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

Well if I have to tell you why we can say animals don't perceive infinity and humans do...

All you have to do is show me the evidence.

You're are wrong about the date of the most recent common ancestor of humans. It existed just a few thousand years.

All you have to do is show me the evidence.

Only Christians consider matter as separated from God. Others religions consider matter as a body of a god. In these religions you cannot study matter but you must worship it.

Really? Excellent, show me the evidence for that.

And you're are a positivist if you consider the scientific method the only valid knowledge.

It helps to know something besides the scientific method. I mean, knowing how to make a salad is nice.

The Catholic view is God created the universe and set natural laws to it.
One of these laws is the evolution algorithm. It created the human body and the primitive mind in it.

OK, show me the evidence for that.

In some recent point, God chose a pair of these humanoids and put a soul in them. If the sons of the first couple took theirs mates from the others humanoids it was not bestiality, because there was no difference in the material body.

OK, interesting, not different except that one had a soul and one didn't, making them separate species. How is that not bestiality?

And theirs sons received a human soul afterwards because is believed that every soul is created directly by God.

So you're saying that only one parent is needed to pass on a soul? Also, sons? What if they had a daughter, would she have gotten a soul? Or did these hybrids only have sons? Is the soul passed on in the X or Y chromosome?

I need some more details on how this works.

And theirs sons received a human soul afterwards because is believed that every soul is created directly by God.

Interesting. What does he make it out of? What he made out of, for that matter? What tools, if any, would he need? A hammer? Screwdriver?

This belief is consistent with the scientific knowledge about the most recent common ancestor and the human modern behaviour.

Oh, well, don't get ahead of yourself. You've not shown any evidence yet. This is, at this point, just you saying stuff.

The recent fundamentalist view on Genesis is not the traditional view of Christianity. Saint Augustine said in the third century the Genesis account it's a theological explanation.

So 1700 years ago he knew it was a load of poop. Good to know.

What does that have to do with all of the evidence you need to be working on getting together?

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

as I said don't take it personally but simply acknowledge that what sbf describes does happen in the world out there. You don't fall into that category but thanks sbf anyway for reminding us because as we know we could

Whoa, back up. The premise is not equal. With regard to evidence for a particular worldview, there is no actual evidence for a theistic world view. On the other hand, there is amble objective evidence on the scientific side. Secondly, "atheist" just means "doesn't believe in god, gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, demons", etc.. It has nothing in particular to do thinking evolution or abiogenesis is true. That has more impact on a theistic worldview than an atheistic one.

The soul is what produces the sense of infinity in your mind. And the search for meaning, justice, beauty and so on. No other animal do that. So we can assume we have some extra in our animal minds.

What is "the sense of infinity" in your mind? How do you know animals don't have it? How do you know animals don't have a sense of justice or appreciate beauty? It's a common trope in religious thought that animals were "dumb", but science has clearly shown (science wins over assumptions again) that animals are FAR more complex that humans thought. In fact, it was recently discovered that dolphins have one on one conversations. Animals have emotions and conversations, why would not have those other things?

At this point, what you are calling the "soul" is a metaphor for "your assumptions about animals".

I know you're a positivist. I don't know if you're aware of that but you belongs to a failed French philosophy.

I am not a positivist, which, BTW, predates the idea of France, French, and even Latin, which French is based on. Next time you decide to tell someone what you assume they are, try knowing what you are actually talking about.

Science could only be created in the Christian theology.

Science actually got started in Greece in the 5th century and really got going around the year 1000, by a Muslim. The Muslim world came up with all kinds of science that we still use today, fleshed out the scientific method, etc. Meanwhile, the Church was persecuting Galileo.

Not only does it pre-date Christianity by 500 years, it was championed by Muslims.

Why is it Christians know so little about their own past?

Viviane I was referring to the most recent common ancestor of humanity.

The most common recent ancestor for humans was a woman 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. The MRCA on the male side is longer ago than that. Are you suggesting that God implanted a soul (metaphor for your assumption that animals are dumb, a common religious trope) in a human and that for thousands of years there were half souled human/animal hybrids having sex?

Or are you going to suggest that he gave two humanoids souls at the same time and that their children were forced to engage in sex with non-human animals, basically that God forced them into bestiality? Or that they only had sex with each other, that God forced them into incest?

If so, what would be the modern justification for bans on incest and bestiality since god clearly approved of 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

Oh the irony. Viv please examine your post history, each thread you attach yourself to becomes "childish drama"

OK, I don't think you know what irony is, but, whatever. It's hardly my fault if people that can't defend their claims or who make faulty arguments attempt to make everything personal.

