Another Circular Circular.

[Tcg]

.

Apparently due to the pandemic, the JWs have taken to mailing out their circulars rather than knocking on doors and handing them out personally or leaving them in mailboxes if they get no answer. The latest I've gotten in the mail asks, "How do you view the future?" As is often the case, the first part refers to the Bible to answer the question on the cover and the second part purports to answer the question, "Can we really believe what the Bible says?" Oddly the second part contains a total of eight biblical references to support the claim that one can.

Does it make logical sense to accept the verses supporting the Bible as evidence the Bible should be believed?

Do some who receive this circular circular not notice its circular nature?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

Well sure. But those fishing for converts don't advertise this.


Tcg

Which is why the prospective emptor should be caveat. The purveyors of fake News rely on their prospective dupes to not know what they are not telling them, so that is why people like us are out here, telling people what those peddling tripe are not telling them. Which is why I say it is the Browsers and lurkers that matter and getting the apologetics circulated, not trying to talk the opposition around, and why the theism-atheism battle is a contest for education and media.

[Purple Knight]

As is often the case, the first part refers to the Bible to answer the question on the cover and the second part purports to answer the question, "Can we really believe what the Bible says?" Oddly the second part contains a total of eight biblical references to support the claim that one can.

Does it make logical sense to accept the verses supporting the Bible as evidence the Bible should be believed?

No, but to be completely fair, one has to have faith that logic works in order to believe in it. Logic can't prove itself any more than the Bible can prove itself.

Now, to be fair again, we can get feedback that logic works. I have never seen a logical contradiction that was true. I have personally confirmed that observation and reason and testing - the scientific method - is a good way to learn how the world works. (Whether everyone who just says, "You don't trust the science, idiot." is on the same page as I am is another matter, however.)

But the truth is, we don't know. We do have that nugget extra of observation in reality confirming scientific reasoning is a good foundation, but it still requires some faith that what we see and experience is real and follows the basic laws of logic.

Now, if some religioso has the same lived experience of truly introspecting and observing and confirming their religion, I would suggest that it's almost as good as my lived experience that the scientific method works, and they should keep it. I would, however, also suggest that if someone confirms their experience of a loving presence this way and attributes it to the God of the Chosen People, that they may have either not read the Bible, been deceived about what it says versus what it really means, are projecting their own desires and expectations onto that god, or perhaps enjoying a helping from each of those three piles.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #22]

But the truth is, we don't know. We do have that nugget extra of observation in reality confirming scientific reasoning is a good foundation, but it still requires some faith that what we see and experience is real and follows the basic laws of logic.

This is why questions can be asked about the nature of our [overall] objective reality experience.

A consensus of scientists from different cultures might not take the simulation hypothesis seriously enough to think about how to invent ways in which to test the hypothesis, but neither can they dismiss the theory - so the theory remains valid for as long as no serious testing is done to falsify it.

2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?

[Purple Knight]

This is why questions can be asked about the nature of our [overall] objective reality experience.

Exactly. That's the extra golden nugget of goodness in science. It's utterly lost when people throw out "the science!!!" and require trust.

Now, to be fair, there is a website where people are invited to question religion. A religious person even runs it. I think it's called debatingchristianity dot com.

[William]

This is why questions can be asked about the nature of our [overall] objective reality experience.

Exactly. That's the extra golden nugget of goodness in science. It's utterly lost when people throw out "the science!!!" and require trust.

Now, to be fair, there is a website where people are invited to question religion. A religious person even runs it. I think it's called debatingchristianity dot com.

Exactly.

So all hypothesis to do with creation are as valid as some hyposthesis to do with creation - such as christian mythology, and re that - I have seen no argument therein that christianity [christian hypothesis] debunks the simulation hypothesis.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems that both of you are missing the point about 'trusting the science' which is (I have seen it before) questioning materialism. The idea with all these alien computer -game, brain in a vat or the upsetting bewilderment about Indeterminacy arguments, is to 'make us doubt everything we thought we knew' - Read 'everything science tells us'. In an uncannily similar way to it doesn't matter who the evidence says won, the only thing that matters is you can't trust what the results say, the idea is to get rid of science (except where it can be trotted out to fit into to some 'Comic Mind' hypothesis) so that some personal preference can be held up as valid as any other.

While in religions, this is blinkered because any other religion is equally valid, sortagod or the Cosmic Mind is (or looks) better because it is irreligious theism and so doesn't fall into that trap. The trap it does fall into is the one I mentioned - making us unsure of what Reality is and thus thinking that science was telling us wrong when it was rather not realising what science had been telling us all along.

Which is essentially that everything is made of Nothing, pretty much and what is real is not what you can bang on a table (that's just human perception), but what is reliably repeatable, and that's natural physical laws. These are reliable, predictable and repeatable (1) and even if it is all in my head, or yours, or a brain in a vat or an alien computer game or a cosmic Holograph, it works according to known physical laws; and if any have been magically stood on their heads, let's see proof of that. Otherwise Newtonian physics is still evidentially valid.

