Posts by A Ha

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

A Ha

Slim -
1. No solution exists.
2. A solution exists but we have not yet, or may never find it.
It is only husbris, or wishful thinking, that says 1 must be true and 2 cannot be the explanation.
Unless you know some good reason why 1 must be true and 2 can definitely be discounted.

A half-dozen reasons jumped out at me while skimming the thread.

By using analogies like solving a "maths problem," you're mis-characterizing the PoE. PoE isn't "looking for a solution," it's offering an answer. As you say, it's making a claim about a specific conception of God.

When your response to a logical argument isn't to challenge the validity or soundness of the argument, but to say "there might be a solution that nobody has thought of," you haven't defeated the argument, you've admitted that it's a good argument!

What is being claimed here is that the inability of humans to find a solution to the problem of evil therefore disproves the existence of the God of the Bible.

No, this isn't what's being claimed. What's being claimed is that the concept of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is incompatible with the world we observe. The argument doesn't claim to succeed because of a "lack of a solution;" it is the solution.

It isn't

1) no solution exists, or;
2) maybe there is a solution that we're unaware of.

It's

The premises of the PoE are both correct and the conclusion follows, or;
One or both of the premises are wrong, or;
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You seem to be attacking the first premise, but to do so you must ignore a main theme of the Bible--that of God's revelation of Himself to mankind.

If you claim that God is Good then you're admitting that His personality is discernible, at least in part. The PoE proponent also says God's personality is discernible, and that it is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent.

I no longer believe that the Bible is consistent with itself. So I won't argue that there are parts of the Bible that claim God has revealed himself in various ways, especially Jesus...

You're proof-texting. If you're going to blatantly ignore scriptures that are inconvenient to you, then the argument is not aimed at you. It's aimed at people who are willing to consider all of the evidence.

Your position seems blindingly self-serving. I would find it nearly impossible to believe that you are consistent in which scriptures you accept and which you reject. If you were walking down the street and a little child said, "Mister, do you think God is good or evil?" I do not believe you would say, "Dunno. He's inscrutable. Could be Good. Could be Evil." No, I'm certain you would claim God is Good, and would likely use the same scriptures Cofty quoted as evidence.

For reference, we can list the PoE as (per wikipedia):

If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

A Ha

I like how he drops his biggest bombshell--the one that he throws out there like it's self-evident, yet would earn him billions of dollars and uncounted awards if he could demonstrate it--then declares his job is done.

9

Cubs clinch division title!

by JRK in

bring on the post season!.

jk.

A Ha

Post-season meltdown in 3.. 2...

Actually, I don't mind if they win--it's been so long and they've built a pretty amazing team that will compete for years.

Just don't become like Red Sox fans.

127

So......Obama IS a US citizen after all?!

by Black Man in

jw
friends

april 27th, 201110:06 am etobama releases long-form birth certificateposted by:cnn white house producer shawna shepherd.

by cnn's alan silverleib.

washington (cnn) the white house released copies of president barack obama's original long-form birth certificate wednesday, seeking to put an end to persistent rumors that he was not born in theunited states.. "we do not have time for this kind of silliness," obama told reporters at the white house.. obama's long-form birth certificate [pdf].

A Ha

littlerockguy - Obama supporters and the mainstream media uses the term "conspiracy theorists" and "birthers" as buzzwords like the Watchtower Society uses the terms "apostates", which makes sense since both have cult followers.

OK so please answer a few quick questions:

When Trump said, "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like," was he pushing a conspiracy theory?
When he said "He's spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. And I'll tell you what, I brought it up, just routinely, and all of a sudden a lot facts are emerging and I'm starting to wonder myself whether or not he was born in this country," is that promoting a conspiracy theory?
Does the fact that he never shared what the "lot of facts" were make him a birther?
When he said, "He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way," was that trafficking in conspiracy theories?
Does the fact that he never told us who this "somebody" was who told him Obama's problem might be that his birth certificate has an entry for religion and that it's Muslim make him a regular old religious bigot, or a birther bigot?
Does the fact that he said, "I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics," mean he's trafficking in conspiracy theories?
Does the fact that he never reveals who these "people" are, or what "they're finding" make him a truther?
Does the fact that he said, "His grandmother in Kenya said, 'Oh, no, he was born in Kenya and I was there and I witnessed the birth.' She's on tape. I think that tape's going to be produced fairly soon. Somebody is coming out with a book in two weeks, it will be very interesting," make it a conspiracy theory?
Does the fact that he never produced this tape make him a truther?

