i 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.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Yes of course it does.
Consciousness is said to be the ground being.
What does that even mean?
I think to 2 slit experiment and wave collapse function when making an observation, and other such experiments that prove this point to consciousness being everything.
There is no such connection You have just gone full Deepak. Never go full Deepak.
You forgot to throw in the 'q' word.
i 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.
the universe exists in such as way that makes it inevitable in the first place
How so?
i 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.
Yet this first causer had no problem popping into existence without an initial first causer causing this secondary first causer to pop into existence...
SBF gets around this blatant contradiction by simply defining god as needing no beginning. Voila!
It is pure sophistry.
i 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.
There are many scientists who are suggesting that increased complexity, life and even consciousness are inevitable. Physicist Jeremy England is one good example.
The thing they all have in common is a desire to explain complexity in terms of simplicity. Nagel goes too far by positing some mystical teleology. In other words it may well be that the path of evolution has a general direction of travel but it does NOT have a predetermined destination. That is theology dressed up as science. It is worthy of that charlatan Deepak Chopra.
i 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.
Like the author of Hebrews says, it’s like saying a house is no reason to believe in a builder or intended habitation.
Oh for crying out loud. I am still embarrassed 20 years later that I thought that was a sensible argument.
20 years later you are still using it!
Just go back to the cult and get it over with.
i 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.
if the whole thing was started by a consciousness, then it sounds like what many people mean by God
No it doesn't.
What most people mean by god is an immanent being who is actively engaged in the word he created.
There is no connection between the ultimate cause that you are talking about and what most people mean by god.
You are knowingly engaging in equivocation.
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?
That the world is EXACTLY as we would expect if there was no designer ano purpose.
the idea of biblical God becomes more credible.
The god of the bible does not exist. If he did exist he would be a moral monster.
i 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.
The idea that the universe exists without God is every bit as much a hypothesis as is the idea that God created the universe
The word God is poisoned with so many superstitious connotations that it is counter-productive in a conversation like this.
You are not talking about god so drop the pretence.
i 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.
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 - SBF
It requires no evidence to say that we can currently trace history back to the Big Bang but no further. Beyond that the only sensible answer is, 'I don't know but I'm open to new evidence'.
The material is currently all we have evidence for. It is the person who wants to introduce an ultimate cause who has all of the burden.
'There is an ultimate cause that stands outside of all things', and, 'I have no idea why there is something rather than nothing, but I am unconvinced by your theological hand-waving', are not epistemologically equal positions. The first is a faith position, the second is rational.
the world cup in russia is being used to launch v.a.r.
- video assistant referee.
it will be very interesting to see if/how it affects the almost obligatory cheating offences of pulling/pushing which occur every time players are in each other's penalty area.
It is IMO the most beautiful team sport in the world.
VAR was not allowed for many years because of the principle that the game should be the same from the public park to the highest level. I think introducing it for the World Cup is the right decision as long as it is used sparingly. Part of the attraction of football is that the ball is active for a higher percentage of playing time than other sports. Nobody wants regular interruptions.
VAR made its debut today with the award of a penalty to France which led to the award of a penalty.
i 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.
The word agnostic is redundant.
The problem comes from the lack of definition of the word god.
Personally I am a strong atheist regarding the claims for the god of christianity. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh - the god and father of Jesus - does not exist. The same goes for Allah.
When people talk about the meaning of the term atheism they retreat into an impossibly vague notion of some undefined spirit. Nobody can give a sensible answer to such an ambiguous question so they take refuge in the agnostic word.
I think that is a mistake. Put the onus on the person asking the question to carefully explain the god they are taking about, then we can talk about it sensibly.
