Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "None of these are arguments from incredulity." - Earnest

  Really? OK well let's apply your reasoning to this:

  "Assuming that the universe was not wished into existence by a Genie is an argument from incredulity" - Me

  "Also, creationists find it difficult to believe (i.e. are incredulous) that the apparent perfection of organisms is not evidence of a Supreme Designer, and so they assume there is a designer" - You

  Also, people find it difficult to believe (i.e. are incredulous) that the apparent wondrous nature of the universe is not evidence of a Genie wishing the universe into being, and so they assume there is a Genie behind it all.

  Also, Lasthursdayists find it difficult to believe (i.e. are incredulous) that the universe has existed for so long, and so they assume everything was created last Thursday.

  Longs story short Earnest, if you buy into the nonsense spouted by these creationists and you repeat it then you will make yourself look silly.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Earnest

  WhatshallIcallmyself :

  Also, people find it difficult to believe (i.e. are incredulous) that the apparent wondrous nature of the universe is not evidence of a Genie wishing the universe into being, and so they assume there is a Genie behind it all.

  Also, Lasthursdayists find it difficult to believe (i.e. are incredulous) that the universe has existed for so long, and so they assume everything was created last Thursday.

  If either of those were true they would be arguments from incredulity.

  WhatshallIcallmyself: ... if you buy into the nonsense spouted by these creationists and you repeat it then you will make yourself look silly.
  

  I said nothing about accepting an argument from incredulity. I simply pointed out that there are examples of both evolutionists and creationists resorting to this form of argument. Of course an argument from incredulity on its own is not proof of anything except incredulity.

  I may point out that cofty has often used the argument from incredulity because he cannot believe that a loving God would allow the thousands of deaths caused by the Asian tsunami.
  
• 

  Island Man

  I may point out that cofty has often used the argument from incredulity because he cannot believe that a loving God would allow the thousands of deaths caused by the Asian tsunami.

  That's not an argument from incredulity. That's an argument from the law of non-contradiction.

  If the god of the Bible actually existed it would be an awesome hypocrite, as it would fail to live up to the standard of love that it prescribes for its worshipers:

  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him? - 1 John 3:17, NWT

  The god of the bible sees all who are in need and has the means to relieve their suffering and deprivation - and does nothing to help them! So while the bible says that God is love, reality shows that the god of the bible - if he exists - does not have the love of god in him.
• 

  cofty

  I may point out that cofty has often used the argument from incredulity because he cannot believe that a loving God would allow the thousands of deaths caused by the Asian tsunami - Earnest

  It's quite depressing that somebody would so egregiously misunderstand my point after the effort I have made to explain it succinctly. But anyway thanks for the opportunity to clarify yet again.

  Island Man was spot on, thanks for that.

  My argument was NOT incredulity at a god randomly murdering hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. That would be facile.

  My point is that god's actions contradict other fundamental facts about god.

  If I considered a friend to be a loving husband but then I discovered that he repeatedly beat his wife I have a dilemma. I can insist that beating your wife is compatible with being a loving husband, even though I am incapable of offering an explanation, or I can accept that there is an impossible contradiction and revise my opinion about my erstwhile friend.

  THIS is my argument about god. According to xtian theism god is love. Jesus defined and demonstrated the meaning of god's love as actions in the interests of others. Natural evil is contradictory with this claim in the same way that beating your wife is contradictory with being a loving husband.

  This contradiction does not prove that god does not exist but it does specifically disprove the god of xtian theism.

  My argument has nothing at all to do with incredulity unless you mean I am incredulous how so many believers can live with cognitive dissonance.
• 

  Earnest

  Island Man: That's not an argument from incredulity. That's an argument from the law of non-contradiction.

  Yes, I agree. I got that wrong. Both arguments are subjective but they are not the same.
  

  jukief : In other words, I argue that one can accept that certain things are evidence in favor of some claim without in any way accepting, or even admitting, that such a claim is one's own view, or that it is true.

  That is why your husband was so convincing, and why so few posters are today. I miss him.
  
• 

  cofty

  Both arguments are subjective

  Not so.

  Objective fact 1 = xtians believe that their god is love and that love has to do with actions that promote the well being of others.

  Objective fact 2 = xtians believe that their god was in complete control of the tsunami that randomly killed a quarter of a million men, women and children.

  These two objective facts are irreconcilable.

  Therefore the god of xtian thsim does not exist.

  Nothing subjective about that.
  
  
• 

  Earnest

  cofty : These two objective facts are irreconcilable.

  Both your facts and your conclusion are subjective.

  Even if your facts were true in anything more than the very limited sense you have subjectively attributed to them, your conclusion that they are irreconcilable would be subjective. You may believe that you cannot reconcile them. You have no idea whether they are irreconcilable.
  
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "You may believe that you cannot reconcile them. You have no idea whether they are irreconcilable."

  ^^ Here we see someone who is more interested in winning a debate rather than learning something.

  How you, Earnest, can say that allowing the deaths of millions of people is a manifestation of love is beyond me. It is not subjective because the Bible explains clearly what love is and what one must do to love. The action or inactions of this god that is in control over everything demonstrates one way or the other if it is carrying out its own instructions on how to love. It is demonstrable that it does not follow its own rules; this, again, is not subjective.

  Whether every single Christian believes this is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the Bible clearly teaches us what love is (in their eyes), teaches us that god is love, and then demonstrates behaviours by this god that contradict the claim that god is love. Therefore the 'god is love' god does not exist...

  "You have no idea whether they are irreconcilable."

  We do, for the above reasons...
  
• 

  cofty

  Even if your facts were true in anything more than the very limited sense

  This is exactly why I detest theology. It's like the small print in a dishonest contract.

  If I considered a friend to be a loving husband but then I discovered that he repeatedly beat his wife I have a dilemma. I can insist that beating your wife is compatible with being a loving husband, even though I am incapable of offering an explanation, or I can accept that there is an impossible contradiction and revise my opinion about my erstwhile friend.

  Only one of these options is not obtuse.
  
  
• 

  Earnest

  WhatshallIcallmyself: Here we see someone who is more interested in winning a debate rather than learning something.

  You are wrong. When I make a mistake I am quite happy to admit to it as I did.
  

  Let me take the example that cofty gives:

  If I considered a friend to be a loving husband but then I discovered that he repeatedly beat his wife I have a dilemma. I can insist that beating your wife is compatible with being a loving husband, even though I am incapable of offering an explanation, or I can accept that there is an impossible contradiction and revise my opinion about my erstwhile friend.

  As it happens this friend of cofty and his wife practice BDSM unknown to cofty, and although there are marks and bruises on his wife BDSM is a practice she enjoys. In actual fact his friend is a loving husband after all. Cofty's revised opinion of his friend was a subjective opinion. He couldn't imagine there was a loving explanation for his friend's actions. But there was.

  My only argument is that the law from non-contradiction is not verifiable or falsifiable, hence it is subjective. The fact that you and I cannot reconcile two statements does not mean that they are irreconcilable as I note above.