Ignorant from the start

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:30 pm

As quoted in another thread
"So this tendency that believers have to look towards the past as a time of knowledge and informed wisdom, is actually an ignorant position."

This is talking about looking at our past for knowledge... Like looking at a source from 2000+ years ago... Saying we would be ignorant to do such things...

Actually this conversation was specifically about Aristotle... For Aristotle was perhaps the first of the scientists, and Aristotle put forth scientific arguments for the existence of God... In his Book "Physics" (where the word comes from), Aristotle tells us that "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"

Just the same as Newton... "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe."~Newton

These are scientifically based arguments, and reasoning, that God exists. And they are saying that the orderliness of nature is dependent on a God... That without God there is no reason that science, and the order in nature, should exist...

Its just ironic that atheists have these kind of quotes (like the one above)... They say, why would anyone look at our past for knowledge? That they were just ignorant back then, and conclude that they have no merit...

But the scientific method itself is based upon past experiments, and inductive reasoning. The only way the scientific method can make sense out of the order in nature, is if the past will be like the future. If the experiments we did yesterday can be done today and tomorrow, yielding the same results...

This is what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... Its funny, because science is based off this stuff... And in order for us to make sense of anything, we need to have a past that is logically coherent...

Its also quite astonishing as well, that atheists have taken this one step further... While many scientist, theologians, philosophers, have made the argument that the order in nature is evidence for a God, a God who keeps things orderly...

Atheist on the other hand have brought to question inductive reasoning itself.. It is called the "problem of induction", as Hume said it. He couldn't make sense of why things make sense.. He said there needs to be a proof for induction that is not dependent on its past (kind of like how atheist dont want to depend on our past)... And this goes on today as something philosophically unproven (without a God)... That inductive reasoning (which the scientific method is based off of, also logic and language itself) needs to have some kind of justification for it....

So, all these believing scientists/philosophers point to induction as proof of God. While all the atheists scientist/philosophers point to induction as not making any sense... Kind of funny..

Isnt it just clear... The evidence is all on one side... The claim is that truth has a start, knowledge has a foundation, that we can learn truths from our past.. And this isnt even limited to our human history... Science itself is built upon our past experiences...

Where atheist say, we started in ignorance, knowing nothing, and then some how stumbled upon truth... (where? or when? they dont say...)

And where theist say that knowledge and truth has a beginning, from the start with God, and builds upon these things...

I think its pretty clear.. All the evidence, including all the "psychical" evidence is on the side of God, the unmoved mover... And nothing but a void of truth on the side of atheism, where we cant even make sense out of induction itself, or our past.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed May 16, 2018 9:41 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Well the Jehovah's Witness interpretation is that Jesus is a spiritual not a physical ruler.

Interpretations can be varied. They can even totally disregard the text. Here there are at least two major, textual reasons for considering the JW interpretation erroneous.

1) "Ruler" refers to one who "rules;" that is, a ruler makes decrees that tend to be absolute. In this sense a ruler is a Monarch who rules by absolute fiat, rather than a leader who sets an example for others to follow. A "spiritual ruler" is a contradiction in terms. Jesus set good examples, he led, he exhorted, he taught. He was never a "ruler."

2) The text in Micah 5 is clear that the 'ruler' is a military ruler, hence the reference to troops, a city being sieged, a fortress being guarded, Assyrians attacking the land, the invasion of an army. Clearly this is not a reference to a spiritual leader, but a military ruler.

Anyone can interpret, and interpret poorly or wisely; but the interpretation of a text should reference the text rather than the interpreter's bias.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Wed May 16, 2018 9:55 pm

brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 218 by JehovahsWitness]

I presented the JW interpretation but that is not to say that is the only interpretation that exists. I can live with that, personally it's not a problem for me.
That just tells me that the truth doesn't really matter to believers. Cognitive dissonance compels you to protect the belief, even if it is wrong.

Moderator Warning

Please address the content of the post, not the character or motives of the writer.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu May 17, 2018 10:08 am

Danmark wrote: He [Jesus] was never a "ruler." .

I didn't say he was, I said I believe is *is* now.

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Well the Jehovah's Witness interpretation is that Jesus is a spiritual not a physical ruler.

RULER

1 : a person (as a king or queen) having supreme power over a nation.

SOVERIEIGN
1 a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu May 17, 2018 10:12 am

Danmark wrote:
1) "Ruler" refers to one who "rules;" that is, a ruler makes decrees that tend to be absolute. In this sense a ruler is a Monarch who rules by absolute fiat, rather than a leader who sets an example for others to follow. A "spiritual ruler" is a contradiction in terms.

That would depend on how one interprets "spiritual".

(I don't know what "absolute fiat" is... typo?)

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu May 17, 2018 10:47 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Danmark wrote:
1) "Ruler" refers to one who "rules;" that is, a ruler makes decrees that tend to be absolute. In this sense a ruler is a Monarch who rules by absolute fiat, rather than a leader who sets an example for others to follow. A "spiritual ruler" is a contradiction in terms.
That would depend on how one interprets "spiritual".

(I don't know what "absolute fiat" is... typo?)

"1.an authoritative decree, sanction, or order:
a royal fiat.
Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it:
The king ruled by fiat."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiat

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Thu May 17, 2018 1:19 pm

JW I'm wondering...the 1914 prophecy...when it was originally spoken/published was there any indication given that Jesus was to return quote unquote spiritually/invisibly in the year 1914, or did that interpretation come later, after the obvious reading of the prophecy had proven false?