Posts by Viviane

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.

Viviane

That's my belief from what I gather from the evidence, nothing more, nothing less. In order to disprove my rule, you must come up with contrary examples, with evidence that refutes the rule. So far there's no takers, so the rule stands (until such time as the scientists prove me wrong).

As I said, had you been a microbiologist as you claim, you would know that you've just gotten it 100% wrong. But, you weren't, so you don't.

This would be similar to Newton's law of gravity being rewritten by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Gravity is not an ordinary force but a property of space-time geometry. The apple is not being pulled down by the mass of the planet. Its fall causes a gravitational wave and is pushed down by causing a ripple in the space-time continuum. So, there goes Newton's law out of the window.

This is also 100% wrong. However, in an attempt to prop up your wrongness, Newton failed to continue because, ironically, much like you are doing, he posited "God did it". It took someone not using God as a prop to get closer. Interestingly, your attempt to show yourself wrong only shows how wrong you are.

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.

Viviane

If you ask how a certain scientific discovery would impact believers in God, and how would they "respond", this reasonably involves the assumption that such a scientific discovery would pose a challenge to belief in God in such a way that some "response" from believers is required or expected.

What does that have to do with your incorrect comments about science and attempt to denigrate others with your incorrectness?

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.

Viviane

Not even one example? Not even a little one? Well, my rule stands then. Let's leave God out of the equation for the moment. This is the way nature works, whether you like it or not.

Yes! Exactly! Your rule stand as a classic example of a logical fallacy! That is EXACTLY how reality works. Now you're getting it! I LOVE IT!

BTW, your rule is an example of a non-falsifiable position, in other words, it can never actually be proven true OR false as it would require the complete knowledge of all life everywhere for all of time. I know you only pretend to be a microbiologist and scientist, but if you're going to pretend, you should at least know some basic logic and science.

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.

Viviane

The opening post was clearly about about possible scientific breakthroughs on the origin of life undermining belief in God, and how theists would "respond" to that situation.

What does that have to do with the false claim of "the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God"?

I would simply suggest that when you are forced to deny the plain meaning of your own words, then something has gone seriously wrong with your argument.

Who has done that? All that has happened so far is that you have attempted to make a false claim about the OP and then attempted to denigrate someone while being wrong. So far, no one is running away from their words, just pointed out where you made some serious errors regarding science.

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.

Viviane

Viv, my rule says: Life begets life. Life brings forth life. That's the evidence before me. Please, would you be so kind as to let me know of any example, where that is not the case. Thank you in anticipation.

Your rule invalidates itself. Logically there can be no first life using your rule, so there can no life at all. It's just a simple matter of not recognizing when you've created an infinite regression problem.

If you say God created life, then God must have also needed a creator, a greater god, and THAT god must have needed a creator, so on and so forth into infinity.

If you say God created life but isn't alive in the sense of biological life, then you break your rule, biological life DOESN'T need biological life to beget it, thus invalidating your rule, but with the added benefit of now having made the claim that god is not alive.

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.

Viviane

The original post speaks for itself, that it was about how scientific discoveries impact belief in God.

It does. You're attempting to claim that is related to " the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God".

They are wildly different.

If you don't perceive a naturalistic solution to the origin of life as a challenge to theism, then why frame the discussion in terms of how theists may "respond" to this new information?

That has nothing to do with your claim about " the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God".

My point is that some theists will "respond" by pointing out that scientific discoveries do not tell us about the nature or existence of God.

Congratulations, you've identified a strawman argument.

And that, remarkable as the human mind and science are, there may be things about the universe and reality that it is not able to pin down once and for all in human categories.

Non-sequitur.

I fully understand that this response does not fall neatly into the clever trap you believe you set for creationists or theists by raising this issue.

It also doesn't fall into the trap of being a coherent argument.

22

Being nice to LGBTQ people is an affront to god?

by Viviane in

this should be titled "jerks for jesus afraid of their own shadow, sexuality".

seriously, someone thinks that a video on how to be nice to people different from him is an affront to his god.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/federal-worker-would-rather-be-fired-than-watch-lgbt-diversity-video-god-doesnt-want-me-to-see-it/.

Viviane

This should be titled "Jerks for Jesus Afraid of Their Own Shadow, Sexuality"

Seriously, someone thinks that a video on how to be nice to people different from him is an affront to his god.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/federal-worker-would-rather-be-fired-than-watch-lgbt-diversity-video-god-doesnt-want-me-to-see-it/

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.

Viviane

The original post discusses the idea that future scientific discoveries about the origin of life may eliminate the need for God and leave theists with difficult questions to answer. I am pointing out that this approach to understanding reality rests upon various assumptions that are difficult the establish. Such as the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God. Also the assumption that human rationality is the measure of what is real and exists in the world.

See bolded text. That's not an assumption in science any kind. It's a claim made by those wishing to discredit science.

Also, one of the reasons science works the way it does it precisely because nature DOES defy human rationality. The study of quantum physics is proof of that.

These are hardly novel or even particularly "postmodern" ideas in the philosophy of religion. They are common objections to a purely materialist conception of reality. That you apparently give them no consideration is not, as you seem to imagine, proof that I am talking postmodern rubbish.

It's rubbish because the objections aren't actual things. In other words, they get no consideration because the premise is false.

If you have not considered these sorts of arguments it does speak well of the robustness of your own position that you trumpet with such confidence. Instead of trying to invent ways to embarrass creationists intellectually you could better spend time tidying your own intellectual back yard.

Instead of attempting to denigrate others for not being intellectual enough, have you considered making valid arguments based on actual things? In other words, in your attempt to tell other people how dumb they are, have you tried not being wrong?

34

Do you have / admire Charisma?

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

"charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which the person is set apart from ordinary people and treated as exceptional".

as a kid i was afraid of such charisma, as it was usually the quality i noticed elders, head masters, and parents had to exercise with unloving authority over me.. but now i think about it "charisma" doesn't need be only for people with authority.

" charisma" is something even we can have?

Viviane

This whole thread sounds very self-indulgent.

It should be re-titled "How to Humblebrag or, Please Notice How Awesome I Am, DO IT NOW!"

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.

Viviane

In apophatic terms it could be said of God that he is both not alive and not not-alive.

Apophatic theology is nothing more than an attempt to pretend not knowing anything means actually knowing something. It's funny that proponents of it think anyone older than 5 would fall for it.