Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Fallacy of Empirically Judging Religon

Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 6:24:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sure, in the imaginary framework religion has had to setup where there is this entire "dimension" or "plane of existence" or what have you on which mythological beings exist (angels, demons, gods, devils) science has no meaning.

Of course this is required because science has proven pretty good at answering the question "does x exist" over the last few centuries driving theologians and religious apologist to create a framework by which both science and religion can work. To many of us, the very fact that a hypothetical framework is required to make religious statements work with science is one of the first clues that something is wrong with those statements.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:21:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged.

Yes, because your statement...

"[M]ost religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence."

... is false.

The Bible is rife with individuals - prophets and such - that have first-hand empirical evidence of the claims made in the Bible. Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. all had direct, personal interactions with god. So you can't say that "faith alone" is a requirement.

Furthermore, it isn't merely the fact that these individuals had (allegedly) empirical evidence, but they and their experiences (at least in the cases of Noah, Abraham and Moses) are held as examples to which people should aspire. They are portray as paragons of their faith.

If empiricism negates faith, and faith is to be lauded, then these individuals would be the worst examples possible.

In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:43:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

Most, yes, but not all. Jehovah's Witnesses for one not only restrict what they teach to scripture but are continually advising all to check what they teach against scripture, using any translation that they care to use. They base this on the Apostles commending the Beroeans for doing just that, in the privacy of their own homes.

Acts 17: 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

They also recommend using reference bibles to make it easier to find related scriptures which confirm the understanding they are teaching.

In their literature they also supply references to any external material they supply so that you can look it up and check out that they have quoted it accurately.

Of course, if you are wise you don;t just take their word for it and take up the opportunity to make sure that they have not just interpreted something out of context, and if needed they will happily help you to do so.

I invite all to visit their website, www.jw.org and see for yourselves. It is free, and requires no log on or personal information.


So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 9:52:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)



So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

No, it is not fair, nor should it be, some sort of evidence should be used, and in fact the scriptural definition of faith, and my preferred definition is found at Hebrews 11:1, 2
11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.

For ones expectoration to be assured there has to be some level of evidence, sufficient to make extrapolation to a conclusion reasonable.

Belief requires nothing to support it other than desire that it be true.

The difference between building faith and belief, is the difference between building a house on a solid granite base (faith) or quicksand (belief).

Scripture is happy with belief to start with but that has to become faith to be of any lasting use. Hence those who follow Christ are commended to keep checking your beliefs to make sure they are correct, and check all information in case it cokes from the wrong source.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
JayLewis
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

You may scoff at these tenets of faith that seem "fundamentalist" to you, such as young earth creationism or the biblical concept of a global flood. But, where is your proof that these things are not so? What foundation are you standing on, other than your own opinion, that proves these things to be false?

I respect your opinion, but I don't think we should throw out entire fields of scientific study just because they are no longer "in vogue". Science, philosophy, psychology, etc. arent't just speculative exercises, rather their purpose is to lead mankind to the truth of God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 2:37:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Of course it isn't. the preparation of it for habitation started about 48,000 year ago, but that is all it is possible to know.

The age of the earth doesn't interest me because we are given no idea whatever when it was created or how long it too in scripture.

All scripture says about the creation of the earth is:

Genesis 1:1 "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We may never know for sure how old the earth is because mankind has no reliable way of measuring time anything like that far back, since all we have is based on assumptions and conjecture, and it is impossible for that to change unless God himself tells us.

Incidentally, the rest of Chapter 1 is simply a description of the earth prepared for habitation, from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth.

Nothing man can do will make me uncomfortable because God's word has proven itself reliable enough for me to take it's word over man's on anything, unless some absolutely unarguable evidence comes up that counters that.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 2:51:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

Not quite sure what you are saying there. A global flood actually did happen.

Admittedly at the time there was only one continent, and the mountains were a lot lower, but it still happened.

In fact since the water that formed it was never taken back into the physical heavens the only way it can have have even appeared to have receded, is by the tilting of the earth's crust forming troughs and peaks, which has long been proven to have happened at some point. Again we have no reliable way of knowing when. However scripture puts the separating of the continences sometime after the flood.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Incidentally the name Peleg, apparently means division.

