immanent or engaged in the world, just that his role in causing the universe is what forces many to believe in him. It’s the starting point, but not the finishing point, for many trying to work out God.
I can’t see this world without purpose or design. How can we account for a universe that results in consciousness? Just a random accident? It doesn’t even make sense. Like the author of Hebrews says, it’s like saying a house is no reason to believe in a builder or intended habitation. You may say a house is not a living thing. That’s true. But what about the laws that govern natural selection, the universe and how it began? These things are not living things either and didn’t evolve from more primitive forms. The laws that govern the universe is like the house, in my mind, rather than just the physical material.
I think no one is in any doubt by now that you think the God of the Bible either doesn’t exist or is wicked. Just as you will be in no doubt that many hold the opposite view, and have their own reasons.
-
4
teaching books from 2012
by pepperheart inin a city i was in yesterday in all 3 carts i went to they were giving away teaching books that were printed in 2012. what had they been doing with them for six years ?
?.
-
-
slimboyfat
They’re not printing, just getting rid of old stock, as a result of ongoing collapse.
-
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 think the idea is that, everything we observe in the physical universe seems to have cause and effect. So if we trace this back we either have an infinite chain of causes that never ends, or there is an ultimate cause that got the whole thing started. But the idea of an uncaused material cause that started the universe doesn’t seem to make sense since everything that is material has a cause. So maybe the ultimate cause is not material but something else, like consciousness, since we know that consciousness can affect the material world. And if the whole thing was started by a consciousness, then it sounds like what many people mean by God. Further, looking at the constitution of the universe, its laws and patterns, it seems to be the product of an incredible intellect. One that had the purpose of fostering the arrival of conscious creatures in mind. Additionally, there seem to be indications that we are intended to be, not only aware and conscious, but that we should enjoy what we experience. If suffering in the world is supposed to indicate no God, or a bad God, then what does the existence of pleasure in the world indicate? Viewed from this perspective, the idea of biblical God becomes more credible. Jehovah stands outside of space and time and caused the universe and everything and he intends the best for humanity.
-
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
You are welcome to your opinion nic. But if I can observe, your conception of what others are able to think or contemplate, without being categorised as ‘taking the piss’ seems to be very narrow indeed. If you think I stand outside the acceptable spectrum of reasonable conversation, then I probably stand in the company of far more than 50% of humanity whose beliefs on God and the supernatural are more exotic and definite than my own. I didn’t ask you to engage with me, but your insistence that I do so on your terms, or be ruled out of order, is an attempt at controlling what it is allowable to think. I’ve made no such restriction on how you should express yourself in order to be worth engaging 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
Jehovah stands out because, as Paul says in Ephesians, all families of the earth owe their name to Jehovah.
Eph 3:14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.
-
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 some who believe in God find the word “exists” problematic because it seems limiting. If God is real he is likely outside time, space, and being as we understand them.
The idea that the universe and all its laws can exist without something outside of it causing it and sustaining it seems like special pleading.
Incidentally I argue for God being real, but the particular God I am interested in is the God revealed in the Bible.
-
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
In biology organisms have tended to get more complex over time and animals with larger and more complex brains seem to be more intelligent. But are we correct to infer from this that if God exists that he is simply a much more complex being than we are? What does “complex” really mean when you talk about God? Presumably it does not mean God has a larger or more complex brain. For many who believe in God he is not a “thing” that can be described in comparison with “things” in our experience. He stands outside of the universe, outside matter, outside time, outside of “being” as such. This is how God can be said not to be an added complication to reality as we know it, because he stands outside reality as such. He crafted reality and is not subject to it.
It's like you have a classroom full of 20 children left to their own devices and chaos rules. I suggest we add one more, and you say that will only add to the chaos. But I say let the additional one be a teacher and not a child. In this case the addition of another does not add to the chaos but instead solves it. In a similar way, adding God to our understanding of the world does not add complication, but instead provides order and coherence.
-
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 the universe exists without God is every bit as much a hypothesis as is the idea that God created the universe.
If we see an ambiguous pattern on the beach that may be of human origin and may not be of human origin we can disagree about the likelihood of either possibility. One person may say, unless proven otherwise we should assume this pattern was made by a human. Another person may say no, unless proven otherwise we should assume this pattern was not made by a human.
Who is right? It doesn’t seem obvious that either position inherently deserves to be the default position. Much may depend on the exact appearance and details of the pattern observed.
I take this discussion to be about the existence of God in principle, not about the existence on any particular God
-
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 think he means it provocatively in the sense that it’s an idea that stands in relation to God, as do other notions abou God. Mainly he’s a political commentator and sometime neocon, but for some reason likes to talk about God sometimes. It just happens that the comments he has made I find are close to my own ideas on this particular subject.