Posts by Shining One

23

Ever think about going BACK?

by jeeprube in

i haven't been to a meeting for 3 or 4 years now.

(it's been so long i can't really remember).

but lately i've considered going back.

Undercover,
I got to do just what you suggested. Before my wife and I DA'd we got to witness to JWs at my door and car groups. It was great! I had a lot of harmless loking literature and asked them some questions about their beliefs. I asked them to have some elders stop by and discuss the articles. Before we were done, we were the talk of the area congos. We are rather well known around here and I have ayounger brother who still serves as an elder. I am afraid that I was very embarrasing to him. I pray that he someday sees the falsehoods of this cult. I ended up confronting all of my siblings and you know what, the inactive ones were the worst to deal with!
Rex

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

Shining One

Hamster,
Christianity is not the parody you see through history. That is human attempts to live within their idea of religion. Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus. It is living one's life as Christ commanded, not as we believe He commanded. You can't lay the decadence at the foot of the cross.
The savior of the world came and died that we may live, and live more abundantly. It is a practical yet difficult way to live. The promise is that the Lord of glory offers life eternal to those who would call on His name for salvation. He paid the price but if I want to have my account cleared for eternity then my obligation is to accept that life. I can do nothing to earn my salvation. It is a gift, that's what they don't tell you in Watchtower World. They deny that, they deny Christ and they rob people of eternal life.
God Bless you,
Rex

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

Shining One

Damsel,

You obviously do not see the logical trap they have fallen into in the thread that Alan began trying to refute my ICR link. Your boys have just been checkmated but they refuse to admit it! Sorry to burst your bubble. BTW, it's easy to call people names to hide the fact that you have no argument....
Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Alan,
>What utter nonsense. People from cultures that have nothing to do with Christianity are quite able to argue rationally. I believe it was the ancient Greeks who first formalized many of what we today call "the laws of logic".
Your statement is extremely ironic, because here you and Morris are arguing completely irrationally, with Morris telling out and out lies to defend his God, and you have the gall to claim that Christianity is the very source of logic and reasoning.>

Morris is not 'telling lies' at all. He sees the data through his own presuppositions, just like you and the rest of us! Where does logic come from? Can you measure, observe what belongs in the metaphysical realm? You don't like 'Christianity' yet logical argumentation is part of the theology in Romans. You can discount that too and just say Deism. It will also suffice because it defeats your philosophy just as well.....
Don't you have the humility to admit that science is nowhere close to solving the origins question? You are misleading a lot of people when you pretend that the belief in God is a fantasy.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.

Man, being made in God’s image (Biblical definition!), is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. (important!!!!)
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory (see your assertion about Morris above).
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe. Are you doing this, Alan?

As you know we discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. Now pay attention to this:
We do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought. Thought is purely metaphysical and so is God!
Where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? First Cause is the end of any idea that naturalists can debunk Deism. Observe the intricate laws and realities that make up the universe we live in. Science cannot answer the origins question: it is beyond the scope of what we can observe.
Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

>Thanks for this thorough debunking. I honestly don't know how you manage to keep your stomach while wading through such putrid argruments. I'm glad someone has the patience.

Debunking of what, Runningboy? It seems to me your atheist bible stories is rather foolish in light of the lack of valid argumentation in it. You don't know how to interpret scripture, yet you are arrogant enough to critisize it. I also see that you resort to the final tactic of the fool: you make light of the fact that a valid argument has appeared that disputes your own assertions.
Now if you contend your intent was to write a witty parody of scripture then I can go with that.
Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Hi Alan,
Readers will note that you gave no valid explanation for the logical trap that you stepped into....you are putting out so much smoke that you think no one will see the basic issue. The issue is that your reasoning is never going to prove or disprove anything. Do you think this one is on Anthony Flue's mind?

ANTHONY FLUE IS NOW A DEIST.

You just can't wish God away using logic. God is absolutely above logic. God is absolutely above all characteristics of the physical world. He is transcendant. You have a philosophy, a religion and it is called 'naturalism'. It is based on your own presuppositions. It is not necessary for me to answer your arguments. They are taken from a philosophy that you happen to agree with and I disagree with. You don't have enough data, Alan. The question is open until the data is in. Until then your argument makes no more sense than you say mine does.