It also possible that if the deluge was as heavy, and as instant at the poles as it appears to have been, that could explain the Ice age either side of a band of the earth around the equator, and would also explain many over things, like fast frozen mammoths found in the Permafrost.' since such an event would cause catastrophic climate change. It could also have caused the earth's crust to crack and form the tectonic plates we know today and started them drifting as they currently are.

Speculation I know, but plausible none the less.

Even I like to indulge in a little speculation occasionally.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 3:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 1:19:48 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Therefore its almost absurdity to say where is the proof

No, it's not--because you're talking to people who don't recognize "blind faith" as a virtue, or as a means of obtaining truth.

Just because you say "Oh, well, I have faith, and faith is required to know I'm right" doesn't make your claim true, any more than it would be true for me to say "I have faith that there's no god, and therefore there isn't". And when claims compete, faith is no means of resolving it--because both sides have faith.

Claiming the supernatural can't be tested is an attempt at a rhetorical dodge--to avoid admitting a lack of any reason to believe that isn't simple recusion: "I believe because I have faith, I have faith because I believe, I believe because I have faith" ad infinitum. (And that's not a dig on all relgious. Just on those who attempt to claim that the supernatural is real, yet not interacting with reality in any way that could possibly be tested).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 6:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 2:51:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

Not quite sure what you are saying there. A global flood actually did happen.


Um...whatever you say.

Admittedly at the time there was only one continent, and the mountains were a lot lower, but it still happened.

In fact since the water that formed it was never taken back into the physical heavens the only way it can have have even appeared to have receded, is by the tilting of the earth's crust forming troughs and peaks, which has long been proven to have happened at some point. Again we have no reliable way of knowing when. However scripture puts the separating of the continences sometime after the flood.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Incidentally the name Peleg, apparently means division.

It also possible that if the deluge was as heavy, and as instant at the poles as it appears to have been, that could explain the Ice age either side of a band of the earth around the equator, and would also explain many over things, like fast frozen mammoths found in the Permafrost.' since such an event would cause catastrophic climate change. It could also have caused the earth's crust to crack and form the tectonic plates we know today and started them drifting as they currently are.

Speculation I know, but plausible none the less.


Not really.

Even I like to indulge in a little speculation occasionally.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 6:14:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 1:57:07 PM, JayLewis wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

You may scoff at these tenets of faith that seem "fundamentalist" to you, such as young earth creationism or the biblical concept of a global flood.

I don't scoff at them because they seem "fundamentalist" - I don't particularly "scoff" at them at all, actually. I've been called everything from a fundamentalist to a liberal - I don't really care about labels. I just think it's pretty clear, for instance, that world is not 10,000 years old or younger.

But, where is your proof that these things are not so?

Evidence points pretty strongly against them. It's pretty overwhelming.

What foundation are you standing on, other than your own opinion, that proves these things to be false?


Again, evidence points strongly against these propositions. It's bit like arguing the earth is flat.

I respect your opinion, but I don't think we should throw out entire fields of scientific study just because they are no longer "in vogue".

What are you talking about? When did I suggest that?

Science, philosophy, psychology, etc. arent't just speculative exercises, rather their purpose is to lead mankind to the truth of God.

I never suggested otherwise.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 6:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 2:37:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Of course it isn't. the preparation of it for habitation started about 48,000 year ago, but that is all it is possible to know.


How do you know this?

The age of the earth doesn't interest me because we are given no idea whatever when it was created or how long it too in scripture.


I agree entirely with that.

All scripture says about the creation of the earth is:

Genesis 1:1 "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We may never know for sure how old the earth is because mankind has no reliable way of measuring time anything like that far back, since all we have is based on assumptions and conjecture, and it is impossible for that to change unless God himself tells us.


I disagree with that.

Incidentally, the rest of Chapter 1 is simply a description of the earth prepared for habitation, from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth.

