by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
John_Mann your arrogant dismissals of my comments are unworthy of a response.
Really, Cofty?
I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.
Anyway I'll keep praying for your soul to realize the blinders of Atheism and Scientism.
And remember you have the chance to change your mind until your last breath.
And always remember that our Mother Mary, the woman clothed with the sun, loves you more than the combined love of all mothers who ever existed and will exist.
"And a self appearing universe from nothing is distinguishable from a miracle how?
This is another example of the inconsistency of atheism." - Perry
No this is just another example of your profound ignorance. You are decades behind with those ideas Perry.
I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to help you.
Anyway I'll keep praying for your soul to realize the blinders of Atheism and Scientism.
And remember you have the chance to change your mind until your last breath.
And always remember that our Mother Mary, the woman clothed with the sun, loves you more than the combined love of all mothers who ever existed and will exist.
I would like to interject something.
You propose that God and Mother Mary both love humans and that God is all-powerful, correct?
You also propose that whether or not those humans believe in God is crucial to whether or not they will spend eternity in heaven, or face the oblivion of non-existence, right?
So, if some humans need some sort of scientifically verifiable proof to believe in God, then why hasn't He provided it?
You've said that God is only bound by His nature, what part of His nature is preventing him from providing scientific evidence for those who need it to believe in Him?
If it isn't outside of His power or against His nature, then that means He is choosing not to provide such evidence in a way that it can be verified as having come from Him. Doesn't that make it seem like He has simply decided that such people are not worth saving? He has, in essence, cursed us to oblivion by not providing something that would only require the slightest bit of effort on His part. I don't know any loving parents who would act in such a way.
You propose that God and Mother Mary both love humans and that God is all-powerful, correct?
Yes. All-powerful in relation to His very nature.
You also propose that whether or not those humans believe in God is crucial to whether or not they will spend eternity in heaven, or face the oblivion of non-existence, right?
No.
There's no oblivion in Christianity. Only God (Heaven) or the intentional rejection of God (Hell).
The soul is simple in structure and has no parts so it can't be subject to disintegration. The soul is immortal.
So, if some humans need some sort of scientifically verifiable proof to believe in God, then why hasn't He provided it?
Because His Will is people worshipping Him with spirit and truth (two metaphysical entities).
You've said that God is only bound by His nature, what part of His nature is preventing him from providing scientific evidence for those who need it to believe in Him?
A miracle is the closest of scientific evidence.
If it isn't outside of His power or against His nature, then that means He is choosing not to provide such evidence in a way that it can be verified as having come from Him.
Yes.
God cannot totally reveal Himself because this act would destroy the free-will of humans. This happens immediately at the hour of death of every human being.
Doesn't that make it seem like He has simply decided that such people are not worth saving?
Why?
He has, in essence, cursed us to oblivion by not providing something that would only require the slightest bit of effort on His part.
There's no oblivion. There's a "place" lacking God.
I don't know any loving parents who would act in such a way.
You must understand that there's a big picture that we don't see entirely.
But any loving parents would permit and let their children to pass through painful medical procedures to achieve a greater good.
If evil is inevitable and God chose to His presence be hidden from a scientific perspective you must be sure that these are necessary conditions to achieve a greater good.
No.
There's no oblivion in Christianity. Only God (Heaven) or the intentional rejection of God (Hell).
The soul is simple in structure and has no parts so it can't be subject to disintegration. The soul is immortal.
Oblivion, Hell, Nihl, that's just semantics and doesn't really make a difference for my argument.
Because His Will is people worshipping Him with spirit and truth (two metaphysical entities).
And how does his giving scientific proof take away from that? Would having scientific evidence for something keep me having "spirit and truth?" How would it do that?
A miracle is the closest of scientific evidence.
Okay, then where are these miracles? I have never seen one that I can even be reasonably sure has come from God.
Yes.
God cannot totally reveal Himself because this act would destroy the free-will of humans. This happens immediately at the hour of death of every human being.
I never said I needed him to "totally" reveal himself, just reveal himself at all, in any way that is not indistinguishable from the natural order of things. Examples of such revelations are in the Bible. A voice from the mountains heard by everyone present, not just a chosen small number of people. A voice that could be readily heard by anyone who asked to hear it.
Not some special one-time event that can only be experienced by a select few or single person. Those sorts of experiences could easily be fabricated.
