there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.
but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.
the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.
ballistic:
How does the chipmonk know that what is coming in through his senses, and presumably creating a model of the outside world for him to observe, is really coming in from the outside and not just made up in his head?
Chipmunks that don’t behave that way wouldn’t be chipmunks for long.
there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.
but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.
the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.
I also see that Sea Breeze trotted out the 12 ‘facts’ about the ‘resurrection’ again after I preemptively refuted with a previous link to another thread 🤦♂️ . So here is the content from the previous thread (note that Sea Breeze has altered the wording but not the import in the list in this thread):
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
Probably. It is possible that an eclipse at or around the time of his death may have enhanced superstitions that Jesus was in some way divine.
2. He was buried.
According to the narrative, he was placed in a tomb, not buried. What actually happened to his body is unknown.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
Amazing. Sad event made people sad.🙄 This is just padding to get the special number 12.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
No actual evidence for this apart from contradictory stories from decades later.
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
That people ‘believed’ something isn’t ‘proof’ of anything, and the details of what they believed happened are only available in embellished stories written decades later. Even in the stories, the disciples don’t initially recognise the person as Jesus. 🙄
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
Wow. Superstitious people became convinced of something. Many things were taken as portents at the time so an eclipse, earthquake, or even a shadow could have made them think Jesus was back.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
Arguably, but the purported value of the ransom was really the more important aspect. The claim that Jesus was resurrected actually diminishes the value of the ‘sacrifice’, since he supposedly got a massive reward for a comparatively bad weekend.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
Sect based on superstition spread in a time when superstition was even more rife than it is now. Nothing remarkable about this.
9. The Church was born and grew.
Sect based on superstition developed further. Still nothing remarkable about this.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
Entirely wrong. Sunday became the primary day of Christian worship many years later due to ‘pagan’ influence when Christianity had spread beyond a Jewish religion and the majority of Christians were gentiles.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
This is a tradition only.
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic and opposer).
Paul’s version of his conversion contradicts the version in Acts, particularly the details about where he went immediately after, indicating that at least one version is unreliable. JWs (and other groups) today tell stories of formerly ‘violent opposers’ who converted, so Paul’s actual conversion to Christianity isn’t remarkable. Paul reports having visions on more than one occasion, at times not even knowing whether he was ‘in the spirit’, (and also alludes to ‘a thorn in the flesh’) which could suggest an underlying psychiatric or other condition (e.g., epilepsy, ergotism, syphillis etc) that could exacerbate superstitious beliefs.
there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.
but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.
the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.
Sea Breeze:
Your above statement is rooted in the "present"
Of course. Didn’t you read the thread title: “Probability of Earth and life being how it is”.
It is difficult (and fascinating) to imagine how an otherwise intelligent human can believe a demonstratable lie like the one you stated.
It’s your lie that has been demonstrated.
there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.
but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.
the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.
Sea Breeze:
I think that if someone were to predict their own death and then claim that they would resurrect themself from the dead afterwards, then do it - that would pretty much do it for me.
Sheesh. Not this drivel again. The stories about Jesus were written much later than his lifetime. We know that to be a fact. They are unverifiable stories, many of them (especially in Matthew) desperately trying to make things in the Old Testament falsely appear to be ‘prophetic’. It is entirely unremarkable that someone with access to older stories could make up other stories based on those. And as for the supposed ‘proofs’ of the ‘resurrection’, dealt with at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/280710/how-would-you-define-religion-why?page=8#4884876684165120.
there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.
but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.
the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.
The probability of things being the way they are is precisely 1.
The chance of a shuffled pack of standard playing cards being dealt in order is less than one in 10⁶⁷. But the chance of it being in any particular order, including all the ones that appear to be ‘random’, is exactly the same. This means that something with the chance of less than one in 10⁶⁷ happens not only every day, but millions of times every day. It’s only ‘remarkable’ if the order it happens to be in is predicted in advance. All ‘fine tuning’ arguments fail for the same reason.
has any body noticed that the bible reading schedule has been reduced to one chapter per week.
does any one know if this is a policy change or something temporary?
at this rate the complete cycle will take 22 years plus..
They’re doing one chapter per week for Proverbs, but then returning to multiple chapters per week for subsequent books.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102025214?q=Bible+reading+schedule&p=doc
Strange (“from a human standpoint” 🤣). I couldn’t be bothered examining it more deeply (subject to change without notice), but I suspect there will be longer passages to read for books of the Bible that they recognise as having problematic verses or historical context that conflict with JW doctrines. (Chapter length will likely also still have some bearing, but that alone doesn’t explain the inconsistency.)
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
I see that Earnest changed their ‘That is not how maiden names work’ post after I pointed out their error about Brzakovic’s maiden name. 😒 Perhaps I should have waited until after the edit window ended.
Fact remains that until there is evidence, there is no reason to accept the unverified anecdote.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Earnest:
Brzakovic's maiden name was Berger. It is unlikely that her mother's maiden name was Berger.
🙄 Try to keep up. Brzakovic’s maiden name was Blabst. Her mother’s maiden name was Berger. 🤦♂️
Bored now. It’s tedious that people need details spoon fed to them. Get back to me when you have evidence that Katharina’s mother was a Rieger or Peintner by birth (i.e., the sister of Maria’s father or mother).
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
In the unverifiable anecdote, it is claimed the Pope said "you are doing the work that we should be doing" (a statement that would be entirely uncharacteristic of Ratzinger). Note the similar tone in JW publications offering the same types of unverifiable anecdotes:
The Watchtower, 15 June 1993, page 26:
Upon learning the purpose of their visit, the priest invited them in, and they had a fine discussion. The priest then said: “I envy you but not in a bad way. We should be doing the work that you are doing. It’s too bad that the Orthodox Church is a sleeping giant”!
The Watchtower, 1 January 1997, page 12 (recycled from Awake!, 8 February 1982, page 10 below, and also recycled in The Watchtower, May 2016, page 12):
WHILE preaching from house to house, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses met a Pentecostal lady who commented, ‘We have holy spirit, but you are the ones doing the work.’
Awake!, 8 February 1982, page 10:
A pastor of a Pentecostal church once said to a Witness: “It makes me cry when I think that we have God’s spirit, but you people are doing the work!”So even if the claim of being a first cousin (later revised to second cousin) were true (though it remains unverified and implausible given the absence of any Bergers in Ratzinger's family tree) and there was a phone call (which also remains unverified), it's still possible that the lady (who supposedly only reported the phone call 4 months later) mixed the details of the conversation with things she read in JW literature.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
so until we do there is no reason not to accept her word on the connection.
That’s not how burden of proof works.
I hope for your sake that you don’t get any emails from a Nigerian prince.
When researching genealogy, you have to be cautious even accepting that a person with a known family name is actually a correct match, let alone assuming that someone with no matching family names is related based only on an anecdote.