Nothing man can do will make me uncomfortable because God's word has proven itself reliable enough for me to take it's word over man's on anything, unless some absolutely unarguable evidence comes up that counters that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 6:57:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 6:16:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 2:37:46 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Of course it isn't. the preparation of it for habitation started about 48,000 year ago, but that is all it is possible to know.


How do you know this?

Because scripture gives us enough hints to tell us that each creative day was about 7,00, years long and we are now 6,000 years into the last one.


The age of the earth doesn't interest me because we are given no idea whatever when it was created or how long it took in scripture.


I agree entirely with that.

All scripture says about the creation of the earth is:

Genesis 1:1 "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We may never know for sure how old the earth is because mankind has no reliable way of measuring time anything like that far back, since all we have is based on assumptions and conjecture, and it is impossible for that to change unless God himself tells us.


I disagree with that.

Maybe you do but it is a fact. Science knows the current decay rates of these things but have no idea what the levels were back then, or if the atmospheric and other changes since have changed the decay rate, they can only assume that nothing has, so it really is nothing better than "best guess".

My favourite illustration on that is a water tank, part full and leaking slowly.

You can measure how much water is in it, and what the leakage rate is, however yu cannot calculate how long it has been leaking.

Why?

What you cannot know is how much water was in it when it started leaking, whether any water has been added by condensation or other means, or whether anything has happened to increase or decrease the leakage rate at any point.

You can make a "best guess" but that is all.

It is precisely the same with all current rates of time measurement from an unprovable start point.

Of course if there had been someone there to measure the start point it would be different. Oh wait, there was, God.


Incidentally, the rest of Chapter 1 is simply a description of the earth prepared for habitation, from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth.

Nothing man can do will make me uncomfortable because God's word has proven itself reliable enough for me to take it's word over man's on anything, unless some absolutely unarguable evidence comes up that counters that.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:01:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 6:01:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 2:51:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

Not quite sure what you are saying there. A global flood actually did happen.


Um...whatever you say.

No, not what I say, what the bible says and science confirms some things which may have been aspects of it. It doesn't support it definitively, but it does make the flood a feasible cause for them.


Admittedly at the time there was only one continent, and the mountains were a lot lower, but it still happened.

In fact since the water that formed it was never taken back into the physical heavens the only way it can have have even appeared to have receded, is by the tilting of the earth's crust forming troughs and peaks, which has long been proven to have happened at some point. Again we have no reliable way of knowing when. However scripture puts the separating of the continences sometime after the flood.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Incidentally the name Peleg, apparently means division.

It also possible that if the deluge was as heavy, and as instant at the poles as it appears to have been, that could explain the Ice age either side of a band of the earth around the equator, and would also explain many over things, like fast frozen mammoths found in the Permafrost.' since such an event would cause catastrophic climate change. It could also have caused the earth's crust to crack and form the tectonic plates we know today and started them drifting as they currently are.

Speculation I know, but plausible none the less.


Not really.

Oh it is telecom plausible, and there is no more any way that you can prove it wrong than I can prove it right.


Even I like to indulge in a little speculation occasionally.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 7:46:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:01:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 6:01:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 2:51:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

Not quite sure what you are saying there. A global flood actually did happen.


Um...whatever you say.

No, not what I say, what the bible says...

Yeah, ok.

... and science confirms some things which may have been aspects of it. It doesn't support it definitively, but it does make the flood a feasible cause for them.


Which parts does science confirm?


Admittedly at the time there was only one continent, and the mountains were a lot lower, but it still happened.

In fact since the water that formed it was never taken back into the physical heavens the only way it can have have even appeared to have receded, is by the tilting of the earth's crust forming troughs and peaks, which has long been proven to have happened at some point. Again we have no reliable way of knowing when. However scripture puts the separating of the continences sometime after the flood.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Incidentally the name Peleg, apparently means division.

It also possible that if the deluge was as heavy, and as instant at the poles as it appears to have been, that could explain the Ice age either side of a band of the earth around the equator, and would also explain many over things, like fast frozen mammoths found in the Permafrost.' since such an event would cause catastrophic climate change. It could also have caused the earth's crust to crack and form the tectonic plates we know today and started them drifting as they currently are.

