Things JW's and Atheists have in common

by juandefiero 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Anders Andersen

  @prologos,

  scientists are looking for explanations

  Fair enough. You didn't seem to make the distinction between atheists and scientists so I didn't bother either.

  I agree (and that was somewhat my point in my first reply to this topic) that JW processes tend to superficially mimic scientific processes. The big difference being that 1) JW invent a conclusion and then look for twisted ways to support it, where scientists study evidence and draw a conclusion afterwards, and 2) in science normally the conclusion is changed when new evidence is discovered, whereas JW can change their doctrine 180 degrees and have both positions supported by the same 'evidence'.

  it has never been demonstrated, that the Universe created itself or that life arose spontaneously. Efforts to replicate he latter have failed so far, and examining the energy level of the former even on the smallest scale took great effort and ingenuity.
  

  If the demonstration of something is needed to verify it's factual correctness or possibility, please provide some demonstration of the following:

  1) a god popping into existence

  2) a god being alive and acting

  3) divine creation

  Anyway, you missed my point about self-started life completely. Please pick one of the below positions that you can accept, or state something yourself.

  1. God=life. God=eternal or self-started. Thus life=eternal or self-started.
  2. There is no Creator. Thus life=eternal or self-started.
  3. ...

  In my view, regardless of one's convictions, the conclusion is always that life self-started.

  Just because many people choose to put label 'God' on the big unknown how/where life self-started, doesn't make it less self-started.

  So to me it's strange that one could use 'life could never have self-started' as an argument against the other position.
• 

  David_Jay

  One has to take in account that atheists differ greatly from one another.

  While some atheists dismiss the idea of the Judeo-Christain concept of God, another like my doctor (I just learned) may believe in spirit beings (in my doctor's case something metaphysical). In this view only the God of Abraham is dismissed, but not the possibility of other types of spirits or higher plane beings.

  Some atheists believe that the existence of deities is impossible, including that of spirit beings in very traditional sense.

  Others merely do not worship a deity but are part of a religion that recognizes their existence, like Janism or Buddhism. Some Jews are atheist but quite religious at the same time.

  Still others do not believe in gods, angels, etc., because there is no scientific evidence, but they claim they would sway in favor of whatever tomorrow's discoveries may uncover including the discovery of spirit beings.

  Other atheists have beliefs in reincarnation, life after death in metaphysical terms, the possibility of continuing on in a parallel universe, etc. The list can go on and on.

  Even when an atheist rejects some of the things JWs do, it is not due to sharing a view in common. Witnesses accept "truths" on the grounds that their interpretation of the Bible excludes or includes such possibilities, an interpretation which can be changed tomorrow at the whim of the Governing Body. Any "similarities" are from superficial examination as they are not arrived at from a common examination.
• 

  prologos

  Ander Andersen: " If the demonstration of something is needed to verify it's factual correctness or possibility,-- I consider the attempts to replicate abiogenesis crucial, but in MHO success would only prove there needs to be an agent to do it, no matter how remote the "operator": In the same way I consider the proton accelerator experiments to be feelers to probe into the beginning of the universe's mechanism, not spontaneous events either.

  The known natural laws break down in black holes. or white holes, where movement through time ceases. so it is wrong to reason about the pre-beginning BB realm in terms of those laws, like causation, the laws of thermodynamics. It is only since the " Big Bang" that matter is moving through time. so,if there is no movement, why should there have to be a beginning? an acceleration from Zero for any pre-Big Bang entity like the creator?. Therefore, while, your 6 constraining questions are based on conditions in our universe that is expanding through time, can I just have a try at the ones I see as relevant?

  2) "god" is not alive in the organic sense, not acting , not tinkering now in the way defined by Newton, all potential is build into the original creation event. To us limited observers, they could forever appear self-generating, but are not because the inherent creation properties. a la Penrose.

  3) divine? possibly not a good term. creation can be considered non-religious.

  1. eternal implies no start. no movement through the time dimension.

  2. as a deist, a worker, I believe there is a creator.

  3. Once you enter ( in thought ) the pre-big bang realm, without our 3 dimensions, all the potential energy of the void, no movement through time, there is no difficulty to deal with the non-beginning of "god" questions.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  @prologos,

  Thanks for playing ball in a nice and polite way. I like it :-)

  I consider the attempts to replicate abiogenesis crucial, but in MHO success would only prove there needs to be an agent to do it, no matter how remote the "operator"

  They are crucial indeed. But scientists are not really trying to create the process of abiogenesis; that process already exists ;-)

  What they are doing (according to my understanding) is trying to recreate the circumstances that (as evidence tells us) may have existed during our earth's long history, and see if this process occurs (or can occur) in these circumstances.

  If they succeed, it is proven that given a specific set of circumstances organic life can 'spontaneously' start.

  The role of a creator is then reduced to setting the correct circumstances and waiting for organic life to arise (as opposed to breathing life into matter to create life similar to the story of Adam)

  All that their intelligence is used for is creating the circumstances in which life could start, but they are not creating life itself.
  

  I agree with your statement that a creator is not bound by the laws of physics that govern our universe.

  And maybe my views are still to narrowly based on my quite recent (5 months) JW mindset, but in my mind any proposed creator is at least somewhat a person: thinking, having a personality, coming up with the idea to start creating universe(s).

