Jonathan Drake

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 710 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jonathan Drake

• 
  182

  The Case for Theism

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

  " ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

  atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Jonathan Drake,

  Stephen Hawking himself declares that if "Imaginary Time" ends up being false that means...

  "There would have to be something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going."

  This doesn't matter. You cannot take the mans work and just assume he's talking about God. I promise he isn't, as he's elsewhere stated his opinions on god. Further "IF" imaginary time were false and that does mean something outside wound up the universe, that doesn't mean it's god that did it.

  Even more, if this did prove God existed (I emphasize if) all itwould mean is that he's a malevolent piece of shit who wound it up and just watched every one suffer and die. Your not really making a good argument and it's because you're taking something that's about one thing in particular and desperately trying to make it about something else and misuse your mental capacity to twist it into some pro-God farce that it was not intended to be. If hawking saw this thread he'd shred your entire op.
• 
  182

  The Case for Theism

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

  " ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

  atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Fusion I do know how to use a dictionary, and your definition from your source states that theism is a belief in an immanent God. Immanent means that the God is inherent in and has something to do with the world.

  1

  :indwelling, inherent <beauty is not something imposed but something immanent — Anthony Burgess>

  
  

  Theism is the belief in a God that transcends our world but is still immanent (has something to do with) our world. Deism is the belief in a God that transcends our world and has nothing to do with it.
• 
  182

  The Case for Theism

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

  " ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

  atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."

  "Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time, was the suggestion, that maybe all the galaxies didn't meet up at a single point in the past. [...] However, their claim was proved wrong, by a number of theorems by Roger Penrose and myself."

  "If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning. [...]"

  "One can then apply the theorem of Penrose and myself, to show that time must have a beginning."

  If I'm not mistaken, I believe you have just created a straw man out of Steven hawkings lecture "the beginning of time". It seems to me you are trying to make the beginning of time have something to do with God, and it absolutely doesn't.

  
  Did you copy and paste from this lecture?
• 
  182

  The Case for Theism

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.

  " ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.

  atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  "Theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life." ("God" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)
  

  You can't just change the definition of theism to fit your own ends.

  theism isn't merely the belief in a god, it's the belief in a God that interacts and takes an interest in our world. conversely, deism is the belief in a God that does not take an interest or interact.

  As to your assertions about the accuracy of prophecy regarding Jesus, you are not providing any of the following:

  1. Proof Jesus ever having lived to begin with.

  2. Explanation for why the gospel accounts contradict one another.

  3. Explanation of why no historians of the time reported any of the crucifixion miracles (earthquake, darkening of sky, resurrection of saints upon Jesus death - seriously no one else but a bible writer can confirm this?)

  4. Explanation of why the writers of the gospels took so long to write down their contradicting stories about a man who probably never lived after it all supposedly happened.

  What's more, you're falling into the rut of using the bible to prove itself by using scripture from Daniel. This proves nothing but the probability that the reason the bible writers took so long to write the gospels is because they had to tailor them to fit. <--- something many agree is more and more likely as time goes on.
• 
  34

  There is no right and wrong

  by campaign of hate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i am a little tangled up in this train of thought, as it can go quite deep.. as a jw, albeit fully awake, we are taught that there is right and a wrong.

  smoking is wrong.

  going on the ministry is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  In any event, regardless of how politics and morality interchange (a subject id love to read more about), my earlier posts stand to demonstrate that if religion affects morality it's only to poison it. What little good religion has done for morality may easily be attributed to our altruistic tendencies. But I see no reason to do this, let religion have what little good it's done because whatever positive morality may have come of religion you can garuntee it is drowning in an ocean of injustice and atrocity from the same source.

  original point and back on topic: morality is an evolutionary development that does not rely at all on religion.
• 
  34

  There is no right and wrong

  by campaign of hate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i am a little tangled up in this train of thought, as it can go quite deep.. as a jw, albeit fully awake, we are taught that there is right and a wrong.

  smoking is wrong.

  going on the ministry is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  I believe Lincoln's letter speaks for itself. He was politically for the Union at all cost but personally against slavery. His personal belief did not change his political aim or belief.
  

  But a political aim of his politcal party was to abolish slavery. 😂

  and they wanted to abolish it because of their belief it was wrong. 😂
• 
  34

  There is no right and wrong

  by campaign of hate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i am a little tangled up in this train of thought, as it can go quite deep.. as a jw, albeit fully awake, we are taught that there is right and a wrong.

  smoking is wrong.

  going on the ministry is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Also I'm not trying to say that wars have NO political aspects to them. But morality is absolutely involved, especially now and admittedly less so in the past - tho it was at times. I would never say politics was absolutely not involved in world war 2 or civil war, but morality definitely was. That is my only point.
• 
  34

  There is no right and wrong

  by campaign of hate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i am a little tangled up in this train of thought, as it can go quite deep.. as a jw, albeit fully awake, we are taught that there is right and a wrong.

  smoking is wrong.

  going on the ministry is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Abolitionist Movement summary: The Abolitionist movement in the United States of America was an effort to end slavery in a nation that valued personal freedom and believed "all men are created equal." Over time, abolitionists grew more strident in their demands, and slave owners entrenched in response, fueling regional divisiveness that ultimately led to the American Civil War.
  

  Strictly moral concern.

  A bit of light research yields the information that Lincoln was a member of the National Union Party - a anti slavery Republican Party who's ideology was influenced by, wait for it - Abolitionism.
• 
  34

  There is no right and wrong

  by campaign of hate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i am a little tangled up in this train of thought, as it can go quite deep.. as a jw, albeit fully awake, we are taught that there is right and a wrong.

  smoking is wrong.

  going on the ministry is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Though he personally believed in freedom he nonetheless would have set none of the slaves free if it meant the Union would be preserved.
  

  This is absurd. Abolishing slavery did not need to happen in order to preserve the union and it had no effect at all on the outcome of the war. There was no reason to do it aside from believing it was the right thing to do - a strictly moral concern.
• 
  34

  There is no right and wrong

  by campaign of hate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i am a little tangled up in this train of thought, as it can go quite deep.. as a jw, albeit fully awake, we are taught that there is right and a wrong.

  smoking is wrong.

  going on the ministry is right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Also, and I had to look this up before posting.

  America was involved before they knew about the holocaust anyway. But again, morality should be in part measured by the reaction. And it was because of the atrocities of World War II that this happened:

  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again.

  
  

  Source
  
  

  Clearly, morality was at the forefront of all of this. It was not merely a political concern.

  Once the world saw what had happened, and the news was out and verified, THIS is how they responded - with a strictly morality concerned declaration.