Speculation I know, but plausible none the less.


Not really.

Oh it is telecom plausible, and there is no more any way that you can prove it wrong than I can prove it right.


What is it with this common refrain among certain strains of Christians? I've already encountered this two times on this thread. It's as if you think that it's epistemically respectable to believe something just because someone hasn't "proved" it to be false. (And they are usually impossibly high standards of "proof" to boot). Just because something hasn't been "proved" wrong doesn't mean that it's plausible to believe.


Even I like to indulge in a little speculation occasionally.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 5:08:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 7:46:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 7:01:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 6:01:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 2:51:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:42:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:41:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Okay, suppose that one of your tenets of faith is that the world is 10,000 years old (or younger) - it clearly isn't - but would that be open to empirical disconfirmation for you?

Or replace that example with a global flood if you want

Not quite sure what you are saying there. A global flood actually did happen.


Um...whatever you say.

No, not what I say, what the bible says...

Yeah, ok.

... and science confirms some things which may have been aspects of it. It doesn't support it definitively, but it does make the flood a feasible cause for them.


Which parts does science confirm?

I assume we are here talking just about the bible accounts I speak of above.

As I say above, Science has confirmed that certain things have happened which could be explained by the biblical account of the flood, if extrapolated on from.

Science has demonstrated successfully that the mammoths which have been appearing in the thawing permafrost were killed instantly, in some cases whilst still eating, and frozen so deeply and so quickly that their flesh was perfectly preserved, and even the vegetation in their mouths was still in good condition.

This has been attested to by the fact that the meat off many of the carcasses found was eaten by the natives of the area who found them and not only tasted good but was thoroughly digestible. Their is also some evidence in some skeletons that they were killed and frozen still standing upright but as if crushed by a great weight from above when the only thing above them in that area was sky.

This does indicate that the temperatures dropped almost instantly and that the animals were instantly surrounded by ice. Only a catastrophic climate even could possibly cause something like that and it does rather fit in, though not absolutely confirm, the idea of many thousands of tons of water vapour condensing, and coming from the water mantle described in Genesis chapter 1 and, whilst principally falling in the northern and possible southern regions of the earth it would bring with it catastrophic drops in temperature necessary to freeze the Mammoths the way many of them appear to have been.

Then we move on to the dry land, or what was initially dry land.

Genesis 1 describes the waters as being gathered into one place, which rather infers that it left the land in one pace also. Science has confirmed the existence of one single continent, which they have named Pangea.

The flood account talks of dry land appearing, which most take to mean that the waters receded, but where too? They certainly didn't go back where they came from.

No, it is more logical to assume that the wording that the dry land appeared is more accurate.

Genesis also talks, as I quote below, of the earth being divided post flood.

Science also confirms this. It confirms that, for some unknown reason the earth's crust was smashed, or cracked seriously enough for some plates to start moving and sinking beneath others on one edge, thus starting continental drift and dividing the earth.

What would cause the earth's crust to fragment that way?

Could it not feasibly have been the weight of the water, possibly being placed mainly over the poles? Would this not also cause the plates to tilt, thus providing trenches for the waters to flow into and the earth to rise up at the other ends bringing about mountains and dry land above the waters?

We now the plates are still fractured, and every time there is an earthquake we are reminded that they are still drifting, we also know that mountains, like Everest, are still rising as the plates continue to tilt. True very slowly now, but after the initial impact that would become true anyway.

As I say, not absolute proof by any means, but at least confirmation of the possibility, and there are more things I could bring in to add to it, but I'll let you research them as I did, in my attempts to explain the scriptures without reducing or rationalising them.



Admittedly at the time there was only one continent, and the mountains were a lot lower, but it still happened.

In fact since the water that formed it was never taken back into the physical heavens the only way it can have have even appeared to have receded, is by the tilting of the earth's crust forming troughs and peaks, which has long been proven to have happened at some point. Again we have no reliable way of knowing when. However scripture puts the separating of the continences sometime after the flood.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Incidentally the name Peleg, apparently means division.