Now here things get a little more... conspiratorial. In late April, 2011 Obama produced his long form birth certificate, and Trump said he "believes that President Obama was born in the United States."

But then, afterward, he made the following statements publically:

A year later:

"He didn't know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said ... He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia ... Now they're saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her, she said, 'Oh, I mean Hawaii.' Give me a break." Was Trump trafficking in conspiracy theories in repeating and commenting on this fake report?
When it came out that this was a fake report, does the fact that Trump didn't correct, recant, or apologize for his remarks mean he's a truther?
"A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate. ... Many people do not think it was authentic. His mother was not in the hospital. There are many other things that came out. And frankly if you would report it accurately I think you'd probably get better ratings than you're getting." Is it a conspiracy theory to claim "Many [unnamed] people..."?
Is implying that the news network he was giving an interview to (CNN) was not reporting "accurately" regarding Obama's birth certificate promoting a conspiracy theory?
Via Twitter: "An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud." Does this make Trump a truther?
Is making his claims via "extremely credible sources," which he doesn't name, make him a conspiracy theorist?

Now almost two and a half years after Obama released his long form birth certificate, and Trump claimed to accept it, he says:

"Was it a birth certificate? You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows." Is this taking advantage of the substantial portion of the US population who are not intelligent enough to see through conspiracy theory BS? I.... just... don't... know!
Does the fact that he doesn't name these "some people" make him a conspiracy theorist?
Via Twittter: "How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama's 'birth certificate' died in plane crash today. All others lived." Is this implying the woman who died was assassinated, or is he just sharing random thought of the day #1,323,418?

In a 2014 interview on Irish TV - three years after Obama released his birth certificate:

"Well, I don't know -- did he do it? ... Well, a lot of people don't agree with you and a lot of people feel it wasn't a proper certificate."
Does the fact that he doesn't name these "lot of people" or explain why we should care about the random thoughts flitting like butterflies through their heads, mean he's trafficking in conspiracy theories?
"There are three things that could happen. And one of them did happen. He was perhaps born in Kenya. Very simple, OK? He was perhaps born in this country. But said he was born in Kenya because if you say you were born in Kenya, you got aid and you got into colleges. People were doing that. So perhaps he was born in this country, and that has a very big chance. Or, you know, who knows?" Does this make him a truther?

Which brings us to 2016, when he said, regarding Obama's country of birth:

"Who knows about Obama? ... Who knows, who knows? Who cares right now?... I have my own theory on Obama. Someday I will write a book, I will do another book, and it will do very successfully."

So there you have a bunch of comments he made after 2011... this doesn't even include stuff from when the whole birther movement was at its strongest. And these are only comments from one public figure. As Nancy Pelosi recently said, what Trump has said is nothing compared to what many of the GOP members of the house and senate have said over the years.

Just buzzwords, huh?

3

JW HUMOR

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

jw humor.

there are people who bring happiness whenever they enter a room.. jw’s bring joy when they exit.. .

if you talk to god, you’re praying; if god talks to you, you’re either schizophrenic, the g.b.

A Ha

Two jokes I heard from COs many years ago:

1. Retelling a complaint from a waitress; "JWs come into town with the 10 Commandments and a $10 bill--and don't break either one." He was trying to say don't be cheapskates regarding tipping when going out to eat after conventions, so I guess that's a good thing.

2. "The three fastest forms of communication are.. telegraph, television, and tell a sister." At the time I was surprised the CO would tell a "cool" joke, now I'm like "That's sexist!"

27

Directed panspermia - a plausible theory of intelligent design?

by EdenOne in

i have just read an interesting article by astrobiologist jacob haq-misra.. in this article he describes a process called "directed panspermia" as a plausible way that one form of intelligent design - one not related with religious driven agendas involving theism - could be involved in the process by which life developed on earth and possibly in other planets as well.. sounds like a speculation that's worth entertaining.

your thoughts?.

