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

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".

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 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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.