Why?
Because he is not meeting the needs of such individuals despite it being well within his power to do so.
There's no oblivion. There's a "place" lacking God.
The terminology is irrelevant, the argument still stands. Why does he send us to a "place" lacking God for not believing in him before we die? What purpose does it serve? How does it help anything or anyone? It would take only a fraction of his power to provide universal evidence capable of convincing any reasonable person, but he does not do it.
You must understand that there's a big picture that we don't see entirely.
But any loving parents would permit and let their children to pass through painful medical procedures to achieve a greater good.
If evil is inevitable and God chose to His presence be hidden from a scientific perspective you must be sure that these are necessary conditions to achieve a greater good.
Look, I get where coming from, I don't agree with you, but I understand your reasoning.
However, it doesn't seem to apply to why he isn't doing what needs to be done to assure everyone that he really is up there watching out for us. To apply your own illustration, he is like a parent who puts their child in an ambulance to go get a medical procedure, but instead of going to the hospital to offer support, they stay home and let their child face all the pain alone. That is what it is like for those of us who would like to believe in God but have simply not seen convincing evidence. Evidence which he could easily provide but chooses not to.
The easiest explanation I can find for why such evidence is not readily available is simply that God doesn't exist, at least not in the way you would like him to. Perhaps I am wrong, and it would be remiss of me not to account for that possibility, but until I meet someone who can prove me wrong, I shall remain an agnostic that leans towards skeptical disbelief in the supernatural.
Oblivion, Hell, Nihl, that's just semantics and doesn't really make a difference for my argument.
But for my worldview their definitions are totally different:
Oblivion: total and perpetual erase of someone existence. The after death will be exactly the same as the before birth. This is the logical conclusion to Atheism and Scientism.
Hell: eternal conscious existence in evil.
Nihil: the first creation of God (TzimTzum). Nihil is neutral. Nihil is what makes the separation of the Three Persons inside Godhead. Only these Divine Persons can exist in the Nihil. Nihil is infinite potential used to create. God can freely create from nihil (creatio ex nihilo). Finite beings (spirits and humans) can only turn (irreversibly) the neutral nihil into evil.
And how does his giving scientific proof take away from that? Would having scientific evidence for something keep me having "spirit and truth?" How would it do that?
Obviously if you have sensorial proof you can't have faith anymore. Is that hard to understand?
Using an analogy from quantum mechanics:
Faith: wave function .
Sensorial evidence: wave collapse or a particle.
Faith and sensorial evidence is just like velocity and position. You simply can't have both.
You can't accept a premise (axiom) using sensorial evidence. You accept a premise through faith.
Okay, then where are these miracles? I have never seen one that I can even be reasonably sure has come from God.
Here's some of them that have convincing evidence:
- Our Lady of Fatima (miracle of the sun)
- Our Lady of Zeitoun
- Eucharist miracles of Lanciano and Buenos Aires.
The terminology is irrelevant, the argument still stands.
Plainly wrong. In any rational argument the terminology is necessary.
Why does he send us to a "place" lacking God for not believing in him before we die?
He doesn't. Hell is an intentional stubborn choice.
What purpose does it serve? How does it help anything or anyone?
Authenticity. Justice demands things to be authentic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)
It would take only a fraction of his power to provide universal evidence capable of convincing any reasonable person, but he does not do it.
Scientific evidence, by definition, can't be a universal evidence.
The only universal evidence possible must be metaphysical and this universal evidence is faith.
Look, I get where coming from, I don't agree with you, but I understand your reasoning.
Thank you and congratulations for the understanding of a good discussion.
If you don't agree with the conclusions of your opponent does not mean your opponent is pathetic or irrational.
A good debater analyzes the value of the premises and then it can point out where the argument falls.
Premises must be "attacked" not the reasoning or even the conclusion of the opponent.
The false conclusion must be changed from the premises (axioms).
Bad premises must lead to a false conclusion.
Good premises = true conclusion.
The only universal tool we have to analyze premises is metaphysics.
However, it doesn't seem to apply to why he isn't doing what needs to be done to assure everyone that he really is up there watching out for us.
Look, any argument to the existence of God needs a personal choice based on faith. Same faith needed when you accept a premise (axiom). You must search your intuition and "see" if there's a ring of truth in it. At least a subtle possibility of truth.
