by KateWild 113 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Phizzy,
I think we're on the same page. I've been told that I often come off as an arrogant know-it-all, so to combat that, I sometimes tend to overstate my sympathy for an opposing argument. That said, I don't really care too much what other people choose to believe, as long as it doesn't start affecting me adversly. And I certanly enjoy some healty debate.
The believer will still remain a believer whatever we say, see Kate above, simply because they hold on to their belief/s because of what got them attached to them in the first place, not evidence and reason, but emotion.-phizzy
Hhahahaha you are the baiter mister. I am open to discovery, I am not rigid in my beliefs. If science can prove me wrong then I am searching for that proof. In as far as Powner's research of the origin of life is concerned he does not prove there is no God.
But you have said phizzy, that science does prove there is no God. Show me some and I will change my belief, I don't want to be wrong any longer than I need to be.
Kate xx
Kate, I think the only fair way you can ask for someone to disprove god's existence is to set a rigid standard for what you would consider to be proof. There will always be things that we, as a civilization, don't completely understand. And there will always be someone pointing to any lack of understanding and saying "that's where god resides."
OneEyedJoe,
I like your lightening point. Sadly I don't believe God punishes or rewards us, he is indifferent to our suffering, so the illustration is lost on me. However the water cycle is interesting and is more evidence that god is the Creator. When I look at the hydrogen bonding in water, clouds and rain, the desalination process I see how God makes water. The hydrogen bonding in water is unique and in no other non-aqueous molecule is hydrgen bonding found.
As you can see in the diagram even though the valencies of oxygen and hydrogen are zero because the are bonded to make a water molecule, there is still positive and negative attractions between molecules. It's amazing.
Kate xx
And there will always be someone pointing to any lack of understanding and saying "that's where god resides."- OneEyedJoe
LOL hahaha the "God of the Gaps" debate. I am not filling in the gaps as such, if Powner dicovers how to create life, he will simply discover how God did it. I am not saying if we don't know it must be God. God separates light, we know how rainbows are made now, it doesn't mean God doesn't make them.
I see you point about demanding proof. I have no rigid requirements, as I have already stated I have come to the conclusion that science can niether prove or disprove God. Phizzy disagrees but gave no examples.
Come on phizzy bring it on, I am open minded I promise.
Kate xx
You make a good point prologs. Kate xx
As has ben shown, chemistry IS physics. As a chemist, it is suprising you didn't know that and initially denied it.-Viv
I feel this is another example of your intellectual intimidation. Your missing the point, I specialised in chemistry rather than biology or physics so I know more about chemistry than any of the other sciences. Chemistry is also divided into futher subjects such as
Organic chemistry
Physical chemistry
Inorganic chemistry
Chemometrics
You said you want me to leave you alone, if you wish me to leave you alone then you have the choice to ignore my posts, if you attack me I will defend myself. What exactly are your motives?
Kate,
The bit about the guy judging god as evil due to killing his friend with lightning was just a bit of extra color to the analogy, not the central focus. My point is that most people would consider it somewhat silly to believe that lightning is caused by god when it is demonstrably a natural occurrance that requires no intervention to create.
So my question, then, would be: If someone creates life in a lab, then goes on to show how the processes he used to create life occur naturally with no intelligent influence, given an environment that one would likely have found on earth 3.5 billion years ago, would that be sufficient to you to disprove that a god created life? Or would that still just be "showing how god did it" to you?
You have yet to demonstrate any connection between your premise and conclusion-Viv
Rubbish. You quote mined the post. I am having a conversation with cofty about Soai's paper, I feel your clouding the point, cofty can see why I conclude the way I do so drawing a conclusion is not the point. Your statement does not answer my question to cofty. If you want to join in then say something relevant about Soai's work. Or tell us why you came to your conclusions.
Its bucket chemistry as Saoi demonstrated.-cofty
Specifically how did he demonstrate this? The term "bucket chemistry" is not used in peer reviewed papers mister. But I will play. Kate xx
If someone creates life in a lab, then goes on to show how the processes he used to create life occur naturally with no intelligent influence, given an environment that one would likely have found on earth 3.5 billion years ago, would that be sufficient to you to disprove that a god created life? -OneEyedJoe
Good question, I would like to hope so. But the question is what is superior intelligence? In chemistry I see it in electrons, enantiomers and in the formation of RNA. Cofty seems to believe that Soai has proved reactions occur naturally with no intelligent influence, if you have read the links and agree with cofty then try me and see if it's sufficient for me.
Kate xx
