The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses

[Lacius]

How do you acknowledge that something didn't happen in the infinite space of existence?

I didn't do that.

 

[tabzer]

I didn't do that.

It isn't irrational to acknowledge that theistic claims have not met their burden of proof.

Then apply the limits/context of this claim.

 

[Lacius]

Then apply the limits/context of this claim.

Neither of us is aware of any evidence accompanying the claim "god(s) exist," which means theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.

Could we just be unaware of it? Yes, perhaps. If someone is going to argue that though, they need to demonstrate it.

Acknowledging something hasn't met its burden of proof isn't a proclamation that the claim is false or that evidence can't exist.

 

[osm70]

Neither of us is aware of any evidence accompanying the claim "god(s) exist," which means theistic claims haven't met their burden of proof.

Could we just be unaware of it? Yes, perhaps. If someone is going to argue that though, they need to demonstrate it.

Acknowledging something hasn't met its burden of proof isn't a proclamation that the claim is false or that evidence can't exist.

If I said that I am 100% certain that any sort of god doesn't exist, I would need to prove that, because the burden of proof would be on me. Do you agree?

 

[Lacius]

If I said that I am 100% certain that any sort of god doesn't exist, I would need to prove that, because the burden of proof would be on me. Do you agree?

You would have a burden of proof, yes.

 

[osm70]

You would have a burden of proof, yes.

Sorry to hijack your thing like that. I just felt like this needs to be said because some people don't understand the difference between claiming something and refusing a claim.

 

[tabzer]

Neither of us is aware of any evidence accompanying the claim

You should really learn to speak for yourself, regardless of what you think I have or don't have.

 

[Lacius]

You should really learn to speak for yourself, regardless of what you think I have or don't have.

I wasn't speaking for you. I previously said I don't believe theistic claims are true, let alone reasonable, and you said you agreed with me.

Regardless, even if you hadn't said what you did, if you want to say you're aware of evidence that a god exists, you need to provide it.

 

[Darth Meteos]

the battle between lacius and tabzer will continue until the heat death of the universe

Spoiler

inb4 lacius and/or tabzer responds with "this is hardly a battle, actually this is just a waste of time, i know i'm right and he's an idiot and in the news today there's a coastal low pressure system with 45 degree triangles in the ninth zone of the rumpus compartment

 

[Lacius]

the battle between lacius and tabzer will continue until the heat death of the universe

Spoiler

inb4 lacius and/or tabzer responds with "this is hardly a battle, actually this is just a waste of time, i know i'm right and he's an idiot and in the news today there's a coastal low pressure system with 45 degree triangles in the ninth zone of the rumpus compartment

But I'll always win.

 

[tabzer]

you said you agreed with me.

I said,"I am in no position to disagree with you," in response to your statement of belief about theistic claims. I cannot believe or disbelieve things for you.

Regardless, even if you hadn't said what you did, if you want to say you're aware of evidence that a god exists, you need to provide it.

I'm sure if it was any intention of anybody to convince you of anything, that wouldn't even be enough.

 

[september796]

Faith is the belief in something without evidence, so no.

I'd say is partly needed, because most science laws are based on axioms, which are just pure reasoning abstraction, so science uses partially evidenced answers as base. And yet we accept them as truth or likely truth... until a new proposition refutes that and then we trust the new one and so on.

That's too bad, since it's literally the entire point, and nothing else matters. A claim always has a burden of proof, and if evidence hasn't been provided to believe a claim (whether it's physical evidence, a logically sound syllogism, etc.), it is irrational to accept that claim as true. If your goal is to argue that theism is rational, get to the point and provide the evidence.

Actually I quoted you because I thought the word irrational was been used unfairly here as it sounds to me as a lack of reasoning. And all I've been trying to say here is that there is reasoning behind the idea of God. Never said his existence had physical evidence, in fact I think the truth if ever can only be accesed by the most rational abstraction, which escapes all possibility for empirical demonstration. Because empirical demonstration is particular and contingent, while the definition of truth is universal and necessary (therefore, immutable, always the same). That's why all the first principles that we accept as the maximum truth are only accesible through a metaphysical reasoning (and they have God as objective, as long as he'd be the beginning of everything).

