Posts by Viviane

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.

Viviane

Viviane says this definition is wrong. I want to know her definition.

You are incorrect. I did't say that definition was wrong, in fact, I made no comment on it at all. I said YOUR claim was incorrect.

And it is.

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.

Viviane

Why not?
And most important: what is the correct definition of positivism?

Sorry, I have a strict personal policy of "not doing doing your work for you".

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.

Viviane

Just tell me your definition of positivism.
Please.
I say positivism is the philosophical system that affirms the only valid knowledge is the scientific method.
Why this short definition of positivism is wrong?

Because it isn't correct.

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.

Viviane

Burden of proof?
You said my definition of positivism is wrong but don't showed why.

Yes, you said

- What you thought posotivism was

- Claimed certain people were positivists and didn't know it

- claimed it was evil- made claims about what souls are

- etc.

You made those claims first, so the burden of proof is on you. That's how it works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proofWhen two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

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.

Viviane

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.

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.

Viviane

So tell me what is positivism...

Ha ha! Do your own research.

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.

Viviane

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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".