Posts by shepherdless

Adelaide's Jehovah's Witness community says the sale of three places of worship is not in response to dwindling attendances but is instead part of an expansion plan.

The two being closed down are in Ceduna and Cummins. Because of location, those ones would have had negligible land value.

Separately, I have a suspicion (but I don't know), that another rural congregation, Katanning WA, may have closed. There is probably an easy way to check, but I don't know how.

EDIT: Gerry, I see you beat me to it.

6

I love this picture

by Sour Grapes in

.

shepherdless

I think stuckinarut2 is referring to this baptismal talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItHcsIHshhs

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.

shepherdless

I have struggled to get the time to get back to this thread. I know it is old, but I said I would respond.

The background is that 17 days earlier in this thread, SBF said:

This supposes that physical material is the fundamental component of reality. This is the dominant view in our time, but it is not the only way of seeing the world. An alternative is the view that consciousness is fundamental and that we create the world through our perception.

and

I think there is growing support for the idea that consciousness is basic to the universe itself and does not just arise magically in the brain from nowhere.

He adds a video from Donald Hoffman, who apparently has a Ph.D in "quantative psychology" from M.I.T. For those who wonder what that means, here is what Wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_psychology

I saw the video and said this, in part:

Hoffman then uses something equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument. He says in effect that science can't explain as yet how neurons in the brain produce consciousness. He then proposes to turn it all on his head and start with consciousness as central to the universe, derive new laws of Physics, and hopes to mathematically re-derive concepts such as string theory and quantum mechanics. (He mentions those terms, but I wonder if he even knows what they mean.) In the process, some impressive images and videos are shown, but absolutely no maths, observations or science is used to back this idea up in any way, whatsoever.

SBF responds with two more videos frm Donald Hoffman, and stated in part:

His academic credentials appear impressive. Are you really confident you understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does?

I responded in part:

That is a red herring; I didn't claim to. (In fact I don't understand "string theory" at all.) Hoffman tossed those terms out very flippantly in the first video. Hence I wondered.

SBF responded:

It is not a red herring because you critiqued Hoffman’s use of language in terms which implied that he either did not understand what he was talking about or that he was misleading his audience in the way he was using scientific terms. In order for you to be able to make that judgement you would need to understand the terms at least as well as he does. Otherwise how would you know that he misused the language?

There is other stuff in this thread I would deal with, but I don't have the time.

I do not have to prove that I have equal or superior knowledge of either string theory and quantum mechanics, before I am allowed to wonder if he knows what they mean. I also pointed out why I wondered.

Likewise:

1. If a financial advisor told me that he had a foolproof scheme that would double my money every three years, I would be entitled to wonder whether it was legit. I am allowed to "wonder" about the legitimacy of the scheme, irrespective of whether I myself was a qualified economist, merchant banker, etc. I don't have to prove I can match the financial advisor's knowledge before I am allowed to "wonder".

2. If I went to see a lawyer about a fence dispute with my neighbour, and the lawyer kept mentioning Magna Carta but without connecting it to the context of the fencing obligations, I don't need to be a Professor of Constitutional Law before I am allowed to "wonder" whether this lawyer knows what he/she is talking about.

We do not know what expertise Donald Hoffman has in either quantum mechanics or string theory. He is a "popular science author", according to Wikipedia, and he certainly talks a good game. However, there is nothing in his academic background to suggest that he has any expertise in these fields whatsoever. So, without knowing what his actual level of knowledge, how could I, or anyone else, demonstrate "confident... [we] understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does". Does that meant nobody can ever comment?

Also, by your logic, SBF, unless you can demonstrate that your actual level of knowledge is better than mine, you have no right to question me on the topic. (I stress that that is not my position, but it IS the logical consequence of your logic.)

42

What's the difference between a Christian and a JW?

by nowwhat? in

christians look to jesus as the redeeemer of mankind.. jw's look to jesus as the executioner of mankind!.

shepherdless

I just want to add something to what humbled has stated.

It seems to me that JWs and some ex-JWs do have this view that Watchtower is the only anti-war Christian religion. Or they reluctantly admit that some other Christian religions such as SDA, Christadelphian, etc have pretty similar internal stances.

My Catholic ancestors were amongst those that successfully blocked conscription in Australia, during WW1. There were two referenda to bring in conscription in Australia in WW1. Both failed, and a large part of that was that Catholics, led by the leading bishop in Australia (Archbishop Daniel Mannix), who not just campaigned against it from the pulpit, not just marched in the street against it, but attended and spoke at rallies of up to 100,000 people, to block conscription.

They were not the only ones. But they actually went out and did something, and were successful in blocking the law. They didn't just sanctimoniously talk about it being wrong.

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.

shepherdless

SBF, and Brokeback, I will respond when I can. It might be a couple of days before I can.

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.

shepherdless

Well, I had better respond.

