sorry if this has been asked before but i would love to know the current ratio on this forum.. i'm a believer/christian former jw for 45 years... born in .
what are you now and what were you?.
.
Talking of facts Cofty, SBF still made a valid point when he said “Isn't the very definition of a miracle something that defies current scientific explanation? Therefore stating that there are no scientifically proven miracles is an assumption about how the world works that is masquerading as a conclusion…..”
Thus miracle claims have not been proved to be scientific claims at all.
sorry if this has been asked before but i would love to know the current ratio on this forum.. i'm a believer/christian former jw for 45 years... born in .
what are you now and what were you?.
.
To say that `miracle claims are scientific claims` has not been proved or even demonstrated Cofty. Mathematical systems, physical laws and such things that science is defined by, may be optional, in which case science has competitors that we don’t know about in other modes of existence or universes and so on, let alone the problem of how such modes of existence would connect to one another if indeed they do or can. To write off miracles is premature when considering that science is restricted in its reach. Science cannot even answer basic questions, like does existence have a beginning or not? It has limits in its reach!
sorry if this has been asked before but i would love to know the current ratio on this forum.. i'm a believer/christian former jw for 45 years... born in .
what are you now and what were you?.
.
You tell me as you say it can?
sorry if this has been asked before but i would love to know the current ratio on this forum.. i'm a believer/christian former jw for 45 years... born in .
what are you now and what were you?.
.
I’m a believer in God and Jesus guided by imperial, although not necessarily scientific evidence as scientific evidence is of a restricted type. I also use philosophy and metaphysical systems of thought as a guide also. Some of the bible I believe and other parts I don’t as it was written by human beings. Aside from this I’m not a literalist which does allow more options for compatibility with scientific evidence. Parts I except as true require backup from external sources such as archaeology and other external sources including science where science is applicable although it is not always going to be. For instance, a miracle cannot be proved by science to be true or false, and so other external evidence is required by me in order to give the claim credibility.
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
Sorry Cofty I don’t take that much interest in you.
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
Cofty doesn’t doo humour latinthunder she thinks it’s childish.
who came up with this term and when?
is there a specific member that the credit goes to or did it just develop over time?
was it used in the beginning of this site or is it taken from another site?.
Well I understand the need for evidence Apognophos. One of those things I guess.
who came up with this term and when?
is there a specific member that the credit goes to or did it just develop over time?
was it used in the beginning of this site or is it taken from another site?.
I get the feeling I’m not believed. You won’t find my first use of the term as it would have been on Watchman’s old board which has long since been deleted. He kicked many off! Paradise café started by those he kicked off at that time came online around late 2006. If the term can be found before 2003 my claim will be retracted but I don’t think you will. I was on watchman’s board about two or three years before he had his hissy fit. I remember thinking the term up as I had not read it before elsewhere, while writing some post. I can’t prove it though. If anyone has a way of looking up old websites my name was Mr Anderson on Watchman’s site which I later changed to Seraphim. Seraphim was also my name on both Paradice cafe sites before they kicked me off where I was once a moderator.
who came up with this term and when?
is there a specific member that the credit goes to or did it just develop over time?
was it used in the beginning of this site or is it taken from another site?.
The phrase `the truth about the truth` was started by me quite a few years ago between the old e watchman site and my time on paradise café which was set up after Robert king kicked lots of his members off for disagreeing with his doctrinal spin. No one used it until I came up with it as an ironic reference against the WTs claim to truth by calling itself the truth. The truth about it being they speak falsehood and untruth which is the truth. By extension I applied to it anyone who claims truth because anyone who claims truth is more often than not speaking ultimate falsehoods, and sometime immediate falsehoods. How it propagated after that I have no idea but I guess x JWs get around on the net. Now I don’t like the term anymore because philosophically it lacks precision because falsehood shouldn’t be a way to get to truth and truth cannot show what is false from only itself, but that is another matter I guess. I nearly didn’t post this because I don’t want credit or anything silly like that, fortunately I won’t get that here anyway. It doesn’t really matter who came up with it because someone would have done if it hadn’t been me but I hate questions hanging if I know the answer to it.
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
Cofty I don’t justify genocide by God or anyone else which is why I don’t think he commits it, nor do I agree with physical death being only physical death as a logical justification for genocide, no matter who says so, including fellow Christians. Logically genocide is rendered ultimately pointless if death isn’t the end. God killing people on a case by case basis could be justified if it saves more lives as with the death penalty within a judicial system. However the reason for physical life if known would also have a bearing on the case for God being a moral monster or not because the value of a thing, including life is always going to be a function of its purpose. If you say you don’t know the purpose of life, or that it doesn’t have one, you have not made a logical case for God being a moral monster. Of course you don’t believe God exists anyway, so you’re not in a position to say he is a moral monster as non-existent moral monsters do not exist. If God does exist, then you haven’t made the case either. The only case you have made is against the literal and fundamentalist interpretation of God from the bible. In that I agree with you.