1. First, you did nothing here to define what it means for something to be "perfect," but I don't think we need to continue down that path. It's irrelevant.
2. If you are going to argue that there was a first cause to the universe, you need to provide evidence for it. Up until this point, you've just been asserting it without justification. How did you rule out the universe not having a beginning? How did you rule out the universe beginning to exist but not having a cause (causality is a property of the universe, so when you say the universe requires a cause, you're nonsensically saying causality requires a cause). Even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert the universe requires a "first cause," you need to provide evidence for this claim.
3. Even if you were to establish the universe had a cause (you haven't), where is your evidence that the cause is God? How did you rule out atemporal causes (e.g. How did you rule out the universe in the future causing itself in the past?)? How did you rule out naturalistic processes causing the universe? Again, even if you ruled out all other possible explanations that we have (you didn't), the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true. If you're going to assert God is the "first cause" to the universe, you need to provide evidence for this claim.

1. Infact I said that we were not capable to truly describe perfection other than by negation, and even then it'd be only an approximation.
2. I always talked about the possibility. I didn't say the universe began to exist without a cause. According to the logical argument the universe must have had a cause since it's matter; in the same way the first cause must not be matter in order to be uncaused. I agree on "the absence of alternative explanations is not evidence that another explanation is true" statement and that's why I never said I had the truth. Just saying this has logical reasoning same as with simpler things we do and accept in our life without knowing explanations.
3. I can't establish that and no one could ever, I think. See, with the first cause argument you're reaching concepts that are way out of the scope of science. So inevitably you need to leave out big walls that otherwise would not let you any further reasoning. It would be great if all questions were answered but it's not like that. The reason why I associate the first cause to God is simply because they match on characteristics. I'm sure there must be a ton more on the topic but this is how far I understand it. Let's underline that these are some characteristics, so I'm not even saying this has to be Zeus, Yahweh or Brahma.

In summary, there's no evidence that the universe requires a "first cause," and even if it did have a cause, there's no evidence that God was that first cause. Comically, any reason you have to exclude "God" from needing a first cause can potentially be applied to the universe itself or natural processes that hypothetically caused the universe. "God" has zero explanatory power and only serves to add a extra questions for no reason.

The universe is full of matter, so it has to be subject to time and therefore transforms, changes, etc. God is the only concept -part of it- that could fit in that argument.

You haven't demonstrated this to be true. For example, while the formation of my computer had a cause (I built it), we are talking about "formation" as the rearranging of atoms and molecules to form my computer. When we are talking about the "cause to the universe," you don't actually have any examples of anything coming to exist when it didn't exist before, let alone coming to exist via a cause. You haven't demonstrated the need for a cause to the universe. See above.

I get that you may be skeptical on the assertion "everything materially existing has a cause". I think it's at least logical even if we don't know the cause of every single thing there is. This is why the first cause is needed in the first place and why by force it must have all said characteristics, otherwise the argument goes against logic.

"Something perfect had to have created the universe."
"Perfect = God"
"Therefore, God exists."

I hope you can see this is a wholly uncompelling argument. It's just a blind assertion.

I see it but that's not exactly what I said.

The first cause argument is not a sound argument, but even if it were, you're just blindly asserting "there can only be one." Lol.

Yes, it's implied. Because there can't be two 'perfect' beings/things with the exact same characteristics. They would get mixed up. I don't know how to put this but it's kinda comparing infinite vs infinite+1. We can't see those variables. Because if there is an [infinite+1], then in fact it would become more infinite than [infinite], and therefore it would be the real 'most perfect'. The only way to differentiate two Gods would be by saying one is perfect+1 and the other is "just perfect" so to speak, so in the end, only [perfect+1] would be perfect and [just perfect] would not.

I don't know what would count as evidence that demonstrates a god's existence, but that's not my problem; it's the problem of the claim if it's as unverifiable as it is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand I'm sure you know what would count as evidence on demonstrating pixies, dragons, and whatnot. This is what I've been saying, that the god claim -specifically the creator claim if you will- isn't the same as the claim of a creature that's subject to our natural laws.