Hoffman's academic credentials and experience initially look impressive. However, take a closer look. He does not seem to hold any qualifications or academic position in the hard sciences, apart from computer science. He is described as a "quantitative psychologist". His Bachelor's degree is a Bachelor of Arts.

There is nothing there to suggest he has any academic qualifications or experience whatsoever in relativistic mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc. And that is important, because Hoffman's conjecture (and it is just a conjecture) has fundamental implications for these very specialised areas of Physics.

Are you really confident you understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does?

That is a red herring; I didn't claim to. (In fact I don't understand "string theory" at all.) Hoffman tossed those terms out very flippantly in the first video. Hence I wondered.

No I don’t think Donald Hoffman thinks the material universe exists independently of consciousness.

Yes, it it clear from the second (8 min) video that Hoffman's conjecture is that the universe does not independently of conscious.

Intriguingly, in that video, there were a couple of references to "data" and "evidence", but we are not given any info on what that comprised.

Hoffman made detailed reference to the "observer" in quantum mechanics, towards the end of the second video. He appears to make the link between "observer" (a shorthand expression used to try to explain relativistic mechanics to a student) and consciousness. I can sort of see how he arrived at his conjecture. In essence, he has mixed a term used to try to explain a phenomena in Physics, with a concept that that term also needs to be present for that phenomena to occur.

The simplest analogy I can think of is as follows. It would be like somebody asserting that: 1. We need a microscope to view bacteria. 2. Therefore bacteria can not exist without a microscope being present.

PS: I didn't watch the third video. I saw it was 25 mins long.

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.

shepherdless

I think there is growing support for the idea that consciousness is basic to the universe itself and does not just arise magically in the brain from nowhere. I am sympathetic to this idea.
- SBF

In Donald Hoffman' s Ph.D. video, at about the 3.22 to 3.30 mark, he admits that the universe exists irrespective of individual or collective conscious.

Hoffman then uses something equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument. He says in effect that science can't explain as yet how neurons in the brain produce consciousness. He then proposes to turn it all on his head and start with consciousness as central to the universe, derive new laws of Physics, and hopes to mathematically re-derive concepts such as string theory and quantum mechanics. (He mentions those terms, but I wonder if he even knows what they mean.) In the process, some impressive images and videos are shown, but absolutely no maths, observations or science is used to back this idea up in any way, whatsoever.

The video is formulaic. He starts with concepts that we can all agree with, is careful to sound reasonable, uses appropriate scientific jargon, gradually increases the jargon so that it becomes a little harder to follow, and while he still has your trust, introduces he nonsense concepts.

It is certainly not a theory. I don't think it even fits the technical definition of a hypothesis. It is just an abstract concept presented without any basis in support. There is no more support for this concept than, for example, Brokeback's earlier "are we all just a part of a computer simulation ?" concept, or the Matrix concept.

I doubt there is "growing support" for this idea. If there is, then I despair.

By the way, nobody is saying "consciousness... just arise[s] magically in the brain from nowhere...".

13

Watchtower UK's Robert Li asks: "Can you lend me £75 million?"

by Fay Dehr in

anyone got a spare £75 million, for a good cause?.

go to the uk charity commission accounts for watchtower bible and tract society of great britain: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/documentlist.aspx?registeredcharitynumber=1077961&subsidiarynumber=0&doctype=accountlist

now download the accounts for 2017. see page.4 (signed by robert li on p.7, april 2018) .

shepherdless

Hi lastmanstanding and Fay Dehr,

i don’t live in the UK. I am not the right person to take this on. It does seem to me that the charity status of Watchtower is dubious. There must be plenty of people here that could look more closely into it, etc.

13

Watchtower UK's Robert Li asks: "Can you lend me £75 million?"

by Fay Dehr in

anyone got a spare £75 million, for a good cause?.

go to the uk charity commission accounts for watchtower bible and tract society of great britain: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/documentlist.aspx?registeredcharitynumber=1077961&subsidiarynumber=0&doctype=accountlist

now download the accounts for 2017. see page.4 (signed by robert li on p.7, april 2018) .

shepherdless

That is interesting, lastmanstanding. Here is IBSA’s basis for remaining a charity, according to their own financial statements:

Public benefit
In addition to being a religious entity, the Trustees confirm that they have taken into consideration Charity Commission guidance on public benefit in exercising their powers and duties. This is amply demonstrated in this report and in particular the following:
1.Bible literature we have supplied without charge to congregations ofJehovah's Witnesses in the UK, has been distributed gratis, by those congregations, to interested members ofthe public in their local communities, in the following quantities: 14,836,474 copies of The Watchtower and Awake! and 23,805,463 other publications including, Bibles and Bible study aids, brochures, tracts and invitations to meetings.
2. Our conventions for Bible education are widely advertised by personal invitations delivered by individual Jehovah's Witnesses to the public nationwide. Admission is free.

Hardly any better than Scientology.