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.
Why the appeal to ridicule fallacy?
That's would be a good question had I done that. Laughter isn't the same as ridicule, so now we can add "doesn't know what ridicule or a fallacy is" to the list.
I insist, please show me why my definition of positivism is wrong. You can post a link if you wish. Thank you.
And "doesn't know how 'burden of proof' works" is now on the list.
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.
So tell me what is positivism...
Ha ha! Do your own research.
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.
Some positivists would ask for scientific evidence of "meaning" or "purpose" of life. Positivism is very flawed and are everywhere lately with blind followers (usually they even don't know they're following it).
That's hilarious coming from someone who doesn't know what posotivism is and, in a twist of irony, is actually a practitioner of it without even knowing it.
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.
so this conundrum addresses which one we find the most convincing for the origin of life whether or not it has the most evidence viv, while theists find placing God at the beginning the most convincing and there is no real convincing evidence from science as yet to say they are wrong.
There's no evidence that the start of life wasn't a celestial monkey fling poop against a wall of unicorn souls, either. Every explanation for every phenomena ever investigated has turned out to be a naturalist cause, so, you know, there's always that.
I know you want a scientific evidence to this question.
You maybe not be aware of that but you're blindy following a philosophical system called Positivism.
It's obvious you don't actually know what posotivism actually is, but regardless, asking what something is, a think you make the claim for, isn't posotivism. It's no different than asking what carrot cake is or what qualities Thor has.
Positivism says that the only valid knowledge is science.
That absolutely NOT what posotivism is.
The soul can't be a problem to science because science is the quest for material properties and the soul is immaterial. But we can find material interactions with the soul.
If we can find interactions with it (observation), you've just done science. You're undermining your own argument.
Positivism is the base of modern Atheism too. When someone says he's an atheist because there's no scientific evidence for God, for example.
You now demonstrate you don't know what atheism is either.
The problem of soul have a lot of debate in philosophy and one of the definitions of the soul is it doesn't have any parts but it's responsible for high mental functionalities.
The soul have functions without organs.
Those are scientific statements. You previously claimed this wasn't the realm of science. It seems now that you don't know what philosophy or science are, either.
Cofty I'm not trying to offend you. I admire your love for science and I think you're very intelligent. I'm just trying to exchange some philosophical knowledge with you.
So far all you've done is show us that you literally don't know what any of the things you are talking about are.
Well, my job is done in this topic.
Was your job to show us that you don't know what you're talking about? If so, well done!
Cofty you still are using science methods to things that don't belongs to science. I told that is exactly what a positivist does. From now on you know you is a positivist. And positivism is more than wrong and false, is evil.
Apart from being wrong about what posotivism is, you attempted to use science to explain what a soul is. So, now it seems you declared yourself evil.
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.
So getting back on O.P, may I ask Cofty how thoroughly you have investigated the evidence in your O.P that life, is not an ethereal force that originates from God?
That's not how it works. You investigate evidence for what it is, not what it isn't.
I am not trying to be a bee stinging on the tongue, instead I hope your answers will give credibility to your O.P comment, and give more understanding to those trying to respond.
Credibility? Cofty has posted dozens of threads on evolution and biology. Credibility isn't lacking on his part.
You said cofty sounded like a bully. How, specifically has he sounded like a bully and when did he do it? I only ask because your last comment sounds like a concern troll.
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.
So to clarify are you saying that when science proposes a theory, then one should try ones best to disprove it?
Absolutely. You would win a Nobel prize if you could disprove evolution or relativity.
Has history not taught as that most scientific theories are not quite right? If so then they are based on misunderstanding
Great question. Has it or has it not? You should look into that. What does that have to do with terrible questions?
However isn't that an assumption to assume a poster is being dishonest even if they have been corrected many times and still persist in the question. I am not saying it's an incorrect assumption, but I am sure many current scientific theories are a result of a scientist who refused to accept being corrected many times and persisted in his theory.
Why would it be an incorrect assumption? And that's not a theory, posting something you know to be untrue is what is called "dishonest".
p.s I am confused how on content Viviane got a dislike on her previous reply to mine.
Probably because someone clicked "Dislike".
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.
viv, I'm picking up on vidiqun's comments, so you will need to see what he said. You will also so need to, as I have already said, to keep in mind that I am making my claims in the spirit of metaphor and that cofty can laugh about this. otherwise forget it.
Ah, so you really have absolutely nothing.
yes - you have some work to do then
And you thought you were being clever while having nothing.
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.
here let me give you some science - life is continuous chemical reaction according to Martin. the ancients devised the term ether (from which we get the word ethereal) to suggest burning air. seems like there were not far off. I guess you and cofty will now do your usual jumping through hoops but I'm have no time for that
Science is always good. That snippet you posted has nothing to do with evidence of a force called life, however.
Let's get back to your claim. Are you claiming Cofty posted some science in his OP that support the notion that there is a force called life and that Martin's peer reviewed works contain objective, repeatable and falsifiable experiments showing this force?
If so, I'll need the quote from the OP showing what Cofty posted and the research relevant to this.
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.
the science in his op actually supports vidqun's view according to Lane, Mitchell, Russell and Martin although perhaps not his worldview but vidqun's worldview is a matter of his own private way of imagining how life started particularly if we allow for metaphor in theistic and scientific descriptions.
So, and I really want to make sure you are clear on this, you are saying the science in Cofty's OP supports the notion that cells are animated by a force called life
Is that correct? If not, please clarify what you mean specifically. If that is correct, then I'll need the exact quote you believe supports that notion and specifically what to look for in the work of Lane, Mitchell, Russell and Martin, their peer reviewed research where they did falsifiable and repeatable experiments show there is a force called life.
BTW, in this case Vidquin's worldview is irrelevant to reality. He is free to believe whatever he wishes, but that doesn't make it reality.
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.
1) science has provided us with many intelligent theories on the subject on how the universe appears and the origin of life. Yet am I correct in thinking scientists shouldn't think they can " know" everything there is to know about these subjects simply by applying science.
They don't think that. Science is designed specifically to ensure that were someone to claim they did, it could be subjected to objective scrutiny.
B) Am I correct in thinking the " origin of life" can still only be theorized and observed but when it comes to complete understanding even scientists are still only small children?
You mean hypothesized. In science, a theory (like evolution or gravity) is the current best explanation supported by a body of evidence, experiment, observation and testing and it is falsifiable.
With regard to "still only small children", as compared to what? If you can point to someone that does have a complete understanding, then you might have reason to make that comparison.
Well the only answer I can give, is that in the search for answers we need the questions. And Slims questions are always new to me
"What color are a dragon's sock darns" is a question, likely a new one to you, certainly to many people. That doesn't make it a good question. "Why does 3+water = purple" is a question, but not a good one.
All questions are not equal. Questions based on misunderstanding and dishonesty, particularly when the questioner has been corrected multiple times and still persists in the question based on a falsehood. In other words, "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question, but not a good one.
