towerwatchman

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 263 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by towerwatchman

• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Unsure.

  Nobody is disputing that the universe had a beginning. I am not disputing that the universe had a beginning. I only asked that you do not use it as an argument because it is not proof that God created the universe.

  But it is the proof that the universe came from a timeless cognitive cause.

  You've repeated this a few times in response to me. Each time I ask what what cognition has to do with it but you repeat the same thing that caused the confusion in the first place. I'll ask you again; How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)? PLEASE do not copy and paste the same response, please rephrase.

  It is a bit confusing in the beginning. Look around, everything you see is temporal. Everything you see owes its existence to something prior. Every cause and effect from the beginning of the universe till now is temporal. Temporal causes bring about temporal effects. Same logic applies to timeless cause, they bring about timeless effects. [Everything mention up to now is non cognitive].

  For a timeless cause to bring about a temporal effect, it had to be a choice made by the timeless cause. If the timeless cause was non cognitive the effect will be timeless also.

  Since we are re-pasting: Scientists have as much proof of parallel universes (please google it) as creationists have of the existence of God if we are being fair. Yes some may argue against it, just like many argue against the existence of God.

  If you have a good link, post it, I will read it.

  In a previous post you described parallel universes as all speculation and metaphysics when others use this same argument against the existence of a God. God is described as being beyond our universe, therefor metaphysical, and belief in him/her is "speculation" (plus even further speculation of which God is the right one). Faith is speculation. Do you not see the irony in YOU arguing against parallel universes describing them as "speculation" and "metaphysics" when belief in God is described in the EXACT same way?

  The historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming. We have Biblical and external evidence that Jesus lived, died, was buried and resurrected in Jerusalem. Note, it is one thing to start a religion based on the resurrection of someone in a faraway land a long time ago; and it is another thing for a new faith, anchored in the resurrection of a man, takes off in the very city that man was crucified and buried, in less than a year. Jesus had many enemies. All they had to do was produce a body, anybody, after several days it would have been unrecognizable. But nobody did. No one produced a body. Why? Because the tomb was empty.

  The prophetic element in the Old Testament that is fulfilled in the New Testament, we see the miraculous. We have 66 books, written by over 40 authors, over 1500 years, books on prophecy, philosophy, and history. After 2000 years of textural scrutiny, the hardest skeptic will tell you there is no document in early history that has the internal collaboration, documentation- historical and archaeological that the Bible has.

  f I were to agree with all your arguments and agree that there is an intelligent designer, what evidence is there to say that this is God? What evidence is there to say that it is God that created the universe and not a group of advanced, cognitive inter-dimensional beings who reside in another universe who had the power to create our universe? Who's to say our universe is not a simulation created by some other advanced alien being? Please google simulation theory and please do not respond saying it is all "speculation" and "metaphysics" without agreeing that belief in God is all "speculation" and "metaphysics".

  All you are doing is moving the goal post back. Unless these being are eternal, they have a cause also.

  Why are there so many religions?

  Because when someone wants to affirm a truth, there will always be someone wanting to affirm the opposite. Truth by definition is exclusive, so it excludes all other systems. Every world view is exclusive.

  Why are there so many denominations within each?

  Unity is not uniformity.
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Brianfloss

  Admittadly fear is what I used to feel. 40 years of trying to worship a god that would not reveal himself. A book of contradictory riddles that allow those who claim to understand them, to minipulate and control others, abandoning completely those who ask questions, they have no answers to. They break up families,they cover up abuse, they deny medical care, they limit education all in the name of a god who IS LOVE. Fear? No not fear. Dredging up the past? Ha! To your god a day is a 1000 years so 2008 is not a very deep dredge and, frankly the argument is the same on your side in those old posts, So what are you afraid of.

  Allow me to ask this question. The wrong that you experienced, was that a logical outworking of what Jesus taught, or was it contrary to Jesus’ teachings? Judge a movement by its originator, not its followers. Some followers will always abuse in order to control. That is human nature, especially in religious matters gone wrong. I have been burned once also. I believe ‘fool me one shame on you’, “fool me twice shame on me.’ Wake up one morning and realized everything I was taught was a lie. I did not give up on God, I gave up on the WTS.

