This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.

    By common sense you mean statistical consensus?

    Everything I said is completely unreasonable?

    Do you understand that's a subjective opinion of you, right?

    I'm trying to put my reasoning in a formal logical structure so you can point to an exact axiom and say "I don't accept this".

    Just saying that my entire argument is unreasonable it's not a meaningful thing to affirm. You must point it out where exactly the structure falls.

    My starting point is the St. Anselm's ontological argument. Please point out the flaws in it.

  • cofty
    cofty

    My OP does not require a formal argument in reply. It just invites an informal conversation. I offer 9 examples of observable things that don't easily reconcile the with the claims of Christians.

    You have hidden from inconvenient truths behind tons of incoherent and untestable assertions.

    The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    My OP does not require a formal argument in reply. It just invites an informal conversation. I offer 9 examples of observable things that don't easily reconcile the with the claims of Christians.
    You have hidden from inconvenient truths behind tons of incoherent and untestable assertions.
    The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.

    Just your opinion, cofty.

    A truly honest and sincere position must offer something very clear in turn.

    You offer Atheism that ironically is also a metaphysical position (you advocates against metaphysics).

    And you also offer Scientism that's another metaphysical position. This one you even deny to advocate. Are you using the BK tactic? (just kidding, I know it's not your intention and I really think you aren't even aware of being a follower of Scientism).

    Both things you offer are pure non sense IMHO. And your very position is very contradictory because you use metaphysics to deny/refute metaphysics.

    Agnosticism is a much more consistent position, for example.

    I know you think Catholicism is pure non sense but it's just your metaphysical opinion too.

    In the end we're still agreeing in disagree. But I think you're a very intelligent man and I have a lot of respect for you and as I said before you're the best of your kind in this forum.

  • Perry
    Perry
    • Are you demanding scientific evidence for a metaphysical discussion?
      No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.
      But Cofty, your idea of what is reasonable repeatedly appeals to the scientific method. Your materialist worldview is not consistent, but arbitrary. You borrow from the Christian worldview in order to attack it. For instance, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, a stable belief in what is reasonable is inappropriate where you claim that your reason (and existence) was born out of spontaneous appearance (a miracle), chance, disorder, mutation and social pressures alone.


      Reason and logic are the same everywhere regardless of these conditions. Why? And, why would you accept them to be so if they are evolving, like you? And, if they are not evolving anymore, at what point did your reasoned logic "arrive" to where you are now and how do you know it wont evolve in the future making your current logic nonsense? Your position opens up a litany of more questions than satisfying answers.

      Like it or not, the Christian worldview is consistent. I can trust the rules of logic and reason because I am made in the image of the eternal, unchanging First Cause. Since God "changeth not" I have a reasonable basis for logic & morals and not situational, arbitrary & inconsistent positions.

      The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.

      Invective like this is a sign of fear & desperation. No need for that. Your belief system is duly noted and well documented on this forum.

      I have been trying to think of an example to illustrate the absurdity of arbitrary treatment of evidence.

      ** If an orphan child presented himself, who would think that just because his father in unknown that the father MUST NOT exist?

      Conversely, would only children where the father presented himself, be viewed as having a father?





  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    In my view, a god that doesn't clearly, universally and unequivocally reveals himself to the creatures he requests worship from, isn't worth wasting time with.

    If a god is something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", then god should be the epitome of clarity, transparency and uncontroversial truth. None of the above applies to the purported god of christianity.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    Like it or not, the Christian worldview is consistent.

    Very consistent.

    Actually is the most consistent philosophical worldview that I know.

    And I know a lot of philosophical worldviews.

    Atheism and Scientism are the most flawed. Even more than JWism.



  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    In my view, a god that doesn't clearly, universally and unequivocally reveals himself to the creatures he requests worship from, isn't worth wasting time with.
    If a god is something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", then god should be the epitome of clarity, transparency and uncontroversial truth. None of the above applies to the purported god of christianity.

    But it's exactly like this, clearly as crystal.

    "Fax mentis incendium gloriae" and "Memo bis punitor delicatum". Like Willy Wonka said. LoL

    But while one stands in revolt and denial only a black cloud is visible.

    Don't let the Watchtower fill your vision with revolt. If so you will continue being a slave.

  • EdenOne
    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.


  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    Well, here's the thing: I can think of a being that isn't bound by anything.

    A being like this could turn to evil by random whim.

    This would be a very unstable being.

    Stability is greater than instability.

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

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