Posts by konceptual99

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

More to evolution? More to evolution than change through natural selection and the associated mechanisms recognised by science? Evolution with a plan or a purpose? That would be edging towards design.

I am glad you are thinking this through Kate as I think the concept of God as an intelligent creator who simply kicked things off has less going for it than the idea of a God with a plan, a purpose and attributes reflected in a human creation. I would hope your thinking on the matter will help you rationalise things further to something that is far more logical and intellectualy honest.

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

Emotional, religious feeling is an emotion not something tangible, like Xant said I may have be born with a religious gene, and like Fink has said, it's all in my head. Who knows, but I have faith there is a God while I look for the answers, if I even ever find them. I am staisfied with the atom for now, it's enough evidence for me.

Fair enough I guess.

As God is not a'morphic I am not swayed by God's indifference to human suffering, I just don't like God very much for just observing it, from a human stand point I would not watch suffering, but God's feelings are not human IMO. God's plans are yet to be discovered.

But given that your stance removes the Bible as being the inspired word of God then where the hell do you expect his plans to be discovered? He's had millions of years of human evolution to expose them and not done so.

Hate to say it Kate, but this is just cognative dissonance again.

36

Letter About Blood Fractions

by Bangalore in

letter about blood fractions.. .

.

bangalore.

konceptual99

Interesting letter. Aside from the usual crap supporting the unsupportable two other things stand out.

Firstly, what was the situation regard the counsel given on association with a DF person. I note mercy should not superceed WTS instructions and "running ahead".

Secondly, it was clear that the recipient's card was marked in terms of qualifications as an Elder. He was clearly going to be reviewed. How nice they were lovingly and considerately going to drop him like a stone.

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

Of course it's up to you what route you follow and I like to read your musings but I think you'll end up either swapping one religion for another - K99

I was a convert, I have been a practicing Jew, and JW, niether is for me. I will not be taking up a new religion soon, chemistry is my love and passion, but not the scientology cult. I am happy being part of JWN for now and not joining another cult is a priority. One can believe in God with out being a member of an organisation.

Of course one can beleive in God without being a member of an organisation. I just think that where you intellectually at the moment is incredibly wooly and that over time you will form more concrete conclusions that will either take you back to something where the Bible has a relevance as the inspired word of God with all it's teaching on Jesus etc. or you will move to a far more secular viewpoint.

I assume as well by scientology you mean the "cult" of blindly following science as opposed to the religion of Scientology (Hubbard and all that...)

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

What is the purpose of heaven if we are talking about a purely intelligent force and not something akin to the God of the Bible?

Strong and weak magnetic forces and beauty, worm holes, life forms, discovery.

But heaven is a human concept. Theistic tradition places it as the abode of god(s). If we are the product of evolution then there is no heaven. Space is not there because the Creator has a purpose for it or for us in it - it's there because of the physical laws in action.

If God is just an intelligent force and we are the product of evolution unaltered by God then the ALL religious concepts are junk. They are the product of human minds and have NO relationship to reality.

Sorry Kate, but your arguments seem to be losing any kind of foundation that explains on what basis you are forming your opinions.

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

Is everything since the big bang just as a result of the physical laws being followed?-K99

Yes why not? Kate xx

No reason why not other than it weakens any argument for validity and even the existence of God. Humankind is not a special or specific creation. It's down to evolutionary chance that we are here in the form we are. God has no plan for us. We are no better than the animals.

If an intelligent, creative force deliberately initiated the big bang then what was the point? Since there is no obvious point and we are not special in any way then there is no point worshiping God or looking to god for any answers.

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

What is God's plan for humankind?

I don't think God has one, I think the creator want's to observe how humans evolve.

So where is the deliniation between proactive causeation and where God backed off? Is everything since the big bang just as a result of the physical laws being followed? Is not man therefore just another animal with no special status? Is there any need for man to recognise and give honour to a creator?

Is there a heaven?

Outer space can be considered heaven I suppose

Well if God created the universe then surely he must be beyond the boundaries of it. What is the purpose of heaven if we are talking about a purely intelligent force and not something akin to the God of the Bible?

What is the purpose of Jesus? What about God's Kingdom? Was the Bible in any way inspired by God? Is there anything to Armageddon and restoration prophecies?

I don't know to all of those, but looking forward to finding out how I will answer in the future.

This is the point I passed very quickly as my faith was deconstructed. I actually think there is a certain logic to WTS doctrine and in many ways it does make sense. That is until you pull the rug from under it when it comes to creation. As soon as you remove an acceptance of the Genesis story then the whole thing falls apart and is illogical, senseless even. Trying then to reconcile the idea of any kind of intelligent creator becomes pretty much impossible as if he is there in a form close to the way described in the Bible then he is clearly not as powerful, loving, wise and just as we were led to accept. If God is just a intelligent creative force with limited influence and interest in humankind then there is no benefit or loss by accepting and worshiping it or not.

In my view Kate, trying to reconcille this is an exercise in futility and it far more intellectually honest to simply take things on face value, measuring your view of their validity using purely human constraints. Factoring in an impotent or disinterested deity or force is pointless.

