Universal sovereignty on trial

by Factfulness 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic
    Why shouldn’t God as a hypothesis be the starting position? “Because I say so” seems to be the best atheists can come up with.

    There is actually a very good answer to this question SBF. The reason we don't assume claims are true until proven false is because it would put us in the position of believing contradictory things simultaneously. If the JWs say there is only one God and the Hindus say there are multiple Gods - we're now put into a impossible situation of trying to believe two incompatible things at the same time. That's why positive claims require positive evidence.

    And can you imagine a world where claims are assumed to be true until proven false? I'd be able to say, "SBF murdered kids" and we'd have to lock you up in prison until you were able to prove you had never murdered a child in your entire life (an impossible task).

    THAT's why the God hypothesis - just like any other hypothesis - shouldn't be the default position. The default position is "I don't know". And then we can take a look at the world and see that every single thing ever investigated has had a naturalistic cause - and zero things have had a supernatural cause. And, as all the evidence is operating in one direction, our position moves from "I don't know if there's a God" to "There's an infinitely higher likelihood that gods don't exist than do exist."

  • slimboyfat

    I think he means it provocatively in the sense that it’s an idea that stands in relation to God, as do other notions abou God. Mainly he’s a political commentator and sometime neocon, but for some reason likes to talk about God sometimes. It just happens that the comments he has made I find are close to my own ideas on this particular subject.


  • slimboyfat

    The idea that the universe exists without God is every bit as much a hypothesis as is the idea that God created the universe.

    If we see an ambiguous pattern on the beach that may be of human origin and may not be of human origin we can disagree about the likelihood of either possibility. One person may say, unless proven otherwise we should assume this pattern was made by a human. Another person may say no, unless proven otherwise we should assume this pattern was not made by a human.

    Who is right? It doesn’t seem obvious that either position inherently deserves to be the default position. Much may depend on the exact appearance and details of the pattern observed.

    I take this discussion to be about the existence of God in principle, not about the existence on any particular God

  • cofty
    The idea that the universe exists without God is every bit as much a hypothesis as is the idea that God created the universe

    The word God is poisoned with so many superstitious connotations that it is counter-productive in a conversation like this.

    You are not talking about god so drop the pretence.

  • Finkelstein

    God is a story that many have hoped and believed may come true, until then we and the world in which we live goes on.

  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    Experience Samadhi a few times how ever brief and I'm sure one would be cured of :Universal Sovereignty On Trial issues. For what it's worth I think Physics tells us reality is a hologram(from study of black holes). And I'm inclined to think a universal consciousness is everywhere and it sees through my eyes and everybody's eyes and every creatures eyes, might all just be a computer simulation, or super mind. No need to worship it just be compassionate to all sentient being.

    Karma and karmic debt on the other hand might be a real issues and forget about a trial on universal sover whatever.


  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    How about the great void or nothingness that one can experience through different states of consciousness. Where all conceptual reality disappears. What more true, the mind perception of the world and cosmos or or what physic's states about the reality of nature or what becomes conscious through altered states of consciousness?


    Nirvana (nibbana) literally means "blowing out" or "quenching".[41] It is the most used as well as the earliest term to describe the soteriological goal in Buddhism: release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).[42] Nirvana is part of the Third Truth on "cessation of dukkha" in the Four Noble Truths doctrine of Buddhism.[42] It is the goal of the Noble Eightfold Path.[43]
    The Buddha is believed in the Buddhist scholastic tradition to have realized two types of nirvana, one at enlightenment, and another at his death.[44] The first is called sopadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana with a remainder), the second parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder, or final nirvana).[44]
    In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires that cause rebirths and associated suffering.[45] The Buddhist texts identify these three "three fires"[46] or "three poisons" as raga (greed, sensuality), dvesha (aversion, hate) and avidyā or moha (ignorance, delusion).[47][48]
    The state of nirvana is also described in Buddhism as cessation of all afflictions, cessation of all actions, cessation of rebirths and suffering that are a consequence of afflictions and actions.[42] Liberation is described as identical to anatta (anatman, non-self, lack of any self).[49][50] In Buddhism, liberation is achieved when all things and beings are understood to be with no Self.[50][51] Nirvana is also described as identical to achieving sunyata (emptiness), where there is no essence or fundamental nature in anything, and everything is empty.[52][53]

  • nicolaou
    The idea that the universe exists without God is every bit as much a hypothesis as is the idea that God created the universe. Slimboyfat

    Except that while the first option requires an explanation of the complex Universe we observe the second option requires an explanation of an infinitely more complex intelligence capable of bringing the first option into existence. An intelligence we cannot observe, measure or communicate with. This would be a Universe containing an intelligence which hides away and is indistinguishable from a Universe without that creative intelligence.

    The two options are as far apart from equal starting positions as it's possible to imagine.

  • nicolaou

    I'd been meaning to address Perry's comments from page 8, hope it's not too late . .

    I made the comment;

    "Job's children were innocent of any crime and yet god authorised their deaths anyway. You are using your religious beliefs to justify the deaths of innocents. Isn't that what terrorists do?"

    Perry replied:

    Allowance doesn't equal causation. False analogy.

    I'm glad you accept that God allowed Job's children to be killed. How are his actions any different from my handing a gun to a man who has told me he wants to shoot schoolchildren?

  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    sorry wrong thread

Share this