I politely ask, if you respond to my post, that we reboot and focus on just the following question: What can you say that demonstrates the existence of a god? (we don't need to focus on whether or not it's possible). If the answer is "nothing," then we should be in agreement that belief in a god is irrational. If the answer is "the first cause argument," then I'd like a numbered syllogism with premises and conclusions so we can very quickly reject bad premises and irrelevant conclusions [...]

The answer is not nothing, more like not universally and certainly not through science. Anyway, we had to inevitably address other topics and this is why it becomes too much time consuming and why it's a dead end and a never-ending hodgepodge of topics. No one can scientifically prove the existence of God for sure if there's not the word 'possiblity' in-between.
Yeah, the first cause argument I wrote here was poorly elaborated, very brief, squeezed and probably also flawed as I may have omitted something. It's not very fresh in my mind.

 

[Lacius]

Actually I quoted you because I thought the word irrational was been used unfairly here as it sounds to me as a lack of reasoning.

When most people use the word "irrational," then mean there's a lack of sound reasoning. There is no sound reason nor evidence for theistic claims, so those claims are irrational by definition.

According to the logical argument the universe must have had a cause

Demonstrate this claim to be true.

3. I can't establish that and no one could ever

That's why it isn't a sound reason to believe a god exists.

I get that you may be skeptical on the assertion "everything materially existing has a cause". I think it's at least logical even if we don't know the cause of every single thing there is

It isn't reasonable to believe that everything that materially exists has a cause, since it's a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

This is why the first cause is needed in the first place and why by force it must have all said characteristics, otherwise the argument goes against logic.

The argument is unsound because its premises haven't been demonstrated, and it's invalid because the premises wouldn't get you to a god even if they were true.

Yes, it's implied. Because there can't be two 'perfect' beings/things with the exact same characteristics. They would get mixed up. I don't know how to put this but it's kinda comparing infinite vs infinite+1. We can't see those variables. Because if there is an [infinite+1], then in fact it would become more infinite than [infinite], and therefore it would be the real 'most perfect'. The only way to differentiate two Gods would be by saying one is perfect+1 and the other is "just perfect" so to speak, so in the end, only [perfect+1] would be perfect and [just perfect] would not.

Off topic, but "infinity" isn't the same as "encompassing everything." The number of odd numbers is infinite, but that group doesn't include the number 4.

On the other hand I'm sure you know what would count as evidence on demonstrating pixies, dragons, and whatnot.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter.

This is what I've been saying, that the god claim -specifically the creator claim if you will- isn't the same as the claim of a creature that's subject to our natural laws.

That doesn't exclude theistic claims, or any claim for that matter, from their burden of proof.

The answer is not nothing, more like not universally and certainly not through science.

If it can't be demonstrated through science (which, when broadly defined, includes the formal sciences and logic/mathematics), then it's unreasonable or irrational to believe it. Pure and simple.

No one can scientifically prove the existence of God

We are in agreement.

No one can scientifically prove the existence of God for sure if there's not the word 'possiblity' in-between.

First, when I talk about theistic claims being irrational, I'm talking about claims that a god exists, not claims that a god possibly exists.

Second, it hasn't been demonstrate that a god could actually possibly exist.

Yeah, the first cause argument I wrote here was poorly elaborated, very brief, squeezed and probably also flawed as I may have omitted something. It's not very fresh in my mind.

It isn't your fault or your presentation of the argument that was the problem. The first cause argument is utter nonsense. When skeptics point out the obvious flaws with the argument, theists always try to futilely redo it with the problems removed (without success).

 

[smf]

How do you acknowledge that something didn't happen in the infinite space of existence?

Sounds pretty irrational.

"Hey, look! There it isn't!"

I acknowledge that you did not make a coherent point.

 

[smf]

I'd say is partly needed, because most science laws are based on axioms, which are just pure reasoning abstraction, so science uses partially evidenced answers as base. And yet we accept them as truth or likely truth... until a new proposition refutes that and then we trust the new one and so on.

