UNDENIABLE LOGIC. Some cherish it while others dismiss it. Which are you?

by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  The smallest cell in a man's body is the sperm cell. It is just one tiny cell.

  A woman's egg is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

  Yet, these single cells produce physics professors, circus acrobats and Tupac Shakur!

  How is it so impossible that we descended from a single-celled organism when we can hardly wrap our mind around what we actually know?

  but, but, but THIS TALKS FOR BOTH SIDES ... Now what about what we can't see?
  Again your rejection of one side is more about your own way to expect God to be

  Actually, I was simply addressing the issue of what is "difficult to accept" in terms of "known" once-celled processes. Nothing more than that.

  If we base our world view on what we DON'T know it is negative knowledge that drives our belief system. That is what the fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance deals with specifically. In the Middle Ages theologians argued that the planets were pushed around in their orbits by angels. Is it a good argument to try and prove that by saying, "Well, I don't know why angels can't be doing that, therefore; they must be doing that."

  What we CAN'T SEE is either detectable and measurable in a quantifiable way, or; what we CAN'T SEE isn't there at all.
• 

  RAF

  If we base our world view on what we DON'T know it is negative knowledge that drives our belief system. That is what the fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance deals with specifically.

  This answer is more than interesting

  Again you are turning it your way and that's a fallacy (you are talking about something you have none experience about so YOU don't Know (ignorance is on your side), I'm talking about experience which gives me a clue and if you have a clue you have to wonder and if more you feel like something is the way it seems to be - otherwise it's a denial - not logic) ... you see what I mean or or you don't?

  when you are talking about ignorance in this matter (talk about yours) not those of others since you don't know and haven't any experience about this.

  What we CAN'T SEE is either detectable and measurable in a quantifiable way, or; what we CAN'T SEE isn't there at all.

  ... keep this thread in mind and will talk about it in 10 years ...

  Eddited to add : think about it ... you are the one arguing about scientific discovery along the time and that's what you come up with?
• 

  Terry

  when you are talking about ignorance in this matter (talk about yours) not those of others since you don't know and haven't any experience about this.

  I'm afraid we are talking at cross purposes here.

  Your position is Subjective and Opinion.

  I'm talking about what is Objective (quantifiable, measurable, testable) and repeatable as an experiment.

  The standard of science is that something is a FACT when it is the same for everybody who measures it.

  Experiments must be repeatable. You can't have one scientist with one set of data in Nova Scotia and another scientist in Bermuda with completely different data and then say they are describing the same fact.

  Human OPINION is just that. Faith and Belief can pretend there is a basis in fact for faithing and believing. In some instances this will be demonstrable. But, in the long haul, LOGIC will have very little to do with it in a scientific sense of objective analysis.

  Otherwise, why make FAITH the standard rather than EVIDENCE?
• 

  RAF

  I'm talking about what is Objective (quantifiable, measurable, testable) and repeatable as an experiment.

  So objectivity is related to that for you? (that's not objectivity those are scientific proof) ... stop hiding behind science to make your arguments (science is not over - I guess that if more than 50 % of scientists themselves don't claim anything in particular there is a reason - they are cautious and they probably know why they have to be) ... That's being objective which is somehow related to logic (you don't know, you don't claime)

  yeah the problem is that you are not objective in asking for something repeatable nor scienfically testable since it is not something under contrôl and that we first have to define (in every details for any verification) ... Also testable is equivalent as experiment even if only one for the one who experienced it !!! also if there was any EVIDENCE it wouldn't really be about faith - but evidence.

  Still When something happened (even if you don't know what exactly) it happened and it's not because you can't make it happen again that it didn't happened saying the reverse wouldn't be objective regarding what happened but again a denial.

  And you confused experience with opinion here (I mean it's not the opinion which leaded to the experience but experiences which lead to an opinion and we can only call it an opinion just because theres is nothing to prove in fact) Again Faith all kind (if it is not something inculcated) is not a personnal choice - it is a personnal evidence - you just feel connected things looks very clear and simple you're not asking questions relatively to how or what things shoud be (the way you want it), you are just observing, listening to get the answers because since you've understand it's all about experience you know it will take time and that nothing will fall in your plate without you really want to understand.

