scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
‘scholar’:
If a person does not stand for something then where is the credibility?
It seems that you are using ‘stand for something’ as a placeholder for ‘maintain some kind of religious superstition’, which is, of course, ridiculous. Credibility, on the other hand, is derived from not appealing to arbitrary interpretations.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Just for fun, here’s what ChatGPT thought of Fisherman’s last bit of drivel:
There are several fallacies and poor reasoning in the provided passage:And yes, I know, AI bad, ChatGPT leftist, yadda yadda. 🙄
1. False dichotomy: The passage presents a false dichotomy between only two options - either experiencing God physically or only having a belief that He doesn't exist. There are other possibilities, such as making an inference based on evidence or lack thereof.
2. Appeal to ignorance: The passage suggests that since there is no way to disprove the existence of God, it is plausible that He exists. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and lack of evidence for the existence of God does not make it more likely that He exists.
3. Special pleading: The passage argues that the reality of God does not depend on proof, which is a form of special pleading - offering an exception to a general rule without justification.
4. Ad hoc reasoning: The passage uses ad hoc reasoning to explain away any evidence that contradicts its claims, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the resurrection of someone from the cemetery, by suggesting that such evidence can be rejected.
5. Circular reasoning: The passage cites the Bible to support its claims, which is an example of circular reasoning - using the conclusion to support the premise.
Overall, the passage presents several fallacies and poor reasoning, which weaken its argument and make it less persuasive.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
🤦♂️
Fallacy: shifting the burden of proof.
How do you know for a fact that there aren’t invisible goblins that want your socks.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Back on Jorden’s topics, neither ‘scholar’ nor Fisherman have provided any justification whatsoever for the several ways that JW interpretations about the ‘appointed times of the nations’ and related concepts deviate from what the Bible actually says.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
‘scholar’:
In short, you are an atheist and anyone who does not believe in the Flood and Noah's Ark is a bit of a worry.
‘scholar’ seems to imagine these are negative qualities. But in reality, in the absence of evidence for assertions about deities, the default position is atheism. Not to mention the mountains of evidence that categorically show that the ‘flood’ is nothing more than a tale adapted from the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Do better, ‘scholar’.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
🤦♂️
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Fisherman:
Therefore only God can produce a miracle
In addition to the fact that your premises don’t support your conclusion that only God can perform miracles, I should have added that your premises also don’t support the conclusion that God can perform miracles, or that supernatural entities can necessarily perform miracles, or that performing miracles is possible.
Also, the assertion that supernatural entities exist at all is unverifiable, and the term has no meaningful definition.
You might as well say something like:
Invisible goblins are supernatural and undetectable. Invisible goblins like Fisherman’s socks. Therefore if Fisherman can’t find his socks, invisible goblins took them.
for newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
🤦♂️ But you still accept irrational nonsense (see also ‘sunk cost fallacy’ and ‘appeal to emotion’). That’s worse than believing nonsense simply due to being uninformed.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Fisherman:
God is supernatural and outside the universe not physical. Proof is something empirical. Therefore only God can produce a miracle and God cannot be proven by science or by a person.
I think I see why you don’t very often try to construct logical syllogisms. 🤦♂️ Your first premise is rejected as unfalsifiable, and your argument is circular because your first premise assumes your conclusion. As to your second premise, it is invalidated by the fact that you attempted a logical proof, which if based on a properly formed syllogism with accepted premises would be proof without empirical evidence. Additionally, the part of your claim that only god can produce a miracle is not supported by your premises. Logically, your argument is rejected. Do try something convincing next time.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Fisherman:
The sort of convincing evidence that you seek can only come directly from God.
Fallacy: begging the question.
