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

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.

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 'atheistic counterpart to jehovahs witnesses' makes as many assertions that evidence from science does not support as to be equatable with belief in god, gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, demons etc. trying to make science support what it cannot and wouldn't ever is much the same thing. we are humans after all.

Nooooope. Wrong again. Name one assertion Cofty has made about what science support that you think is wrong, and we can see whether or not objective evidence supports what you say.

Because, if you don't back it up, it's just you saying it. Cofty (and I) don't make claims about science without having something to back it up.

You'll have to do better than that.

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

Cofty, did you read about the bicameral mind hypothesis?

It's not a hypothesis.

modern human behaviour theory

There's no such theory.

OK Viviane I see you makes no difference between a human being and a pig.
I think this is a horrible view. It's pointless to keep a conversation with a pig or a goat.

Just because everything you've said is refuted by evidence, science, observation and reality is no reason to purposefully lie about someone else's position. Shame on you.

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

Are you backtracking from saying that those who "believe that God exists" would have questions to answer?

He never said that. Which makes this bit....

As for all the insulting comments I am not going to answer that, so you should give up trying to drag discussion down to that level. I am interested in ideas and viewpoints, not calling names.

... hilarious. It's hilarious that you, who have misrepresented (often intentionally) every viewpoint you have brought up, suddenly is concern trolling about Cofty's consistency.

Ridiculousness, thy name is SBF.

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 exactly sounds insane to you?

All of it. Magic zombie sky people with super powers, being that are implanted with an unknown substance and then forced to have sex with a different species, etc..

Do you agree modern consciousness must had started somewhere in time? When do you think it happened?

Wait, what do you mean by "modern consciousness"? Of course if it didn't exist in the past and then did, at some point that had to happen. but first explain to me what you mean by "modern consciousness".

Do you agree that modern humans are the only specie to develop a sophisticated consciousness? Like to be aware of the own death and concepts like infinity, justice and beauty?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160517-chimps-grieve-for-dead-friend

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-dolphin-conversation-revealing-spoken-language.html

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/#mammals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#Consciousness

Interestingly, you included the concept of "infinity" in there. Why? Does a toddler have that concept? Did humans always have that concept? The earliest reference to it is from about 2400 years ago. Is that concept required? If not, then babies certainly aren't conscious and therefore, according to you, don't have a soul.

Anyway, animals certainly do express morals, grieve for the dead, exhibit consciousness of self and have spoken language.

So no, I wouldn't agree that humans are the only animals to have consciousness. Evidence doesn't support that notion.

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

On the one hand you say that a scientific explanation for the origin of life would leave theists with questions to answer, that their various "excuses" wouldn't work, and that it would prove there is no "life force" from God.
On the other hand you say that any suggestion you are using science to settle the issue of God is a compete misrepresentation.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Try again. Just because I can make a little waterfall in my back yard doesn't mean that there is a life force waterfall and that all waterfalls must come from me.
Similarly, you misrepresent Cofty. Just because there is no life force that comes from god doesn't mean that god didn't create some life, maybe even life on earth. All it shows is that for life to happen, no god or life force is necessary.
Seriously, I've not seen you make a single argument where you haven't misrepresented either something Cofty said or the source material you use for your argument. For someone that keeps claiming to use philosophy, the practice of improving our thinking, you seem to be using very little 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

It's important to keep in mind that former JWs, and Dawkins-type atheists often have a very particular kind of Christian believer in mind when building refutations. The Catholic Church and many other churches (representative the vast majority of Christians) accept evolution and do not see science and faith in competition.

In point of fact, JM is using a poor understanding of science, cherry picking and quote mining to support his Christianity.

It's actually his view that scientific discoveries can tell us about the likelihood of God which is a marginal philosophical position.

Well that's just a lie. And one you've been called out on several times at this point.

But this misunderstands what science is. Science can tell us how something probably happened. It cannot tell us why it happened or its meaning.

A perfect example of YOU not understanding science OR language. You are saying "why" in the sense of "reason for this" or "purpose" for something. Science asks "why" in the sense of "how". It doesn't seek to assign meaning or explain purpose.

Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop talking about things you've no clue about.

Yes it does! Of course it does! If it happened all by itself, then this proves God had nothing to do with the origin of life! How can you be so thick! (Comes the retort)

The retort is that what you wrote is not Cofty's position. You've been made aware of that over and over. Please stop lying.

I am not representing an extreme philosophical position here

Oh, no you aren't. You're not representing any philosophical position. Philosophy is the practice of improving our thinking. That's definitely not what's going on.

It is actually Cofty who holds an extreme and marginal philosophical position: scientific and materialist reductionism. In this view only matter exists and science is the only true source of knowledge.

Again, not true, something you've been informed of.

Also that's not what materialism is. Seriously, do you just pick words out of a book and use them without knowing what they are?

You or I might think euthanasia or abortion, for example, are complex ethical dilemmas that admit a number of perspectives and solutions. Not for an adherent ofscientific reductionism. All such issues have definitive scientific answers which can be discovered. That's how extreme his claims for science are. So if we want to talk about flat earth type nonsense that's where we could start.

Well, there it is. The dumbest thing I've read all day, and I've already read a lot of dumb things. This is so far off base, it's hard to tell if you're outright lying, trolling, that thick or a combination of all of the above.

That is some serious weapons grade bullshit you wrote.

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

This is an interesting psychology theory about it:

Bicameralism has absolutely no support. It is NOT a theory.

That's the Christian position. The first humanoid received a soul about 4,000 BC. And it became the firs human with a soul.

Evidence please.

I said the Genesis account does not have a scientific precision.

Genesis has no science at all.

But the concept of a common ancestor just a few thousand years ago it's not unscientific.

Evidence, please.

There's the bottleneck effect too...

Funny you mention that. The same way we know there have been genetic bottlenecks is the way we know ~ when the last MRCA was (and it wasn't a few thousand years ago). Your argument refutes itself.

Yes, my mistake to call them humanoids. They were anatomically modern humans

Clearly not, if they had something very different about them. Your god started bestiality, according to your argument.

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, sorry, try again....

http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureAncestorsPressRelease.html

A mathematical model from 12 years ago. No actual evidence. Actual science on the matter shows this not to be true.

So, anyway, try again, using actual evidence.

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?