  But if there is a god who requires that you believe in him for salvation ( whatever that means to you) , why not give some compelling evidence to mankind, or screw mankind why not give some compelling evidence to me I have certainly given an honest effort searching. He allegedly gave us the Bible but the Bible doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Garden of eden, flood. 40 years wandering in the dessert. The list goes on. Even if science has been deceived by the devil why were the people that lived thousands of years ago allowed to see miracles and tangeble evidence of god but we must rely on faith alone. It's backwards there understanding of the world would have been more likely to let faith be their guide. Surely god knew that science would say that man was far older then eden. That the animals we have today couldn't be here from a worldwide flood just a few thousand years ago. He knew that there would be no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people lost in the desert for 40 years. And whether or not science is right or the devil is blinding mans eyes, why do ancient people get to see god and we don't.

  The historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming. The prophetic element in the Old Testament that is fulfilled in the New Testament, we see the miraculous. We have 66 books, written by over 40 authors, over 1500 years, books on prophecy, philosophy, and history. After 2000 years of textural scrutiny, the hardest skeptic will tell you there is no document in early history that has the internal collaboration, documentation- historical and archaeological that the Bible has.

  The problem is not more evidence, that problem is that we want it our way. Again I am sorry for what happened. Man abusing religion to control others does not equate to there being no God.
• 
  7

  The Modern Mind

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we believe in marx freud and darwin.

  we believe everything is ok as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.. we believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.. we believe in the therapy of sin.. we believe that adultery is fun.. we believe that sodomy’s ok.. we believe that taboos are taboo.. we believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary.. the evidence must be investigated, and you can prove anything with evidence.. we believe there’s something in horoscopes, ufo’s and bent spoons.. jesus was a good man just like buddha, mohammed, and ourselves.. he was a good moral teacher though we think, his good morals were bad.. we believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was.. they all believe in love and goodness.. they only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, god, and salvation.. we believe that after death comes the nothing, because when you ask the dead what happens.

  they say nothing.. if death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  We believe in Marx Freud and Darwin

  We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

  We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.

  We believe in the therapy of sin.

  We believe that adultery is fun.

  We believe that sodomy’s OK.

  We believe that taboos are taboo.

  We believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary.

  The evidence must be investigated, and you can prove anything with evidence.

  We believe there’s something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons.

  Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.

  He was a good moral teacher though we think, His good morals were bad.

  We believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was.

  They all believe in love and goodness.

  They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

  We believe that after death comes the Nothing, because when you ask the dead what happens

  they say nothing.

  If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps

  Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

  We believe in Masters and Johnson

  What’s selected is average. What’s average is normal. What’s normal is good.

  We believe in total disarmament.

  We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.

  Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

  We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

  This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.

  We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.

  Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter.

  We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

  We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

  If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

  State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!

  It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

  Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  whatshallicallmyself

  What is your point.
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Kepler

  Species do vanish, but they vanish as they appear. There is no transitional species. As to the new variety that appear, they way they are now is how appeared. Again no transitional.
  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Caedes

  Yes that is from Stephen Myers. Copied from a website wrong. Copied from his book yes. So I am guilty of not citing, As if the pro evolutionist in this discussion cite what they copy and paste. Either way that is a straw man argument. Why not address the topic instead of attacking character. Does something become untrue because it was copied?
  
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  brainfloss

  Every heard of a typo?
  
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Stephen myers

  You are correct it is foxes not wolves. Either way at the end you have a domesticated fox. That is microevolution, not macro. Same thing Darwin witness with the finches, the beaks changed but they were still finches. You still have foxes. Also notice that the researchers were picking the most tame, and docile. It was not natural selection but man making intelligent choices. That falls under intelligent design.
  
• 
  99

  2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  2 peter 1 = deity of christ.

  2 pe.

  1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  Earnest

  Our and Lord are genitive. God and Father 'belong' to the 'our Lord'
• 
  205

  Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

  morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

  using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  towerwatchman

  whatshallicallmyself

  What is your point.