It also possible that if the deluge was as heavy, and as instant at the poles as it appears to have been, that could explain the Ice age either side of a band of the earth around the equator, and would also explain many over things, like fast frozen mammoths found in the Permafrost.' since such an event would cause catastrophic climate change. It could also have caused the earth's crust to crack and form the tectonic plates we know today and started them drifting as they currently are.

Speculation I know, but plausible none the less.


Not really.

Oh it is telecom plausible, and there is no more any way that you can prove it wrong than I can prove it right.


What is it with this common refrain among certain strains of Christians? I've already encountered this two times on this thread. It's as if you think that it's epistemically respectable to believe something just because someone hasn't "proved" it to be false. (And they are usually impossibly high standards of "proof" to boot). Just because something hasn't been "proved" wrong doesn't mean that it's plausible to believe.

Well true followers of Christ should have unity in their beliefs so you should hear roughly the same from all. However some aspects of Christianity are shared between the true and the Apostate faiths. It only takes one serious, and deliberate, error of teaching to make one Apostate.



Even I like to indulge in a little speculation occasionally.

At least no-one can say I don't question, research, think and reason, lol, whatever they think of the outcome.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 5:18:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "Well true followers of Christ should have unity in their beliefs so you should hear roughly the same from all. However some aspects of Christianity are shared between the true and the Apostate faiths. It only takes one serious, and deliberate, error of teaching to make one Apostate."

Anna: Emphasis mine above.

In view of that statement, I would like to know if the following (which you have seen before and dismissed as "irrelevant" or "not worthy of comment") is:

(1) not factually correct
(2) taken out of context
(3) a twisting of words
(4) some other unfair method of eliciting the conclusions which would inevitably follow

Haydon C. Covington, legal counsel for the WTBTS, argued numerous cases before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Jehovah"s Witnesses in defense of their religious freedoms, winning most of them. He was a member of the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society. in 1954, he testified in court in Scotland:

Q. Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ's Second Coming was in 1874?

A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.

Q. That was the publication of false prophesy?

A. That was the publication of a false prophesy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophesy that was false or erroneous.

Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?

A. Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?

A. I agree that.

Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?

A. That is correct.

Q. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organization believes one thing, even though it be erroneous and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

Q. Unity at all costs?

A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

A. That is conceded to be true.


Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?

A. That is correct.

Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?

A. I think - - -

Q. Would you say yes or no?

A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.

Q. Do you call that religion?

A. It certainly is.

Q. Do you call it Christianity?

A. I certainly do.


Is this prominent Jehovah's Witness saying that the teachings of the WatchTower must be believed and followed - even if individual members know them to be incorrect at the time?

Note that I am not quoting Mr. Covington as authoritative any more than I would cite the WatchTower on jw.org as authoritative. I am pretty sure that Mr. Covington's belief system was pretty riddled with error.

However .... I am ASKING YOU if YOU believe HIS ANSWERS to be the CORRECT ANSWERS to those questions TODAY? Has anything changed?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 6:42:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2013 5:18:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "Well true followers of Christ should have unity in their beliefs so you should hear roughly the same from all. However some aspects of Christianity are shared between the true and the Apostate faiths. It only takes one serious, and deliberate, error of teaching to make one Apostate."

Anna: Emphasis mine above.

In view of that statement, I would like to know if the following (which you have seen before and dismissed as "irrelevant" or "not worthy of comment") is:

(1) not factually correct
(2) taken out of context
(3) a twisting of words
(4) some other unfair method of eliciting the conclusions which would inevitably follow

Haydon C. Covington, legal counsel for the WTBTS, argued numerous cases before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Jehovah"s Witnesses in defense of their religious freedoms, winning most of them. He was a member of the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society. in 1954, he testified in court in Scotland:

Q. Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society that Christ's Second Coming was in 1874?

A. Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.

Q. That was the publication of false prophesy?

A. That was the publication of a false prophesy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophesy that was false or erroneous.

Q. And that had to be believed by the whole of Jehovah's Witnesses?

A. Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?

A. I agree that.

Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?