  And I'm done with this topic ... if it's only about repeating well ... you can take the whole room
• 

  lalliv01

  Terry said:

  So, the Universe had to come from something.

  But, God didn't come from anything, right?

  Terry, you changed the the focus from the universe and it's origin to God and His origins. You and others here seem to believe there is no god, I think.

  That's okay, forget about God. But science has proven that you cannot get something from nothing. Some scientists believe that the universe started from a period,

  a "singularity", that exploded. There are scientists that believe that because of the laws of nature, as now known, it is impossible for a singularity to exist. Scientists,some,

  use a so-called "string theory" to explain such singularity--which leads other scientists to theorize about parallel universes--. So, what's my point? That sincere

  truth-loving scientist keep looking for answers as to what caused the existence of the univere, without prejudice. Truth-loving scientists want to know, since they now know that you

  can't get something from nothing, Who or what caused the universe to exist? Where did all matter and energy come from? As far as science knows for now, it came

  from SOME THING, it did not come from nothing. Someone tell me WHAT!
• 

  Terry

  Terry said:

  So, the Universe had to come from something.

  But, God didn't come from anything, right?

  Terry, you changed the the focus from the universe and it's origin to God and His origins. You and others here seem to believe there is no god, I think.

  Actually, what I said was to demonstrate something many believers overlook completely...including yourself.

  Once you set your standard for what is believable, acceptable, provable and such it is illogical to abandon that standard.

  The argument for a Creator goes like this:

  Everything has to come from something....etc. etc.

  When the creationist gets to God as the ultimate cause they stop and abandon their own standard! It is illogical to do so. The next question needs to be, "Where did God come from?" But, creationists just shrug it off and pretend to themselves that their case is proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

  You see, the Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) argument is artificial. Nobody every stated that the Universe came from nothing until Augustine and Aquinas got ahold of the argument.

  The ancients believed there was always a something. God, they reasoned. worked with that something and fashioned it into this and that.

  So, I referenced this in my post without stating it verbatim. I assumed everybody knew this.

  The universe has always existed and doesn't need a Creator.

  So, you are left with the following.

  If the Universe doesn't need a Creator you don't need to invent one.

  If the Universe DOES need a creator, then, the Creator needs a creator too.

  See?
• 

  lalliv01

  Terry,

  You said the universe has always existed and doesn't need a Creator.

  Truthfully, to me, that's like saying, from a theist's perspective, that God has always existed

  and He didn't need a creator either.

  What I'm saying is that just like scientists searching for the cause of it all, so can theists.

  I believe theists and scientists can live and work side by side without a problem--they are

  on the same quest. Atheists and all others,IMO, who are seeking truth, also join in this

  search for truth. Thinking persons realize that the odds of our even being here are

  infinitesimal (I'm thinking of all the sperm and ova that had to come together at the right

  time and the right places down thriugh the ages), so, now, since we are here, what is it

  all about? why did the universe, or whatever, give us the ability to reason and think about

  infinity, a future, yes, even a God? Why did evolution equip us for this, a need, a thought,

  yes, the idea of God? Did someone in our distant past evolve a need to worship a spirit

  being and we, as hapless descendents, inherited this trait? WHY?

  IMO, evolution didn't work according to the law of evolution here.
• 

  hmike

  It is not logical to believe that Jesus or Peter walked on water - do you believe it happened? If so then you have thrown logic and rational thinking ability out of the window.

  A lot of things are routinely rejected because "I haven't seen it happen...I haven't heard of it happening from a reliable source...it hasn't happened in my world, therefore, it hasn't happened at all...maybe not even ever." Should we so readily dismiss something because it doesn't fit our idea of reality? What if you had told people hundreds of years ago that man could travel to the moon, or transplant a human heart? Not possible in their world, no way, no how. They'd certify you insane and lock you up or run you out of town.

  There are a lot of things some people dare to say are impossible now. But in the future...? And maybe in the past.

  Impossible because WE can't duplicate it or understand it at this time? Things were done in the ancient world that we marvel at even today.

  I submit that your process started with a faulty premise.
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:

  The standard of science is that something is a FACT when it is the same for everybody who measures it.

  Actually its "statistical probability", with quantum science starting to throw up a few explanations for the aberations that break the usual rules.