That's scientific evidence and we haven't even got on to hypotheticals and the logic of burden of proof. But I suspect that we shall. I'll just say the bottom line is - not knowing that something is true logically mandates not believing it until it is shown to be true, or at least convincingly supported by the evidence. Maintaining that something is credible or probable without persuasive evidence over it just being a hypothetical (even without science being against it as in the creationism debate) suggestion is still opting for the Faith - belief over the logical non -belief position. And that is why irreligious cosmic mind hypotheses are fine - until they become Faith - Beliefs.
And you can see that in the three stages of Theist -think
(1) argue on the evidence
(2) argue away the evidence
(3) attempt to scrape a draw

(1) in terms of what one can expect to happen. It is not intended to predict who will get hit by lightning next week as one Theist demanded I prophecy, using Physics.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is why questions can be asked about the nature of our [overall] objective reality experience.

Exactly. That's the extra golden nugget of goodness in science. It's utterly lost when people throw out "the science!!!" and require trust.

Now, to be fair, there is a website where people are invited to question religion. A religious person even runs it. I think it's called debatingchristianity dot com.

And people are equally invited to question atheism. We goddless bastards welcome that as It gives us a chance to correct some very common misconceptions about atheism. And (Omicron willing) we shall probably still be having to do that in fifty more years' time.

Incidentally, there are a LOT of sites and vids where discussion and debate go on, and one or two that (during the rise of the Nones) tried to come to amicable understandings with atheists. No more. Instead the 'Net seems to be swamped by Creationist propaganda. Religion has always had the money for advertising, and atheists get no funding.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

Religion has always had the money for advertising, and atheists get no funding.

I don't understand why atheism needs funding. It is simply a position where there is lack of belief in gods.
It is not a position of declaring the need for proselytes...it is not a position of opinion but of lacking belief. Lacking belief is not an opinion. Atheism is not described as lacking belief in gods because of opinion et al. There is no 'because'. Any 'because' comes from other positions, and that those positions might relate to atheism, those positions are not indicative of atheism in and of itself.
Why one lacks belief and wants to tell others those reasons, has nothing directly to do with atheism.

"Knock Knock"
"Who's There?"
"An Atheist"
Why are you knocking at my door?"
"Because I want to tell you WHY I am an atheist."
"I already know what an atheist is. Someone who lacks belief in gods"
"Yes but I want to explain to you WHY I lack belief in gods."
"Not interested. Try next door. "
"Can I leave some information with you to read up on?"
"No thanks. I am happy just to lack belief in gods. I don't need reasons WHY."
"Oh - so you are an atheist too? Would you mind donating to our cause?"
"No - I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. And no, I am not interested in supporting your cause."

Search "proselyte";
a person who has converted from one opinion, religion, or party to another.

Search "Indicative";
serving as a sign or indication of something.

[Purple Knight]

These are reliable, predictable and repeatable (1) and even if it is all in my head, or yours, or a brain in a vat or an alien computer game or a cosmic Holograph, it works according to known physical laws; and if any have been magically stood on their heads, let's see proof of that. Otherwise Newtonian physics is still evidentially valid.

That's the extra golden nugget of why I find the scientific method and reason superior. That's why I trust it. It's repeatable. It doesn't lead me astray. The trust is earned, but it is still trust, because physics can't prove physics. All we can do is keep testing, and keep getting the same results, which we have. It has kept on happening this way for my lifetime. But it might not, tomorrow.

[William]

These are reliable, predictable and repeatable (1) and even if it is all in my head, or yours, or a brain in a vat or an alien computer game or a cosmic Holograph, it works according to known physical laws; and if any have been magically stood on their heads, let's see proof of that. Otherwise Newtonian physics is still evidentially valid.

That's the extra golden nugget of why I find the scientific method and reason superior. That's why I trust it. It's repeatable. It doesn't lead me astray. The trust is earned, but it is still trust, because physics can't prove physics. All we can do is keep testing, and keep getting the same results, which we have. It has kept on happening this way for my lifetime. But it might not, tomorrow.

Also one best understand that because it is possible that we exist within an alien computer game or a cosmic Holograph, while it doesn't change ones understanding of physics it can change ones understanding of ones self in relation to the physics involved in creating said simulation.

Essentially these are an extra layer which - when taken into account as being possible - ones self can then explore that possibility as if it were the actuality - through ones imagination
Imagination itself - our current opinion of its usefulness, the fact that we have it at all - can also be seen as another byte of evidence supporting simulation theory...

Therein, when it comes to 'things of the mind' not even the problem of Infinite regress can be said to be a fallacy.

Mirror...Mirror