A. That is correct.

Q. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organization believes one thing, even though it be erroneous and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

Q. Unity at all costs?

A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

A. That is conceded to be true.


Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?

A. That is correct.

Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?

A. I think - - -

Q. Would you say yes or no?

A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly.

Q. Do you call that religion?

A. It certainly is.

Q. Do you call it Christianity?

A. I certainly do.


Is this prominent Jehovah's Witness saying that the teachings of the WatchTower must be believed and followed - even if individual members know them to be incorrect at the time?

Note that I am not quoting Mr. Covington as authoritative any more than I would cite the WatchTower on jw.org as authoritative. I am pretty sure that Mr. Covington's belief system was pretty riddled with error.

However .... I am ASKING YOU if YOU believe HIS ANSWERS to be the CORRECT ANSWERS to those questions TODAY? Has anything changed?

Again you hark back to the past which is no longer relevant to today's teachings.

Incidentally I have challenged you to a debate, should you wish to accept it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 7:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: However .... I am ASKING YOU if YOU believe HIS ANSWERS to be the CORRECT ANSWERS to those questions TODAY? Has anything changed?

MCB: Again you hark back to the past which is no longer relevant to today's teachings.

Anna: To the contrary, I specifically stated TODAY - not last week, or last month. In other words, it gives you a completely fair chance to say, "That is not true". I didn't ask you, "Was it true?" I can answer "Was it true" for myself.

You see the questions. You see his answers. You were asked if those answers are currently the correct answers to those questions TODAY? And, in the case that one or more are not, please provide what you consider TO BE the correct answer TODAY.

My speculation is that, while a few parts of his answers may misconstrue current WatchTower teachings, the fact is that the vast majority of his replies are just as correct now as they ever were.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 11:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

I have no problem, with people believing in that which is beyond my experience; I have a serious problem, with people assuming because It's true for me, it must be true for everyone.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 2:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2013 11:05:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

I have no problem, with people believing in that which is beyond my experience; I have a serious problem, with people assuming because It's true for me, it must be true for everyone.

What is true for one is true for all, Truth is an absolute not a personal variable. Especially when it comes to religion.

You either follow the true faith or you don't, those are the only two choices.

As Jesus said. "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters", (Luke 11:23).
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 2:41:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2013 7:12:44 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: However .... I am ASKING YOU if YOU believe HIS ANSWERS to be the CORRECT ANSWERS to those questions TODAY? Has anything changed?

MCB: Again you hark back to the past which is no longer relevant to today's teachings.

Anna: To the contrary, I specifically stated TODAY - not last week, or last month. In other words, it gives you a completely fair chance to say, "That is not true". I didn't ask you, "Was it true?" I can answer "Was it true" for myself.

You see the questions. You see his answers. You were asked if those answers are currently the correct answers to those questions TODAY? And, in the case that one or more are not, please provide what you consider TO BE the correct answer TODAY.

My speculation is that, while a few parts of his answers may misconstrue current WatchTower teachings, the fact is that the vast majority of his replies are just as correct now as they ever were.

OK, I accept that, but his answers are past and not relevant as I said. so I still answered your question, you just like everything worded exactly as you want it, and life isn't like that.

If you want to now the answers to those questions today, look on their website and get it "from the horses mouth" rather than secondhand, or are you, once again just trying to score points rather than actually learn anything?

Even things they taught and said last year are irrelevant, whether they have changed or not, it is what they teach today that counts so look it up.

My fiancee made me think today about why I don't bother with anniversaries etc. And I believe it is connected with why I still look young "Clean shaven and with my head shave also" as well as why I still think young.

The answer, when I thought about it is simple. I don't look behind, I keep my eyes on the things in front (scriptural advice actually). If you don;t keep looking back you forget about the passage of time and it doesn't affect you so much.

