Posts by cofty

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

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.

5

The 2018 World Cup - will it stop a nasty aspect?

by The Fall Guy in

jw
friends

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.

cofty

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.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

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.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

disbelieving in God doesn’t solve the problem

Disbelieving in god is the null hypothesis. Positing a god solves nothing.

Your 'logic' is a train wreck.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

God is understood by many believers to be the uncaused ground of all being - SBF

Which is meaningless doublespeak that I despised for its pathetic sophistry even when I was a christian. Anybody who has to resort to that sort of hand-waving is not worth further attention.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

The bottom line is since one persons morals are not really any more legitimate than the next person what right do we have to judge each other or God for that matter? - Perry

Morality is not simply a matter of personal opinion. Objective morality - as opposed to capricious ethics by divine fiat - is only possible by first leaving god out of the discussion.

'Morality' is simply what we mean when we worry about how our actions affect the flourishing of conscious beings. That doesn't mean that all moral questions are easily resolved or that intelligent, well-intentioned people won't disagree but it does mean that we can base our moral judgements on objective facts.

'Divine morality' leaves us in a conflict between our 'god-given' conscience and 'god-given' laws. When god commands his followers to commit genocide or to kidnap and rape vrgins or to take slaves what are we to do?

The materialist will simply assert that they just “know”.

No that is a strawman as I just explained above.

The believe this even though they are not all-knowing or all-powerful and make no claim as such.

Nobody believes that. If you are going to challenge people who disagree with you at least try to honestly present their position. Christian apologists never do that.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

Some reasons people have for believing in God in the first place include: 1) the fact that anything exists at all rather than nothing - SBF

This is wrong for at least two reasons. Firstly it requires wilful equivocation regarding the word 'god'. If the fact that anything exists did suggest a pre-existing being that leaves us a very, very long way from anything theists could call god. You would still have all your work ahead of you.

Secondly the mystery that anything exists rather than nothing is only exacerbated by positing an equally mysterious pre-existing being.

2) personal experiences or encounters with the divine

So the apologist whose argument rests on the fact that humans are frequently mistaken and misled by everyday personal experiences of the natural world, thinks that personal experiences count as evidence for a supernatural being. Don't you see the irony?

And which 'god' is personal experiences evidence for? If it counts as evidence for the god of christians then it must equally be valid as proof of every other god - and of alien abductions for that matter.

3) indications of God acting in and through human history

Every single detail of history and of the living world screams that there is nobody in control.

169

Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness in

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.

cofty

Scenario 1 - Compelling evidence for the existence of god but there appears to be a contradiction between some of the claims made for god and evidence from the real world.

Rational solution - Keep an open mind and consider that there may be facts we don't understand.

Scenario 2 - No evidence for the existence of god AND blatant contradictions between fundamental claims made for god and evidence from the real world.

Rational solution - Dismiss god-talk as superstition.

169