Of course it's up to you what route you follow and I like to read your musings but I think you'll end up either swapping one religion for another and reasserting a Judeo-Christian mindset in your head, or you will move to a more secular viewpoint - one where God is not manifest in black holes and time travel is not the answer for rectifying human suffering.

Thanks for your interest K99, I like you Kate xx

I like you too :-)

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

So Kate, if you accept there is an intelligent force causing effects then what is your view of the following:

In broader terms however, can you describe your concept of God if you are not prepared to assign any human atrributes to "it"? Are you saying that as you reflect on the world around us as described by science you conclude that there must be a supernatural and intelligent force that instigated the creation of the universe and defined the parameters by with the natural laws operate.

Are you then also concluding that since there is much that science has not (and perhaps never shall) explain there is plenty of room for the existance of God since one cannot ever be 100% sure that "it" does not exist.

Assuming I am broadly correct, and ignoring the elephant in the room regarding where did God come from, then do you ascribe any purpose to what God has done in creating the universe? Where do human traits such as love, wisdom, justice and power come from? Is it anthropomorphising God to ascribe these qualities to "it". What is God's plan for humankind? Is there a heaven? What is the purpose of Jesus? What about God's Kingdom? Was the Bible in any way inspired by God? Is there anything to Armageddon and restoration prophecies?

2596

The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty in

yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

konceptual99

Just caught up with this thread. It's brilliant and a case in point as to why learning about logical fallicies should be in the top 5 of things those learning TTATT should do.

As much as I respect the right of individuals to believe in God there is little escape from one of two ultimate conclusions if you remain convinced about the existance of God.

1 - If God has a plan, a purpose and will intervene in man's affairs using a perfect combination of love, justice, wisdom and power then what possible benefit is there to the continued suffering of humanity? The 2004 tsunami is a object lesson in the inexplicable lack of action by a God which believers are then perfectly happy to then assume blessed them with a new job or good weather so more Bibles could be published. There is no scriptural explaination for this so you are left resorting to "it's a mystery, God knows best".

2 - If God is defined as more of an intelligent force or power with a completely hands off approach then he has no purpose, no plan and therefore is of little relevance. What point is there in worshiping an entity that is benign, impersonal and unable/unwilling to intervene to the benefit of it's creation.

Clearly the arguments can run much deeper than this however the God of the Bible certainly is portrayed in the vein of position 1. God is said to be deeply interested in the affairs of man, has a purpose and, most importantly, has endowned mankind with attributes that reflect his own. If we are moved by the plight of those suffering through empathy, love, morality, compassion and so on then what purpose is there in permitted natural disasters?

If man is destined for another place then why not just put him there straight away? If the earth is to be restored to a paradise then why wait so long? What possible spiritual benefit is there to individuals having to endure so much?

Having read 26 pages of discussion on Cofty's original post I can see nothing that does not fit into the falacious responses he has documented. There has been nothing in support of God that has made any kind of sense or offers any kind of reasonable explaination.

199

Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild in

i do not think god is a'morphic.

god is not human, so hence he does not possess human characteristics, to know god better and to understand him better i study science.

there has been a new discovery of strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than einstein believed.

konceptual99

Hey JTG

I get your point but I am just saying that you are talking about hyposthesis and not theory.

How many reams of mathematical calculations are in the trash can ????

Every formulator of those had the same strongly held theory.

Like wise those who try to prove or hold on to these theories regarding god

continue to fill trash cans with theories ad nauseum.

As with any theories or mathematical calculations we wait for the final proof.

Dna computing was gonna be hot too but I haven't heard how that's going so far.

I understand the first part to be suggesting that there many scientists have developed calculations to try and prove something that you have described them as believing to be a "strongly held theory". My suggestion is that in fact what they have done is developed a hypothesis (perhaps strongly held) and during experimentation have found it to be false. Their proposition has never developed into a theory since experimentation has falsified it. It then goes in the trash can.

Some of these hypothsesis would be bullshit. Some may be proven wrong (falsified) but lead to other types of hypothesis that do develop into proven theory so it might be unfair to disregard them as complete bullshit.

I would argue that theories about God are actually hypothesis since the existance and nature of God cannot be proven by observable experimentation.

You then mention that we are waiting for final proof or any theory or calculation. I guess that's where the philisophical arguments about what is considered true, false or a proven fact come into play. I can't be bothered to get into that sand pit as it's about as intellectually worthwhile for me as arguing about some of the bullshit in the trash can.

You also say:

My point was that many theories are formulated calculated and abandoned as they don't have or cannot be proven at that time.

You are saying a scientific theory is or is not falsified - I just think you really mean hypothesis.

It might seem pedantry or an unnecessary argument about sematics to talk about hypothesis when someone refers to a theory but to me the correct understanding of the scientific process is key to being able to build an argument and support it.

I'm not trying to be an arsehole about it and do get your overall point. I am just saying that your argument would be even stronger if you were clear about if you really mean theory.