  And the process of thinking is (even if we accept that it could take place without the existence of time) governed by some rules/laws.

  Like the laws of physics in our universe make it possible for structured processes to exist, some laws must govern any structured process (like spiritual living and thinking, creating) or these processes would be impossible....

  Accepting that this creator is not a person makes the whole discussion about a creator's (non-)existence a pointless one: some then choose to label the eternal origins of nature 'God', but they mean the same thing/process/entity as those not applying that same label.

  So while we seem to agree that there is no difficulty in accepting that there is no beginning of 'everything' because it 'started' with an 'eternal something' (Creator in your case, whatever caused our universe in my case), I am still puzzled about how you view life and 'god'.

  If god isn't alive and still created life....doesn't that mean life basically self-started anyway?

  
  

  As you can see there's a lot I still want to learn about this. Please enlighten me :-)
• 

  David_Jay

  Anders Anderson,

  Here is something you may need to add to the "pot," so to speak, when considering the "God question."

  Having recently left the JWs, you may not be aware that the Judeo-Christian definition of "God" is extremely different from the Watchtower definition, so much so that rejecting one does not include rejecting the other. To illustrate (with brevity this time ):

  JW "GOD": Dwells in the confines of the current space-time continuum, marks, keeps, and experiences time as humans do, even makes plans to do things based on setting dates. God lives forever and ever.

  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN "GOD": Transcendent, i.e., does NOT live in the universe and does not participate in or is in any way confined to the limits of the space-time continuum whatsoever. God does not "live forever," as time has no effect on God nor does God experience the changes or passing of time. Instead God is "eternal." God does not plan events in the future, nor does God foresee or foretell events as the past, present, and future are all present to God at all times. Eternity takes up no time to experience. God does not live or dwell "somewhere." There is a beginning to the universe, but not to God.

  I was literally shocked to learn these things. In theology the space-time continuum/physical universe is referred to as the "temporal plane." God exists outside the temporal plane because God created it. God's existence is called the "eternal plane" or simply "eternity." The eternal gets its definition by what God is, and not vice versa.

  Thus the God of Abraham, as understood by Jews and those in Christendom, doesn't "think" according to any "rules." Laws of physics only apply in the temporal plane, being products of creation. God doesn't have a beginning because according to this theological definition a "beginning" implies a linear timeline, and there is no timeline in eternity.
• 

  cofty

  God is "eternal." God does not plan event sin the future, nor does God foresee or foretell events as the past, present, and future are all present to God at all times. Eternity takes up no time to experience. God does not live or dwell "somewhere." There is a beginning to the universe, but not to God.

  That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Hitch
• 

  David_Jay

  Cofty,

  I was not saying this was my personal conviction, neither that I agreed with it or that this was true or based on any evidence.

  I am merely pointing out that the Watchtower theology regarding the God of Abraham is strikingly different from that of Jews and nominal Chrisitans.

  Both Jews and Christians who hold to this definition cite that it is part of what they call "divine revelation," and they do not site any scientific formula, theory, or physical evidence for the transcendent (which wouldn't exist because by definition that which is transcendent cannot be measured, witnessed, touched, etc.).

  Citing what other persons believe is never a claim that I hold such beliefs, are recommending them, or that I do or don't agree with them.
• 

  prologos

  Anders Anderson, I hope that our personal exchange retains some relevance to the OP theme.

  Given the soft, low energy use of "life", it is surprising that so little results are shown since Louis Pasteur, and the unknown alchemist life - experiments before him; that is why many atheist are eager to champion the evolution process in their arguments, but reserve the "origin of life" for another , perhaps agnostic-favoring day.

  My conviction about a deist creator was not shaped by WT indoctrination, but my earlier exposure to the difficult hands-on manufacturing in an desolate environment. If I read the science publications right, the thought is now that the nothing, the void of the pre-big bang realm, and the nothing that the universe is expanding into, (or rather the space that appears inside the universe through expansion.-- is seething with energy. and is subject to time, since seething is acceleration that has time^2.

  "I am still puzzled about how you view life and 'god'." I am too, my idea under construction; puzzles are entertaining though. One could imagine as an illustration only, that non-organic artificial intelligence (like what we are working on) could be transported via radiation. So: before our beginning, there was energy, there was time, but can we grasp there it was, an eternity? do we have to? perhaps I see the creator as a great hobbyist that instilled a tremendous amount of drive to exist into his creation, here, the flowers are coming out -- driven. perceived to be beautiful.
• 

  cofty

  many atheist are eager to champion the evolution process in their arguments, but reserve origin of life for another , perhaps agnostic-favoring day

  I am convinced the origin of life by natural processes will be solved.

  it is surprising that so little results are shown since Louis Pasteur

  Really? Have you not kept up with recent progress in physics and chemistry regarding abiogenesis?
• 

  prologos

  David_Jay Laws of physics only apply in the temporal plane, being products of creation --beginning" implies a linear timeline, --- If I may amend those terms to my world view. : Time" is a dimension that existed before our beginning, and it is accepted, that space, it's content started moving through time at the big bang. Time is eternal and stationary, we, as observed, move through it at different rates. The temporal plane I read in your text looks to me like a curved sphere expanding outward through time. Can both believers and atheists agree to that?