Posts by TonusOH

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: Can't disagree with that. But so what?

This is why I don't see the minimal facts approach as a useful argument for the legitimacy of the Bible.

ballistic: if I'm projecting the universe "out there", how could I tell that is the case, or even likely?

That sounds a bit like the free will question. Am I really free to make decisions, or are there so many other factors at play that I am just a puppet acting out a role I cannot possibly influence? If I am basically a running program, how could I know? And if I was to discover that I am, would I be able to break the programming, or would my reaction simply be more of the same? Is my reality everyone else's reality, or only mine? Am I a brain in a vat? And so on.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: The facts presented are not his

For the purposes of this discussion, that is a moot point. Many of the claimed facts are only found in the Bible, and thus are not corroborated by contemporary accounts. But even that doesn't matter. As I already said, if we accept all of those facts, they do not demonstrate the the Bible is true. And those facts would still support the explanation that the disciples were deluded into thinking that a dead man had been revived, as opposed to the claim that he was an actual god.

At best, it is inconclusive.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

That is Gary Habermas's "facts" approach. Even if we assume that all of those facts are true, it only gets us as far as "a preacher who claimed he was divine was executed, and his followers helped build a new religion around him." The idea that these men died believing something (that this preacher really was god) that wasn't true is not disputed by this approach.

It is a compelling argument for someone who already believes. And that is before we consider the problems with it.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

I jumped ahead to the obvious follow-up, since I know where this is going.

But, to humor you: no, I cannot think of any historical examples of that.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: That is a substantial retraction from your earlier statement:

No, it is not. I explained why it's clear that people will die for a lie.

You asked about the gospel writers, and I explained why we can't apply that standard to them. We cannot claim that they "fabricated, lived and preached a lie that guaranteed many of their loved ones would reject and shun them" because we don't know any of that. We cannot identify these "hundreds of people" you refer to. At best, we can make rational assumptions about them, but we cannot claim anything about them with certainty, because we have no idea who they were.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

We have no way to know if the gospel writers knew they were lying, because we don't even know who they were.

It is my understanding that the earliest examples of their writings are fragments of copies that were made decades (centuries?) after the originals had been created. In other words, we probably don't even have the earliest copies of copies of their work, much less the originals.

It seems more likely that they wrote --and embellished-- stories they heard from others who claimed to have been there. We have no way to know if they paid for this with their lives or how they might have reacted if any pressure had been placed on them to recant. There are four gospels in the Bible, but a great many were written around that time. I don't get the impression that these writers were concerned that they might face dire consequences from producing them.

So, my guess would be that they either were not concerned that they would be executed for writing these texts, or they sincerely believed in something that they had not experienced. I'm inclined to believe the former, but the latter is not unheard of.

65

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.

that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.

but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.

TonusOH

Balaamsass2: Why not discuss the meaning of Santa Claus and the real number of buttons on his coat?

Don't tempt the fates! I have no doubt that AI can generate a 10,000+ word dissertation on just that topic, if asked.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

Regarding the idea that people wouldn't die for a lie, there is no shortage of religious martyrs throughout history and into the current day, but they do not all belong to the same religion or share the same beliefs. Thus, it's pretty clear that people will die for a lie. They apparently do it all the time. They may not think it's a lie. Even now, there are billions of people who believe in the wrong god, or the wrong version of god. And if there is no god, then they're wrong to believe in god at all. And if there is, then they're wrong to disbelieve. And so on...

Regarding the unverified and unverifiable claims in an old religious text, the fact that they're unverified and unverifiable should suffice to dismiss that argument. Without a whole raft of presuppositions, I would argue that it is impossible to support any religious belief. I would also point out, as above, that there is no shortage of religious texts that people either once believed or still believe. There isn't even a majority of humanity that believe in one particular religion. This alone speaks against the idea of a god who wishes to get to know us personally, or who has any interest in our salvation.

Regarding the question of infinite regress, I cannot dismiss god as a possibility by using infinite regress. The fact that we are here would imply that there is either something that was always here, or that somehow the universe was born from nothing. If we have to define "nothing" as anything other than nothing, I don't see where we've made any progress on the question. I fully admit that astrophysics is well outside of my understanding, so maybe there's an explanation that makes sense, but I haven't heard it yet.

41

Probability of Earth and life being how it is

by ballistic in

jw
friends

there are some things we don't know about existence and whether the earth is a simulation or even a creation.

but we can do some statistical analysis on it.. the probability of a planet like earth existing in the goldilocks zone and having a moon that perfectly eclipses the sun is extremely low, but it's not impossible.

the habitable zone (or goldilocks zone) around a star is the region where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface.

TonusOH

Regarding the odds of anything happening, if you stack probablities you can get outrageously long odds that would make any occurrence seem impossible. Many lotteries have odds in the hundreds of millions to one, yet people win lottery jackpots all the time, and on a few occasions more than one person will do so at the same time. There have been people who have won lotteries multiple times. We see very large odds beaten all the time, and by working backwards we could add probabilities that would put the odds in the billions or trillions to one. It doesn't really get us anywhere.

I can better understand the appeal of the arguments regarding design or fine tuning. I do not reject the possibility that there is a creator. I am confident that it isn't any of the ones people believe in. It's a long road from "there is reason to believe that a creator exists" to "it is this specific creator." We should always be aware that those are two very different statements. One is pretty easy to reason out, even if the logic is questionable. The other requires us to defend one or more premises that are contradictory, which leads to further explanations that just get more and more contradictory and confusing.

39

1975 !

by Sea Breeze in

how many of you here remember 1975?

i hope the newer generations never forget.the true believers got shamed for it.

those who were hedging their bets, fared much better.

TonusOH

My mother once showed me a letter she received from her sister in February 1968, expressing excitement that my mother had begun to study with the JWs. My sister and I would be born later that year. My mother claims that --even back then-- she understood that the WTS wasn't making any definitive predictions. I don't believe that; I think she began the Bible study with them because she believed that the end was imminent.

Interestingly, she did not get baptized until 1977. Did something happen to change her mind between 1968 and 1975? I'll never know, because she rarely talks about that time, and never in-depth. I'd love to know what happened during that time period, but I think those are secrets she will take to the grave. I know that she would immediately reject any information about the JWs that isn't directly from the GB, so there's no sense in pointing out how strongly they pushed the 1975 stuff.

Remember that in 1969 they told young people that it was a "fact" that they would never grow old in the present system of things. And the Kingdom Ministry in Sea Breeze's first post originally stated that there were "months remaining" before the end of the present system of things, then was updated with more ambiguous language. They lied, and they covered it up, and then they blamed the people who had been lied to. They praised the people who sold homes, then admonished them for doing something that had been praiseworthy just a year earlier.

If you claim that God is whispering in your ear but you make big claims that turn out to be false, it must be one of two things: you are imagining that someone is whispering in your ear, or the person whispering in your ear isn't God.