There is faith in the process that scientists will try to gain new knowledge which will either build on previous work, or will make us realize that what we thought before was wrong.

Which is not like religion at all, where the faith is in a conclusion and all the facts are reinterpreted to satisfy that conclusion.

 

[plasturion]

conclusion is based on a facts... they don't need to be reinterpreted, both of them are two-sided feedbacks. When conclusion is wrong, you need to verify facts. When facts are wrong conclusion have to be different. Religion should provide good explanation, if not, they'are not telling the Truth, in other words is not teaching about God which is the Truth. The problem is that religion is not for answaring the questions that some belivers are trying to get. Like Jehovah's witness are trying to answer for question when will be the end of times, or exaclty how many people will be saved, and who and what is more right, without provide any negations of facts that was made before, like why trinitary teaching is wrong.

 

[Blavla]

I'd just like to post this thread as my parents and sisters (no, I don't have a brother) are JWs and what they do and what they stand for doesn't make much sense.

Here's a documentary of JW:



Now, what do I mean by "illogical," you may ask?

- "All men are evil" but the ones in charge of JW are men

- "Jehovah will kill all nonbelievers" the "God" they made up isn't very loving (but think he is)

- "Jehovah" they use His name in almost every sentence and think of Him as a "friend" or an imaginary friend

- "Homosexuality is bad" but they still pretend they welcome everyone

- They tend to use insulting terms for non-JW followers which shows they don't respect others if they're not part of JW

- They don't celebrate Christmas despite being a Christian religion

- They don't celebrate Birthdays, but they celebrate New Year (until they ban this too)

- They've said Armageddon was coming in 1914 and 1918, yet here we are

- They see their sect/cult/religion as the "true" one and all others are fake

- If the Armageddon is coming then why do they have billions of dollars?

- If a JW person is in a relationship with a non-JW, then they're "doomed" to this world

...

This could go on and on. My point is, I believe there's a God / Superior Being who created the world, but it ain't how the JWs describe it as. Furthermore, no one alive truly knows and the closest "evidence" are Bibles which I wouldn't trust to be the truth.

Every "god" is made up. It´s like mafia but legal

 

[tabzer]

Honestly, I think Jesus was telling people that everything was sacred/divine. Then Rome killed him, turned him into an idol, and killed dissenters while creating a state religion. Anyone ever question why Catholicism's main symbol is the death of god, why they get to decide what's "canon", why all the original followers were murdered, and why its leaders turned into pedophiles?

JW have a lot of insights in investigating etymology and historical evidence, but I think their emphasis on the institution misses the message. "I am that I am," is an expression of self-awareness and self-advocacy. This is a threat to every government that desires to be worshipped and followed unquestionably, which is inherent in the JW organization. Even though modern religions tend to have a lot of distortion, they are still a threat to tyrannical governments at large because the target of worship departs from the institution and calls people to refer to their conscience, potentially questioning "authority".

It isn't reasonable to believe that everything that materially exists has a cause, since it's a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

This is the edgiest and pathetic I've seen you. Grow up.

 

[september796]

Sorry for the late reply and if it is offtopic by now...

Demonstrate this claim to be true.

If I said the opposite then I would be basically saying that causes and effects could be traced down infinitely no matter how far you go back in time. That's unlikely even from science perspective.

That's why it isn't a sound reason to believe a god exists.

But it's simply beyond the scope of science, that's why I said that.

It isn't reasonable to believe that everything that materially exists has a cause, since it's a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

That was from a logical perspective. But kinda works the same as axioms for science. We take it as real because that's how things works as far as we know, even if we don't know for sure the cause for everything. But I kinda get why the discussion will never get anywhere. For me personally the conversation has to turn into metaphysical sooner or later, and I think that's precisely when it becomes rationally unsound for atheist, rationalists or whatever; 'unsound' for being abstraction but 'rationally' nonetheless.

Off topic, but "infinity" isn't the same as "encompassing everything." The number of odd numbers is infinite, but that group doesn't include the number 4.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. I used 'infinite' because is an abstract concept meaning as of eternal, something endless, unmeasureable, and also because of its mathematical connotation. Adding +1 to it to evidentiate the paradox. That was just for the purpose of the example anyway.

