Posts by sizemik

What is the mathematical probability of all the pieces creating themselves individually & then combining on their own to create a watch. Reasonable anwer & one backed by the science of mathematical probability would be zero. Apply that to a single cell. The odds just grow.

@mrquirk . . . how do the odds get worse than zero?

Forget science and common sense . . . a crash course in logical fallacy would be a lot more productive . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

778

IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

by still thinking in

jw
friends

this is an honest question on my part.

someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.

in fact, it was a turning point for me.

sizemik

sizemik....do you no longer have any feeling that there might be something there? Or has that gone now?

Good question. I have feelings like that about a lot of things which remain unexplained . . . moreso than when I believed in God. So the feeling of wanting explanations is more intense than ever. I haven't become apathetic, nor do I believe in "nothing". I'm just not ready to fill the void with my own tailor-made, intransigent "belief" for which there is no evidence.

If some have had a genuinely supernatural experience that convinces them 100% in the existence of God . . . then I envy them. I simply haven't.

778

IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

by still thinking in

jw
friends

this is an honest question on my part.

someone on this board asked me 'how do you know' a while ago and i really struggled with it.

in fact, it was a turning point for me.

sizemik

I used to be hung up on the question of a first cause . . . you know, what came before the "big bang". Who created space, matter, energy and time . . . but it doesn't beg an answer anymore.

There is ample proof that the universe is expanding. If it expands it can also contract. The big bang may have been the result of the contraction of a previous universe . . . who knows? It may all be a cyclical . . . like everything else. Space, matter, energy and time are simply human constructs to explain the parameters of existence . . . we don't know their true nature yet. They may have always existed . . . just as believers claim God has always existed.

The universe is not full of "order" Cataclysmic random events are it's hallmark . . . an unstable earth, celestial collisions etc. (There are even two vast galaxies colliding right now). Life as we know it, is a struggle for survival and nothing is "perfect" or ever will be, simply because it all changes. It is the same for every living thing.

Humans have reached a level of intellectual complexity that derives self-awareness, hence empathy. From this comes the human construct of morality, often attributed to a superior supernatural source . . . hence religion.

There is simply no evidence for the presence of a benevolent theistic entity who takes interest in, and controls all matters.

I'm quite content to accept that I am a small insignificant biological entity who "struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more", living according to that higher self-awareness and empathy while I'm still here.

If I'm wrong, I don't expect to find out before I die . . . and then it will come as a pleasant, or not so pleasant, surprise.

I'm a believer in this . . . subject to change . . . just like the rest of the universe. Somewhat paradoxically . . . it leaves me feeling happy, content and without fear.

7

Mo

by Inisc in

jw
friends

sizemik

You can edit your post (add it in entirety) for 30 mins after posting . . . in most circumstances.

245

Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

sizemik

I expect men to step up to me like men and I don't not expect them to cower or tuck their tails between their legs in fear as if they were a scared animal, a dog. . . . Eggy

LOL . . . you really do have a skewed outlook.

It's you who doesn't respond to anybody who catches you in your lies . . . and you contradict yourself constantly (go on - ask me for examples). You run away with your tail between your legs and only return weeks later in the hope of a new audience.

Fear of losing your childish beliefs is what motivates you to defend mother . . . evidence and logic don't get a look in.

Yes, we believed it once . . . but we grew up.

You're still a cowering puppy.

8

@djeggnog said

by therevealer in

jw
friends

on the thread about the generation in one of the last entries:.

i think you (and yes i realize that wasn't me) to be lacking in intellect, but please don't be offended, for i only mean this in a kind way.. @djeggnog.

i can only say "right back at ya".

sizemik

If they knew he was posting here they would not thank him for his efforts, they would tell him off for being a naughty boy.

Let's hope they don't nail him . . . we'd lose the perfect stooge.

245

Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

sizemik

. . . previous interpretations as to what Jehovah's Witnesses understood the word "generation" to mean are irrelevant after they have been discarded. . . . Eggy

Nothing to add . . . just in case anyone missed it the first time.

245

Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

sizemik

Eggy (like WTS) cannot support the doctrine with logic or scripture . . . so falls back behind the protective veil of semantics (surprised?).

By substituting the word "group" for the overlapping "generations", they can have as many "groups" as they desire within a "generation" of indeterminable (perhaps infinite) length.

Crazy stuff really.

18

Solving Its Generation Doctrine

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

solving its generation doctrine .

today i added a new article to my blog.

many have wondered how watchtowers governing body went about making the change it did to its generation doctrine.

sizemik

Eggy has the answer . . . you substitute the word "group" for "generation". Then you can have distinct overlapping "groups" of infinite number within a "generation" of infinite length.

Semantics to the rescue . . . problem solved.