i came across this phrase in the context of quantum mechanics.
it's called the gell-mann's totalitarian principle.. i thought it summed up life in the watchtower quite accurately..
I was thinking It's much the same as believing in the Darwinian story and having to support Dawkins and the neo-Darwinists who use science to push their own scientist agenda. They are victims of what Raymond Tallis calls Darwinitis and Neuromania! Hahaha
Just pulling your leg, but you get the sentiment Kate xx
i came across this phrase in the context of quantum mechanics.
it's called the gell-mann's totalitarian principle.. i thought it summed up life in the watchtower quite accurately..
I see your point. It's a very black and white statement. It doesn't allow for freedom of choice. Kate xx
i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
Physics gave way to chemistry which gave way to biology which gave way to evolution which gave way to me which gave way to boring replies on a forum...ta da!-Snare
Hilarious! hahaha. I think I cling to God for a few possible reasons
- I was predisposed that way
- I am suffering CD from being in a cult and haven't deprogramed yet
- I have developed into a religious individual
- It gives me fluffy comfort
- It's just a matter of perspective
I am not sure why either, but I want to explore why some believe and others do not that's why there are all the "boring replies"
out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.
my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.
the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .
I say this because the formation of stereoisomers has several biotic and abiotic explinations and I am unsure why you would give that as a top reason.-snare
Just because we have discovered how God did it, it doesn't mean he didn't do.
I have come to the conclusion that science can niether prove or disprove God. For me I have enough information to remain firm in my belief. But that is just my perspective. I am interested in following science and if it ever produces evidence that an intelligent Creator cannot exist I will change my view. I am open to new discoveries.
I hope that answers your question.
Kate xx
krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.
hence his science is biased.
being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.
jookbeard try reading the whole thread before you comment, you just look silly.
Snare, you make some good points, as I said maybe I am bias, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and read "A universe from nothing"
Thanks for your input into this thread
Kate xx
i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
As way of Review, to keep to the topic.
I conclude science can niether prove or disprove God. Scientists don't work that way.
I still believe in God as the creator, and I am interested in how he creates life. I am interested in Powner's work. Does he seem credible to you?
Kate xx
i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
I am particularly curious given your professed career as a chemist and earlier denial that physics is related to chemisty.-Viv
More entirely predictable attacks. Is it possible for you to point out a post where I claim to be a chemist? No. It was cofty that called me a chemist. I am a simple chemical analyst and don't professs to be anything more. This involves simply analysing chemical data.
But yet again you have taken things off topic. I suspect that is your motive to deliberately side track posters with personal attacks. I am not making stuff up about you but it's my opinion that you are confrontational and aggressive in a way that I find unhelpful to most posters here. I have had lots of PMs about you from posters who agree with my opinion.
out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.
my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.
the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .
One reason I believe God is the creator is because of the chemistry of enantiomers I have other reasons too. Kate xx
P.S. Well done on starting your job in July. I hope you get a chance to get away for a holiday in the summer xx
krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.
hence his science is biased.
being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.
Scientists DO NOT talk about god in their day job, he doesn't come up, there is no reason for him to as there is absoloutely no shred of evidence that he even exists in any of the scientific fields.-snare
Krauss as an author talks about God, he is anti-theist. I have not yet read any of his books, but as I said earlier in the post I will read "A universe from nothing". I don't find him credible because he is anti-theist. Any scientist who is anti-theist is prejudice.
I would not class myself as a theist, but I am not against anyone who choses to believe that God answers their prayers and helps them. I don't agree with their beliefs, but I understand their perspective. I predict Krauss will have a style much the same as Dawkins so after reading Dawkins I don't particularly feel attracted to reading another atheist activists work. But I will to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You're right snare, I am bias, it's likely I am still working through CD, I can't rule it out.
Aren't we all bias though?
Kate xx
when i first started going on "other" jw websites my head was spinning so i didn't say anything to my kids about what i had read.
steve hassan's material helped a lot it was when i read that, that i realised i need to free my kids.. i got a lot of advice from jwn too.. my daughter had moved cities and went to the hall we used to visit frequently.
things changed when she became a member instead of just a visitor.
KiddingMe,
So it looks like your son won't be getting baptised. I bet your pleased, his father will never shun him if that's the case.
Kate xx