If it can't be demonstrated through science (which, when broadly defined, includes the formal sciences and logic/mathematics), then it's unreasonable or irrational to believe it. Pure and simple.

We are in agreement.

I think we have some agreement but this is not one of them. I wasn't taking 'formal science' into account when using the word science throughout, my bad. I thought logic was not considered science [?] at least anymore as it was considered in the past. In the same way I don't think theology is considered science these days as it was in the past. So when I said 'scientifically' I was actually referring to the ones that are based on empirical evidence.

It isn't your fault or your presentation of the argument that was the problem. The first cause argument is utter nonsense. When skeptics point out the obvious flaws with the argument, theists always try to futilely redo it with the problems removed (without success).

I mean kind of, it's obvious that I ignore many considerations of the argument to make a good justice in one post, even then idk if it's utter nonsense haha Sure there are some reasonable answers against it as there are to any other argument. There it's one out of many. Skeptics could point ou flaws to any argument for that matter, and that's very good actually. The problem is that it's from a very restricted perspective and hardly comes up with proposals because of the tendency to be on just negations. I think it is important to abstract and philosophize on it rather than sit and wait till the science finds it out (I don't think it's capable though). My approach is evidently different than yours, as I'm not doing it for the pursuing of empirical evidence at all. After all I think in these religions claims there are personal subjective experiences, these includes rational thoughts as well as feelings and whatnot (not comparable to anything besides a God concept). We can't simply disdain them, in fact everyone should give these issues deep thoughts sometime. I don't think we could get there just by knowledge.

There is faith in the process that scientists will try to gain new knowledge which will either build on previous work, or will make us realize that what we thought before was wrong.

Which is not like religion at all, where the faith is in a conclusion and all the facts are reinterpreted to satisfy that conclusion.

Yeah, that's like a synonym for hope or will. But there are more definitions of faith and that's what I was pointing out; one of them being the human faith that all of us even atheist put on practice when we learn things from others.

Religion should provide good explanation, if not, they'are not telling the Truth, in other words is not teaching about God which is the Truth. The problem is that religion is not for answaring the questions that some belivers are trying to get. Like Jehovah's witness are trying to answer for question when will be the end of times, or exaclty how many people will be saved, and who and what is more right, without provide any negations of facts that was made before, like why trinitary teaching is wrong.

I recall that in the book of revelation, John said that one angel from his visions told him to omit one figure when writing what he was seeing. The prophecies are full of symbolism for a reason, either it's not for everyone to know or it'll be completely understood in its due time. It's kinda funny because that's probably the book that has caused more confusions for religions. Catholicism -unlike protestants- at least has been doing a good job through the years explaining things in depth like why the external cult is important, the meaning of sacraments, god existence (from theology pov), etc. JWs to begin with reject the divinity of Jesus, reject the trinity doctrine (I haven't read their reasons) and if they're actually saying when will be the end of times and how many ppl will be saved, then they're going against their own guide book's precepts because even Jesus said that he doesn't know the exact day.

 

[plasturion]

Anyone ever question why Catholicism's main symbol is the death of god, why they get to decide what's "canon", why all the original followers were murdered, and why its leaders turned into pedophiles?

JW have a lot of insights in investigating etymology and historical evidence, but I think their emphasis on the institution misses the message. "I am that I am," is an expression of self-awareness and self-advocacy. This is a threat to every government that desires to be worshipped and followed unquestionably, which is inherent in the JW organization. Even though modern religions tend to have a lot of distortion, they are still a threat to tyrannical governments at large because the target of worship departs from the institution and calls people to refer to their conscience, potentially questioning "authority".

I thought that apostoles made that symbol most significant before. (1st Kor 1,22-23) "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." But sure you can still ask why resurected Jesus King standing on a throne is not main symbol of Catholicism. Maybe because hard truth is more valuable than the soft one and speaks more about a reason. And what leaders are you trying to refer? Maybe they not belong to church anymore even if they have proper documents. Any respect for those who tried to bring something good inside... like St. Thomas the Aquinas. St. or charity organisations.