To apply your own illustration, he is like a parent who puts their child in an ambulance to go get a medical procedure, but instead of going to the hospital to offer support, they stay home and let their child face all the pain alone.
My view is entirely different.
That is what it is like for those of us who would like to believe in God but have simply not seen convincing evidence.
People with this thinking always are talking about a scientific evidence. This very position is pure non sense because is demanding a physical and limited proof to a metaphysical and infinite reality.
Evidence which he could easily provide but chooses not to.
The easiest explanation I can find for why such evidence is not readily available is simply that God doesn't exist, at least not in the way you would like him to.
It's your choice. Be careful with your metaphysical choices because some of them are irreversible.
Perhaps I am wrong, and it would be remiss of me not to account for that possibility, but until I meet someone who can prove me wrong, I shall remain an agnostic that leans towards skeptical disbelief in the supernatural.
Agnosticism is indeed a logical consistent position. I risk to say is a necessary position to know God, and it's a recurring position because even Christ in the cross was an agnostic in a moment. God is infinity then we will always reach new levels of knowledge and the first reaction must be Agnosticism.
But it's a limited position because to be consistent it must be temporary.
About meeting "someone", this will never happen because this "someone" is you. This is the most important choice to be made and nobody can do it for you. You have the total responsibility in this choice. Blame anyone else never worked and will never work. And blame God is exactly the worse option.
So keep searching the truth and your Agnosticism will naturally disappear.
Remember, truth is a metaphysical entity and must be ultimately searched with metaphysical tools.
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".
Oblivion is a much more rational (i.e. consistent with the observable evidence) condition than hell (nihil).
Just your wish.
Oblivion can only be concluded starting from Atheism and Scientism.
Observable evidence? You mean scientific evidence? Scientific evidence for oblivion (a metaphysical conclusion) ? Your Scientism is so obvious...
Atheism and Scientism are logically flawed.
Atheism is one-premise = universal conclusion. Are you kidding me?
Scientism is a single premise too (scientific method has universal applicability). Are you kidding me?
And Hell is not Nihil itself. It's a bad intentional use of 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.
A lot of straw men.
God's Will is the soul to be in communion with Him. Souls are created with this default. Perdition (Hell) is something against the very nature of the soul. Souls are created to pursue perfection (the greatest things).
Hell is not a natural state of Nihil. Nihil is neutral and Hell is an intentional choice.
Oblivion can't exist in Theism so it can't be an option.
Oblivion is only a logical conclusion if you start from Atheism and Scientism.
Again, your belief isn't consistent with a god of love.
Just your wish.
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.
Using only the first premise of St. Anselm's ontological argument we can reach the Christian concept of God.
You have just stated your personal preferences as to which qualities are "greater".
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?
The existence of God is logically proved by the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
And the concept of the Christian God is proved by the first premise of the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
The only concept of God that satisfies the first premise of the St. Anselm's ontological argument is the Christian God. I challenge you and anyone else.
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.
Wrong. Oblivion is a logical deduction:
Oblivion is only a logical conclusion starting from Atheism and Scientism.
And it's not a deduction but an induction (because it extrapolates the before birth state to the after death state). That makes oblivion even more non sense.
If such a thing as a soul exists, and nothingness is the condition of the soul before its creation,
Condition of something before its creation is pure non sense. I don't accept this premise.
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), it becomes nothingness - oblivion.
There are three souls in Christianity, two mortals and one immortal. In Judaism there are 5 souls.
And I'll say again: oblivion can't exist in Christianity. Because even if something ceases to exist, they're not erased from God's memory (not even birds). Oblivion is complete erase from any memory.
My position doesn't stem from atheism (I'm not atheist) nor Scientism (I don't follow that).
You talks like an Atheist and a follower of Scientism. Show us your true position then.
AFAIK oblivion can only be concluded from Atheism and Scientism.
Even from Buddhism, a true (and beautiful) agnostic system, you can't reach oblivion. And Buddhism denies a personal immortal soul...
I would like to see another source of the concept of oblivion.
Please show me.
There is observable evidence that doesn't require the scientific method.
What you mean by observable?
Physical observation requires the scientific method.
Metaphysical perception requires intuition from the soul.
That's why you can attribute value of truth to premises out of the blue.
The scientific method is the most reliable way of collecting and interpreting evidence, but it's not the only one, of course.
Physical evidence, yes.