A Ha

LuvUniHateExams - But doesn't it just push the problem of life's origin back further? If life on earth came from outer space/another planet, then how did life arise there?

My understanding is that when people like Crick talked about panspermia, it was because there appeared to be insurmountable problems with the idea that life arose on earth. The Miller Urey experiments failed to produce all of the necessary amino acid building blocks necessary, etc. But then it was discovered that some amino acids seemed to be found in meteorite fragments, and some scientists took it a step further and said this could be directed, not accidental.

The idea was that if conditions weren't right on earth for life to start, then either 1) parts of it might have started on earth (the parts that could in pre-biotic conditions), and the other needed ingredients could have hitched a ride on meteorites ejected from, for example, Mars, which had the conditions necessary for the parts earth lacked. 2) there was some other planet somewhere with the right conditions for all of the building blocks to form, and on that planet arose an advanced civilization which eventually seeded our planet for some unknown reason.

But this was decades ago, when a "pre-biotic soup" was pretty much the only game in town as far as origins of life was concerned, and I think they were looking for DNA production, not the much simpler RNA.

Now there are other options that are much more probable, and that could have produced all of the necessary building blocks of life right here on earth.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

A Ha

SBF - Can you explain what you believe is the difference between a God doing something by "natural" means as opposed to "supernatural" means. I am not convinced this is a meaningful distinction.

When we ask for explanations in this context, it seems we're asking for the ultimate explanation--at least as far back as we can go.

To return to the Planet Fairies example, a culture believes that PFs are responsible for the motion of planets, then along comes Newton and gravitation, and the PF explanation is modified to "gravity is generated by PFs to guide the planets." Then Einstein refines our ideas and curved space-time fits the evidence better, so the PF explanation becomes "PFs curve space-time to guide the planets along their orbits." If people keep insisting that some supernatural explanation is the cause of the natural explanation, then they're keeping to a supernatural explanation. If others say "space-time is curved, full stop," that's a natural explanation.

If God is said to interact with the natural world, then eventually, the God explanation has to have some sort of natural component. Positing that some part of the equation involves nature doesn't blur the distinction between natural and supernatural.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

A Ha

Only if you think God cannot use natural means. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are. In your scenario it's a supernatural explanation.

To say some supernatural agent is "using" a natural mechanism is uninteresting. In that case, we can always insert some undetectable supernatural thing behind everything we see. Einstein's GR explains the orbits of planets naturally. We can accept curved space-time, then insert Planet Fairies that push the planets in their orbits, and I guess the naturalist cannot "prove" there aren't Planet Fairies. But again, that's an uninteresting claim. It takes advantage of how malleable the concept of God is.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

A Ha

But what is most amazing is that your materialist reductionism apparently blinds you to the fact that the same phenomenon can have different levels of interpretation. A river can be cold, it can be blue, it can be rough, it can be clean, it can be amazing, it can be ugly, it can be ancient, it can be artificial. What makes no sense whatsoever is to pit different kinds of descriptions against one another as if they are in competition.

This isn't what cofty (or anyone else) is doing. The descriptions you use depend on context, and are not mutually exclusive, as you say. However, to say life arose by naturalistic means, and also to say it arose by supernatural means are mutually exclusive. This isn't a "different level of interpretation," (a different focus, or scale), like saying the river is cold and the river is blue. It's like saying the river is blue and the river is red.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

A Ha

Vidquin - See, God doesn't come into the picture here.

But God is in the picture, and you put him there.

As a preface to introducing your "Life comes from life law," you said, "God is the source of life..." it's all in the same post. Now maybe you didn't directly state that this law is evidence for God (I'm too lazy to go back and read everything again) but it's the clear implication given that this thread is about the origin of life.

Viviane responded that the problem for your claim is that God, being alive, would then be in need of an explanation. You didn't reply to that, but repeated that this was your observation, and challenged anyone to come up with an exception. Landy said, "God?" and you didn't reply to that. Finally, I said that because this law of yours was setting up a causal chain, the first link in the chain has to be exempt from it to avoid an infinite regression. But that means you can't really make any claims about the first form(s) of life, only life after that--and even then it's going to be an inductive argument.