Posts by EdenOne

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

EdenOne

RO is as much 'gay, therefore, non-JW' as I am Dolly Parton.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Oblivion can only be concluded starting from Atheism and Scientism.

Wrong. Oblivion is a logical deduction: If such a thing as a soul exists, and nothingness is the condition of the soul before its creation, then, in accordance with the Bible, when the soul ceases to exist (and there are plenty of Bible passages that claim that the soul can indeed cease to exist, much more in fact that passages that say that the soul is inherently immortal; in fact St. Paul asserts that the soul can become immortal by divine grace, thus proving that the soul isn't created immortal by default), it becomes nothingness - oblivion. My position doesn't stem from atheism (I'm not atheist) nor Scientism (I don't follow that). There is observable evidence that doesn't require the scientific method. The scientific method is the most reliable way of collecting and interpreting evidence, but it's not the only one, of course. 99% of our daily decisions aren't based on the scientific method.

Using only the first premise of St. Anselm's ontological argument we can reach the Christian concept of God.

No we don't, and I've shown you why not. We can reach a theoretical concept of a god, but certainly not the Christian god. You're in denial.

I refuted your concept of God pointing your defined being must be unstable (bound by nothing). Stability is greater than instability. Do you disagree with this statement? Do you think this statement is a personal preference?

In accordance with St. Anselm's axiom, I thought of a god that is bound by nothing. That's not the Christian god, who, according to your belief, is bound by his nature and by the impossibility of be evil or do evil. My logic is impeccable. Yours is a red herring.

Second, it's YOUR conclusion that a god bound by nothing must necessarily be unstable. It's a non-sequitur. Why would such god be "unstable"? I can think of a god that has some criteria, even a predictable criteria, on how he choses to act within a spectrum of extremely good to extremely evil. It follows, then that I don't agree that such god would be unstable. Let's say such good would choose to consistently be evil. That wouldn't be "unstable", would it? The god that I'm thinking of can chose to be consistently good, or consistently bad. He can also choose when, and how and where to be such. That makes him a greater god than one that is bound by whatever you can think of.

I'm not saying such god exists; I don't know. I see no evidence of it. But I'm merely pointing out that such god is much more consistent with the observable reality of this world, where good and evil co-exist, that the purported god of Christianity. What I do know, is that mere logic can defeat the claim that St. Anselm's axioms of any help to prove the existence of the christian god.

JM, I'm not here to persuade you to abandon your faith in the god you have crafted for yourself (or that someone else crafted and you accepted it so); if it gives meaning and purpose to your life, that's absolutely fine, just as long as you don't impose your worldview on others. I'm just pointing out that the logic behind it is flawed and detached from the reality that can be observed universally. And thus ends my participation on this three.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Oblivion is a much more rational (i.e. consistent with the observable evidence) condition than hell (nihil). A god of love wouldn't create souls to subject them afterwords to a perpetual state of nihil when oblivion is available as a choice. Again, your belief isn't consistent with a god of love.

And you still haven't provided an satisfactory, logical answer to the fact that St. Anselm's axiom logically disproves the god of christianity that cannot do evil. You have just stated your personal preferences as to which qualities are "greater".

18

New teaching =There was no "Faithful slave" for 1900 years until Charles Russell!!

by Witness 007 in

shocking video from jw.org shows the "new light" that there was no slave class handing out spiritual food for 1900 years!!

so the original governing body became apostate and fell apart.

charles russell re-started the faithful slave even though the watchtower admits he learned everything he ever knew from the "second adventists".

EdenOne

Kinda shocking statement, but I think he was going ahead of the official doctrine. Or going back to the days of Rutherford ....

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Perry, parroting pseudo-science from a website such as AmericanVision.org, with a "Dr. Joel McDurmon" quoting from an article from the notorious UK's Daily Mail that misrepresents by miles a serious study paper “Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief” within Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, won't help you in any way.

From his facebook page: Joel McDurmon, is the author of multiple books and hundreds of articles, and regularly serves as a lecturer and preacher.

You, like many theists, prefer "alternative facts" - kinda reminds me Trump administration. Dishonest, to say the least, more than pathethic or willfully ignorant.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.
Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.

In case you didn't notice, I wasn't challenging the logic of St. Anselm's axiom; I can even agree with its logic. What I said, and you wholly ignored it, is that it actually proves that the god of christianity is no god. Why? Because I can think of a being greater than the god of Christianity. Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature. Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria, thus making the god of christianity no god at all.

You can wiggle as you want, argueing about what qualities are "greater" - they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain? Again, you are crafting a god according to your wishes. Nothing new, mankind has been doing it for millenia. Your own logic defeats your reasoning.

Actually it would make much more sense if god was capable of evil. That would make much more sense with the world we live in.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Can god change his nature? Can he be evil? Does he give himself that choice? How do you know? Was he evil in the past? Has he regreted it?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

Stability is greater than instability.

Flexibility is greater than inflexibility. Choice is greater than no choice. According to St. Anselm, your god is no god.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

That means you have crafted a god according to your wishes and needs. It also means you're avoiding the question.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

EdenOne

John Mann, you said some pages ago:

He's bound by His nature. He can't lie or be evil, for instance.

Then you adhere to Anselm's ontological axiom, according to which:

"[god is something] that than which nothing greater can be thought"

Well, here's the thing: I can think of a being that isn't bound by anything. That would be "god" in my mind. Doesn't matter if I like that idea or not, or if I believe it or not, that's the greatest being I can think of. Yet, as per your belief, the god of christianity is bound by his nature and the impossibility of doing evil. Therefore, since he isn't the greatest thing that can be thought, the god of christianity cannot be god.

That is, if we go by your flawed logic.