Further irony, many posts ago Cofty said he would not respond to anymore of Slims comments. Well then my suggestion Cofty, is that you start a new thread with the same interesting "O.P" but follow your convictions ,and don't comment on Slims posts.

Again, that's not irony, but whatever. Perhaps you should let Cofty post as he sees fit?

It's possible ex-witnesses are further forward than awake magazine science, and can be trusted to compare and contrast your O.Ps and alternative viewpoints without the need of ugly confrontations.

The problem is that people get tied up emotionally with their argument. Separate the two and it's all fine. It's when there is a perception that attacking an argument is the same as attacking the person that there is a problem. If someone can't separate the two and starts making a personal attack, it's not everyone else's fault but their own.

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

Viviane, I know you miss me, my instant replys and love me, but please understand there is not a 10 minute rule to reply to your posts. My opinion and answers will be more valued if you give me time, not only to come up with answers, but time to think how you will take those words, and misconstrue them to your advantage.

So now you give terrible answers and are pretending it's my fault?

No thanks, I've already got kids, I don't need to deal any more childish emotional drama.

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

I think on this thread we have asked football questions and got football answers back. We can argue for hours, it's not just football it's, tennis to tennis, but that doesn't mean a collective answer is right.

Huh? Not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe because the discussion is using the same terms that.. something something?
Just because a term is used that is related to the subject doesn't mean the term is used correctly. It would be like calling pass interference on a running play (in American football) or icing on intentional high sticking (in hockey). Just because the terms are related to the same subject doesn't mean they are relevant.

Nicolaou, then please come up with a single point that Cofy and Vivianne have made that fits the same criteria. Rather telling. Don't you think?

Wait, so you think that you being called out for not being able to come up with a single good point by SBF AFTER you claimed he made some is the same as attempting to call someone out for an answer they have given in response to a claim they (as far as I know) never made?
Really?

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

Now Viv we may end up putting our boxing gloves on:-And I think I may be knocked out. But you asked the good points slim has made by posting and I gave my answer.

Your "answer" didn't say anything so, no, it really wasn't an answer. It was a response, but not an answer.

So, no good points raised by SBF, got 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

What, specifically, do you think are good points raised by slim, rebel and why?

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

Oh SBF! Don't be silly! You don't need to be embarrassed for being vague and then lashing out. It's all you can do when facts, reality, evidence, grammar, honesty, language and logic aren't on your side. Well, all you can do if you aren't adult enough to admit any of that.

You should be no more embarrassed than a puppy that wets itself when confronted by a kitten.

/Cleanup on aisle 3

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

It also says that scientists may succeed in creating life at some point in the future.
Their argument is that this would only go to prove that intelligent life is required to make life. Life can't arise spontaneously.
The WT does not teach there is a "theological barrier" to scientists creating life as Cofty claimed. In fact it says the opposite, that scientists may succeed some day.

*sigh*... I know logic is hard, but try.

First, they don't say that scientist may succeed one day. They say "Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident?"

That does not in any way say "may", it says "if". It's similar to saying "Humans will never be able to shoot laser beams from their eyes, but if they could, that would be terrible." The latter hypothetical doesn't negate the former.

How do we know that "if" and "may" are different? Try replacing them in a sentence. "If you go outside, then you will be cold" doesn't make sense as "May you go outside, then you will be cold". Similarly, "you can go to the movies if you finish your homework" doesn't make sense as "you can go to the movies may you finish your homework".

The hypothetical "if" (not may) does not negate their teaching that God is the only source of life.

Evidence is so inconvenient.

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201501/origin-of-life/

PROTIP: If you are going to link to a doc to prove your point, actually know what it says and what the words mean.

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 I'm actually quite pleased that you don't think I can construct an argument. who would want to listen to your advice anyway?

Smart people. In point of fact, I get paid quite handsomely for my advice on how to think about things, solve complex problems, come up with creative solutions to big problems and do it ensuring that we're not creating more problems. It involves math, science, philosophy, politics, knowledge of various regulatory agencies, understanding politics and human interactions and constantly updating education and knowledge on all of those topics.

In terms of hobbies, I enjoy astronomy, physics, cosmology and geology as the subjects I read up on daily or weekly.Wrong in saying JWs have a "theological barrier" to scientists ever creating life. Because their own literature says scientists may succeed at some point in the future. If Cofty can't admit a factual mistake as simple as that, what hope is there for more complex ideas?

Evidence is so inconvenient.

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201501/origin-of-life/

If Cofty can't admit a factual mistake as simple as that, what hope is there for more complex ideas?

Well, there is the hope that you could address your dishonesty or demonstrable misunderstanding of philosophy, science and logic.