donkey

Joined

• started 79 topics
• posted 1,321 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by donkey

• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Danny,

  Why is the problem of the integers boring? There is an infinite number of integers as well as an infinite number of even integers.

  You brain tells you that the number of integers is larger, even though both are infinite.
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  One evening, while everyone was out at a bar-b-que, one of the hotels burned to the ground

  how is that possible if the hotel had an infinite number of rooms?
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Infinity is a really funny subject Danny.

  If you are bored then solve this problem: Are there more integers or are there more even numbered integers?
• 
  20

  an excellent question

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  why would an omnipotent god need to become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself, so that his creations may escape the wrath of himself?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Sounds like a delusional Bipolar when you put it that way.

  I agree. But then what part of the way I put it is incorrect? Some may find subtleties to differ on - but in the grand scheme of things the question certainly seems spot on to me.
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  well well well

  It appears to be too difficult. Or perhaps many of the obtuse answers appear that way because of WHERE we find ourselves. Perhaps I had JW's too firmly in mind when I expected partcipation in this thread.

  So let us look at a reasonably intelligent JW and apply the theory of falsibility to that person. In order to answer the question properly they would have to ask themselves some other questions such as:

  What are my core beliefs?

  They would then start out at the obvious ones such as God's name is Jehovah. God's son is Jesus. We are his Witnesses. We belong to his organization. We have to preach as part of the sign of the last days. The last days started in 1914....We know this because God's kingdom fell in 607.

  Get the point?

  So if they sincerely examine their beliefs under falsifiablity theory they will have to say:

  If 607 is NOT the date that God's kingdom fell then 1914 is not the start of the last days and if 1914 is not the start of the last days then the organization of JWs is not who they say they are because their modern day prophecies concerning 1917, 1919 and 1935 will be based on an incorrect starting event. And thus they have a chain that depends on falsifiability.

  Now back to those of us who are xJWs and who still believe in God and/or Jesus. Perhaps an approach would be to ask yourself "do I still believe in any doctines?" That would be a good start. A doctrine is a stake in the ground, a claim. A claim can be put to the test of falsifiability.

  There is no need to feel as though your beliefs now are too loose. I respect you for having whatever beliefs you have. All I intend to do is refine my own thoughts, thinking and beliefs by particpating on a board such as this one. I am not afraid to challenge my own thinking or that of anyone else, that is how we grow.

  I am afterall a humble ass.
• 
  25

  Some Readers Owe An Apology

  by nickpark in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a day ago the following was posted and namecalled a "cult" although it champions the real truth which is that god welcomes diversity in views, unity coming from kindness rather than forced sameness of beliefs.

  would you like to apologize?

  hey there!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  You are right Nick/Nancy/whoever...

  An apology is owed!!! You owe me an apology for your rudeness and refusing to answer my honest question. Don't invite people to ask things and then call them snide etc.

  So please be forthcoming and apologize - just like Jesus would.
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  yes
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  NPY,

  You still avoided my question.
• 
  20

  an excellent question

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  why would an omnipotent god need to become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself, so that his creations may escape the wrath of himself?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  An active witness, would say that Jehovah and Jesus are two different people just to begin with. That answers half of your question.

  I know that is a JW answer. However, I have a version specially for them:

  Why would an omnipotent god need to have his own son become flesh in order to sacrifice his own son to himself, so that his creations may escape the wrath of himself?
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Define "God".

  A physician I have debated with in the past categorized that question this way:

  How can we argue about the existence of God if none of us can define that of which we are debating?

  There are several different quasi-definitions of God used on the various forums. The classic type is the anthropomorphic god. This God usually has a human personality with human emotions, human virtues, and human vices. These are manifested by jealousy, anger, rage, love, mercy, capriciousness, justice and injustice, insecurity (need for adoration as assurance of his supremacy), and forgiveness. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of all reality. This anthropomorphic god can range from the minimal anthropomorphism of Monotheistic Allah, to the marked human raging Monotheistic JHWH, to the every human Jesus Christ who is a God-human hybrid in a trinity that believers pretend to be Monotheism.

  There are relatively undefined or poorly defined gods such as the one recognised by Deists, Unitarians, and Bahais. This god is conscious but clearly not human. He or She may or may not have emotions. That is not defined. He/She has but one function. That is to create the universe and the rules by which it runs

  Then there is the totally undefined God, not of a particular religious school of thought. People say they believe in a god-creator but say that nothing can be known about this god.

  Another kind of god, believed by many American and probably all European scientists, possibly to avert the charge of Atheism is the Inanimate God. This god is defined, as perhaps Steven Hawking would say, as the elementary forces of nature and the unified field theory of reality. This god is not a conscious being. It has no personality. It is incapable of thinking (cognition). It knows nothing. But its action results in the formation of universes, beginning with a big bang from a tiny singularity, and accounts for all of the properties of energy and matter. Those innate properties account for the evolution of matter from energy and nanoparticles, and the evolution of life from atoms combining into a series of increasingly complex molecules. Life evolves through stages of mobility, which requires some self-awareness and reactivity to cognition and intelligence. Intelligence is merely an animal behaviour evolved in stages for adaptation. This adaptation includes finding food, finding reproductive mates, and avoiding predators. As such thinking and intelligence is not necessary for a creator god who needs no food, needs no reproductive mates, and need fear no predators. Such a creator-god needs intelligence no more than a sponge needs a computer keyboard.

  So in answer to your question - a believer can possibly identify what they mean by "God" and then look at the proof of falsifiability, just as a non-believer should do.

  Edited by - donkey on 24 November 2002 14:59:8