So stop looking back, and look ahead, there is so much to look ahead for.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 4:30:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

We saints have evidence that we exist within our Creator's mind but because we're invisible energy in the mind of our invisible Creator, it's very difficult to prove to chosen unbelievers who we are in His thoughts, which are stored as wavelengths of energy, ready to be processed into the world illusions of flesh and all the other things that we experience with our senses.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 4:34:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 2:30:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/5/2013 11:05:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

I have no problem, with people believing in that which is beyond my experience; I have a serious problem, with people assuming because It's true for me, it must be true for everyone.

What is true for one is true for all, Truth is an absolute not a personal variable. Especially when it comes to religion.

You either follow the true faith or you don't, those are the only two choices.

As Jesus said. "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters", (Luke 11:23).

We saints don't follow anything of this world. We know the experiences of God's people are in our invisible created existence called the Word of God.

Christians are sinners who have to follow other sinners in this world unless they are chosen to hear the Truth in the gospel that us saints preach.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 9:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 2:30:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/5/2013 11:05:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

I have no problem, with people believing in that which is beyond my experience; I have a serious problem, with people assuming because It's true for me, it must be true for everyone.

What is true for one is true for all, Truth is an absolute not a personal variable. Especially when it comes to religion.

You either follow the true faith or you don't, those are the only two choices.

As Jesus said. "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters", (Luke 11:23).

I could say, "This July weather is sweltering hot," and someone's living in the Southern Hemisphere could say, "This July weather is unbearably cold." Which of us is telling the truth?

Whose interpretation of the Bible is the true one?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 5:55:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 9:20:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:30:16 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/5/2013 11:05:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:54:11 AM, Disquisition wrote:
Before you read, I'm not using the definition of empirical judgment derived from the scientific method, since science can't prove or disprove anything supernatural. Rather I use the third definition of empirical according to this site.

Empirical - provable or verifiable by experience or experiment (insinuating the utilization of the sensory senses)

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As many know, most religions require their followers to believe in a deity or group of deities by faith alone i.e., without any empirical evidence. Now its very commonplace to say "I don't believe in this or that because you don't have evidence/proof," or in this case empirical confirmation.

So I ask this question to people who customarily use this phrase. Is it fair to judge something empirically if it is mostly based on something (which is pure faith/belief) that can't be empirically judged. In other words, I can't really use the same method to compare apples to oranges if the method doesn't apply to apples but only to oranges. Therefore claiming for empirical proof in something that can't be found empirically is a fallacy.

You could say using empirical judgment is the standard of finding human truth, but that is an easy cop out, essentially dodging the question.

I have no problem, with people believing in that which is beyond my experience; I have a serious problem, with people assuming because It's true for me, it must be true for everyone.

What is true for one is true for all, Truth is an absolute not a personal variable. Especially when it comes to religion.

You either follow the true faith or you don't, those are the only two choices.

As Jesus said. "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters", (Luke 11:23).

I could say, "This July weather is sweltering hot," and someone's living in the Southern Hemisphere could say, "This July weather is unbearably cold." Which of us is telling the truth?

Whose interpretation of the Bible is the true one?

God's own,. The one he and his son reveal to their servants through his wisdom as requested in line with James 1:5-8.

The only real qualification for getting that wisdom is realising that you cannot do so without his aid, realising your own limitations, which so few do. Pride all too often gets in the way.

That is why God so often chooses idiots like me, so he can display his own power and wisdom through us..

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 11:32:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "God's own,. The one he and his son reveal to their servants through his wisdom as requested in line with James 1:5-8."

Anna: No, He doesn't.

"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways."

That "wisdom" up there was a spiritual gift just as tongue-speaking, healing, prophesy, and miracles. We have no tongue-speaking today - and no Jehovah's Witness anywhere can do it. The same goes for miraculous healings and prophesying.

This "wisdom" had among its meanings:

"the intelligence evinced in discovering the meaning of some mysterious number or vision"

"the act of interpreting dreams and always giving the sagest advice"

"the varied knowledge of things human and divine"

God is no longer directly infusing this wisdom into anyone any more than he is directly infusing tongue-speaking. The only way you are going to get any tongue-speaking today is by STUDYING and ABSORBING a book on a foreign language - and the only way you are going to get this wisdom is by STUDYING and ABSORBING the word of God.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."