Knowsnothing

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 1,279 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Knowsnothing

• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  They no longer accept such a pass.

  So, there are no scientific axioms? I'm seriously not against progress. I'm just saying there is eventually an end, unless matter is infinite, which would be mind blowing.
• 
  31

  How many generations do YOU see?

  by 00DAD in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  I see 2, does that make me a "mentally diseased" JW?
• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is."

  Really? Who are these 'all' you speak of? Generally the real end is the idea that this is just the way god made it. As Cofty already pointed out, a brilliant mind like Newton's was stopped and simply decided this was just the way god did it. Had he pushed passed such a notion, perhaps he would have come up with something valuable there too. So much knowledge stops when the god factor goes up. But does a scientist today say 'that's just the way it is'? I hope not.

  There are axioms upon which we build our arguments. It's just that simple. As we regress further and further, like a child that asks "why, why, why?" we eventually reach an end point.

  Take matter, for instance. I'm almost certain that while we might not have discovered the smallest particle in existence, it's there. We have atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, and then quirks. I think there is one more step after that, but imagine there is more? And yet, I doubt matter is infinitely regressible.
• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  So there you have it - Flew giving whole-hearted support to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Ugg, I wonder if he was aware of disfellowshipping and blood transfusions. So, what is he accepting here, paradise earth or knocking on doors?
• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Suppose your argument is correct. You can replace "designer" with "the fundamental law of the universe" and your speculation applies equally well. On the other hand, a "fundamental law of the universe" need not have (for instance) a son or emotions like God has (and which is rather strange, how can God have emotions without a brain? How can God have a son without a body?), so it is a simpler hypothesis. Why should i then choose God?

  Why is there a fundamental law of the universe? "That's just the way it is."

  Precisely because the universe contain matter in a non-trivial (ie. non-equilibrium) configuration. You can ask why that is so, and modern cosmology can give you the answer: the universe underwent inflation some 13.7 billion years ago. You can argue that God pulled in the universe and caused it to inflate, but that is another mystery -- why there is information is an answered question.

  There seems to be a giant leap from "universal information" (if you want to call it that) to "DNA information."

  And honestly, are you arguing that DNA does not need "decoding"?

  I dont think anyone argue that...

  No, but doesn't it seem strange to you that it needs decoding? Why does DNA decode?

  The big bang theory is not the theory that there once was nothing and then something. It is a theory which describe the very early stages of the universe, nothing else.

  If you assume "absolutely nothing", our language simply stop working in terms of making any explanations. To me your argument boil down to this:

  Atheists cannot explain why the universe exist without assuming something. Assuming something allways existed is "bad" or "unacceptable" when atheists do it.

  I can explain why something exist if i assume something allways existed. It is not "bad" or "unacceptable" when i assume something allways existed.

  Point taken.
• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  someone or something must have interfered in order for things to work (a designer), then it only get's you to that point.

  Why?

  Why the exact laws of physics, for example? Perhaps for me it is difficult to see that the universe simply has these laws? Especially from a random explosion.

  the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.

  Why not?

  Because, as far as we know, there was nothing and then there was something. Unless you want to get into m-theory, which is really theoretical, abstract, and so far has no concrete evidence. So, matter simply came with these properties (point of melting, chemical reactions, gravitational pull, etc.?)
• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Well betsy, no one can really claim to KNOW anything. We are always learning and I am certainly open to learn more. If you easily knock down my arguments, fine. It benefits all. It benefits me in that I can start to see the flaws in my logic. It is placed on an open forum where others can see my flaws as well and perhaps learn from them. It benefits the arguer in sharpening their rhetoric.

  Believe me, my username was chosen with all the unwitting wit available.
• 
  33

  is it normal for a father, to walk hand in hand in public with his adult daughter?

  by varian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  talking about europe and the western world....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  But sometimes I think, that we have injected fear of normal physical affection into families that goes above and beyond necessary.

  Agreed. There is nothing wrong with this act, although it probably will be ill-perceived by some.
• 
  49

  How would atheists respond to this?

  by Knowsnothing in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.everystudent.com/wires/godreal.html.

  british philosopher, dr. antony flew, has been a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate.

  however, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Something being awesome does not prove the existence of a designer. Such a designer would have to be billions of times more complex than their design---yet where did the designer come from? - NC

  I see this argument used many times. The only thing complexity in nature proves is that nature, most likely, could not have come either by chance, or by gradual complexity. Therefore, when one get's to that position and realises someone or something must have interfered in order for things to work (a designer), then it only get's you to that point. A designer. No one is saying where the designer came from. Perhaps the designer is self-contained.

  As one continues to analyze natural properties, there is a basis or axiom from which one derives all hypothesis and observations. At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is." Maybe, with the designer, that's just the way it is. Maybe he need no one to create him. But the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.

  So, DNA contains 3 billion pieces of information. "Junk DNA" aside, why is there even information to begin with? And honestly, are you arguing that DNA does not need "decoding"?
• 
  34

  on the fence - an introduction

  by so confused in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i was brought up around the truth.

  my dad was disfellowshiped when i was young, around 6-7. he was a elder and very devoted even going to jail when he was younger for the truth.

  he had a stroke and started preaching things that the society was not teaching and he was disfellowshiped.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Welcome! Glad your husband sees things for what they are.