Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  Do you seriously think Deepak Chopra is the main intellectual challenge to materialism today?

  Oh, heavens no. That's the level of challenge YOU present to any argument on this forum.

  For instance, in your attempt to say something about a soul, you wrote "There are clearly some things without a physical location that do exist, such as the number 34, and human thoughts: dreams, realisations, computations, disappointments."

  Even a cursory examination of your list exposes all of the flaws with your comparisons. Thoughts, dreams, realisations and disappointements exist physically within your body, they are chemical changes that can be watched and measured. Computations? Seriously? They happen in a computer, using well known physics. It's literally the reason you are typing on the internet, because it's real and exists in a place.

  As far as the number 34, it's math, which is a shorthand way to describe a quantity of items that is a specific amount. For instance, I can't give you "34" and leave it at that. I have to give you 34 of something, or I give something the name 34, like "Rule 34" indicating it is a specific place in a list of items.

  So, if some being gave a human a soul and it's in them, where is it?

  Feel free to answer once you've addressed your previous dishonesty (really, shame on you for lying so much) and finish your "My First Book of Deepitys" by Chopra. In between those two, take a course in philosophy.

  Why "must"? You are apparently so committed to materialism you cannot possibly conceive of an answer outside its frame of reference. And once again, you finding something "ridiculous" does not constitute an argument.

  Well.... the concept of 34 exists in our minds. The objects that number 34 are the same quanity whether we know it or not, call it that or not, of even know it exists.
  

  And again, the frame of reference is that something was given, added, to humans, a physical thing. Where is it, then?

  Once you've dealt with your dishonesty, please answer.
  
  
• 

  nicolaou

  Thank you Cofty, Viv, et al who all help with my education, with my critical thinking skills, and very often save me the trouble of that "minimal effort" by showing me the way to go.

  Whilst I'd place myself in the same camp as Cofty and Viv' I think it would be a tragedy for you or anyone else to skip that 'minimal effort' and simply accept what they say on authority.

  Make that effort, I'm certain Cofty and Viv would agree.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Which previous unfinished business do you refer to? The WT saying that scientists may one day create cells, yet Cofty saying JWs teach the opposite? You really want to revisit that? If the statement in the WT saying it might happen one day doesn't satisfy you, what exactly would you accept as proof?

  Even a cursory examination of your list exposes all of the flaws with your comparisons. Thoughts, dreams, realisations and disappointements exist physically within your body, they are chemical changes that can be watched and measured.

  Yes well that's what materialists claim, of course, that thoughts are identical to the chemical reactions of the brain. There is little doubt that consciousness arises largely from the brain, but that is different than saying a thought is identical to those physical mechanisms. There are more possibilities to explain the complex nature of reality, including consciousness, than materialism or dualism. Materialism is one way of understanding the world, it is not the only way, and it has its problems.

  Tallis explains some of the reasons for thinking that consciousness is not identical to reactions in the brain.

  http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-consciousness-is-not
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  slim reductionist materialists claim this

  Yes well that's what materialists claim, of course, that thoughts are identical to the chemical reactions of the brain
• 

  Viviane

  Whilst I'd place myself in the same camp as Cofty and Viv' I think it would be a tragedy for you or anyone else to skip that 'minimal effort' and simply accept what they say on authority.
  Make that effort, I'm certain Cofty and Viv would agree.

  Agreed 100%.

  Which previous unfinished business do you refer to?

  In which SBF chooses to pretend he wasn't incredibly dishonest.

  Be an adult, deal with it, then you'll be able to move on.

  Yes well that's what materialists claim, of course, that thoughts are identical to the chemical reactions of the brain. There is little doubt that consciousness arises largely from the brain, but that is different than saying a thought is identical to those physical mechanisms. There are more possibilities to explain the complex nature of reality, including consciousness, than materialism or dualism. Materialism is one way of understanding the world, it is not the only way, and it has its problems.

  Stop being dishonest, no one said "identical". I have serious doubts that you are capable of presenting a coherent argument and sticking to it and arguing it without being dishonest about what other people say.

  You do it Every. Single. Time.
  
  So, of course every idea about the nature of reality has it's problems, no one is claiming otherwise (strawman by you). The search is on for a better answer (reality). However, pursuing both materialistic and naturalistic solutions (two things you confused and conflated previously) has, so far, produced the only usable results to describe and investigate reality.

  Other forms of thought and ways of thinking are worthwhile pursuits. That requires understanding those things (you clearly don't from making so many simple errors in describing certain lines of thinking in philosophy, category errors, making so many logical fallacies, etc.) and the abilities and limitations of them.

  The mistakes happen when someone says things like computations don't happen in a physical place. It betrays either a severe lack of understanding of reality, dishonesty, or trolling. I'm personally going to go with trolling.

  Anyway, claims of a soul treat it as a thing. Unless you've something or some reason to show it should be treated differently, your trolling is of no value.

  Besides, you're still got your previous dishonesty to deal with before you can move on.

  Also, looks like it's time for a revival of this thread... https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/279886/what-spirit-exactly
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes Ruby, reductionist materialists, I stand corrected.

  What's interesting is that some such as Viv who hold to this view, apparently cannot conceive that there are other ways of understanding reality. It's just taken for granted as an article of faith. Viv doesn't show any signs of being aware of alternatives or the problems identified with reductionist materialism.
• 

  Ruby456

  just catching up with this thread - I find myself agreeing with slimboyfat and mephis.

  I agree that witnesses do not the view spirit and soul like other christians do. I agree that the scripture that says that God breathed into Adam's nostrils so that he became a living soul ought to viewed in the same way as the scripture that says the spirit returns to God who gave it - metaphorically as this would then agree with their main teachings about the spirit and soul.
• 

  Ruby456

  slim

  
  What's interesting is that some such as Viv who hold to this view, apparently cannot conceive that there are other ways of understanding reality. It's just taken for granted as an article of faith. Viv doesn't show any signs of being aware of alternatives or the problems identified with reductionist materialism.

  yes and i ask why they can't just admit there is a small mistake and move on. Cofty's arguments are otherwise great. My suspicion is that the view held by viv and cofty is that the whole argument re origin of life stands or falls if there is one small mistake somewhere in argument. in fact everyone makes mistakes and the thing to do is to admit it and re focus on the actual main argument once again
• 

  slimboyfat

  Viv, I used "computation" in the context of human thought. It was you who applied it to computers.

  Anyway, claims of a soul treat it as a thing. Unless you've something or some reason to show it should be treated differently, your trolling is of no value.

  If a soul is a thing, it does not need to be a physical thing, in order to be a thing. You are presupposing reductionist materialism, and therefore begging the question. (Yeah, yeah, you will say I'm wrong, I don't know what begging the question is, and I'm dishonest. There I'll save you the bother. Predictably what you won't do is supply any argument or evidence for any assertion you make)

  Frankly I am doubtful about "souls", but dismissing them on the grounds that they are not material is stupid, because they are not claimed to be material.

  Non-physical things do exist, such as numbers and thoughts. The question is not whether non-material things can exist, the question is whether a "soul" is among them or not.
  
• 

  cofty

  why they can't just admit there is a small mistake and move on - Ruby

  Because so far nobody has demonstrated any flaws in my argument.

  If you can see any let me know. I don't want to be wrong any longer than necessary.

  As far as "souls" go it is up to those who refer to such non-entities to explain what they mean and where their evidence is. If there are other ways of knowing that humans have something called a soul that doesn't depend on evidence then what are those ways? To just make an unfalsifiable assertion like "god gave two humanoids a soul" is to be not even wrong.