Those who put their trust in science as the key to understanding the universe are embarrassed by the fact that science never discovers truth.
One of the insoluble problems of the scientific method is the fallacy of induction; induction, in fact is a problem for all forms of empiricism (learning by experience). The problem is simply this: Induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matter how many crows, for example, you observe to be black the conclusion that all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple: Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not colorblind, and are actually looking at crows, you have not and cannot see all crows. Millions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of the planet. Millions more will hatch after you die. Induction is always a fallacy.
There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matter this way:

"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing,." If I were to advance such an argument I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."

Recognizing that induction is always fallacious, philosophers of science in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, developed the notion that science does not rely on induction at all. Instead, it consists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refutations of conjectures. Here is a big problem: when they find data that is out of the range they expect and predict they toss it! But in their attempts to save science from logical disgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to knowledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. Karl Popper, one of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers of science, wrote:

"First although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it... we know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... in science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement...our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths."

Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about the universe, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which begins by denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledge at all. It is self-refuting.
So you see, Alan. You have really discovered nothing at all. You have simply exchanged one belief system for another that is just as flawed. The same corruption exists in the halls of science as exists within the Kingdom Halls! You are a fallen being in a universe that is winding down after the First Cause. This world is decaying, in entropy.
Honesty would be your admission that you have a belief system that works for you but it is no better than anyone elses.

Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

TD
Can you observe the 'genetic drift' alleged in the fossil record? Evolution hinges on the millions and millions of years such and such 'happened' and is unprovable. Creationists are not redefining anything here.
Mutations are 'genetic drift' and they are universally useless. How did the eye develop? Evolutionists are resorting to a theory where sudden changes occured in these cases. That sounds like a 'miracle' to me!
Rex

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

Shining One

>Perhaps if you didn't lump everyone together and state our so-called beliefs for us more people would answer your statement.

I am truly sorry about that. Since know one else is disputing what the naturalistic bunch are saying then I assume you are all in agreement when they make statements. I get so many reactionaries chiming in that I have trouble sorting out the rest's opinions, especially when they are silent.
R.

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Hey Alan,

Do you know the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution? I smell fish here! What is it that creatinists admit happens but do not hold to the other?

>Demonstrably false. Evolution has demonstrably occurred in the very recent past. When Europeans began to colonize the Americas, a certain species of fruit fly that lives and mates exclusively on the fruit of mulberry trees hitched a ride to North America. Over the next several hundred years, this fruit fly split into two species, one continuing to live on mulberries, and the other on apple trees. That this is a new species is proved by the fact that the two species do not interbreed in the wild, breed at different times of the year, and keep to their respective fruit trees even in areas where plenty of mulberry and apple trees exist in the same place.>

What type of evolution is that, Great Brain, 'macro' or 'micro' and which is admitted by creationists?
Why did you waste so much time and brainpower 'reinventing the wheel', just to show your 'intellectual superiority'? LOL Methinks it is smarter to post a link and let people figure it out on their own!
Have a nice day!
Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Let me narrow this down a little, Great Brain. You said this:

>Morris starts off with a logical red herring, setting the tone for the rest of his silly article:
Creationists have often pointed out that evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true.
This is a logical red herring, because nothing can be proved by science to be true. Rather, all scientific theories are provisional, since new information might come to light that requires a theory to be revised or even scrapped. As Stephen Jay Gould said, with regard to theories that some people view as fact>

Where does logic come from, eh Alan? Where does your reasoning come from in the first place?
How can you, with a naturalistic presupposition, account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are concepts of the mind and not physical, energy, or motion?"

Did you get that last statement?
Laws of logic come from God. God is outside of His creation, He is by very nature transcendent. He even gives us the name, "I am that I am". He is the only self-existent being. Logic is a reflection of God's nature, therefore the laws of logic are absolute! They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
Your atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
Furthermore, We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
The scientific method depends upon logic; because you are reasoning and observing.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and you have nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. You can't use logic to try and disprove God’s existence, nor can you prove the naturalistic explanation for origins! If you are assuming the laws of logic are absolute, you are borrowing from the Christian worldview! Your 'evidence' is no better than Morris' as you would have us believe.

Go away Alan, you are just as intellectually dishonest as you so often accuse others of being. Anyone who makes a argument in conflict with your own PRESUPPOSITIONS is dishonest in your view. The blade cuts both ways.
Sheesh, talk about intellectual dishonesty! Pot, Kettle, Black!
Rex