by nicolaou 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
BTW -- we aren't just talking about man evolving from primates but that single cell animals evolve into fish which then evolve into reptiles which then evolve into ;rodents which then evolve into mammals and then evolve into man .
From the goo, through the zoo, to you??!!
heathen, get past evolution. Evolution isn't the issue here, it's a red herring drawn across the atheist/believer debate. The question centres, not on the origin of life on earth, but the origin of life . . . period.
What are you views on how original life came to be?
heathen,
I think what nicolaou is referring to is that the question of "origin" is not answered by "evolution," as evolution can only occur where a living organism already exists.
Carbon based life always existing on earth is not possible...that is provable. I have heard it said that if you believe in God you simply raise the question of the origin of God.
If you change the kind of life, you change the constraints on considering origins. Carbon based lifeforms on earth could not have existed for all time, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for any other kind of sentient life.
So, for those who would like to shift the question to an origin for God, please do so. It necessitates a starting point of belief in the existence of reality beyond the current scope of scientific exploration, which I am happy to allow for, given the limitations of perception demonstrably inherent in the scientific method.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
nicolaou ----- I don't have a problem with the bible exsplanation . I was only making a point at how subjective the evidence is for evolution . The main difference between evolution and creation is the belief of life forms mutating into different animal families such as reptile to rodent . I don't have a problem with the fact that animals adapt to the environment or diversify . Everything else in the creation account is what science says . Life begins in the ocean then vegetation and animals appear on the land and lastly man arrives .
Auld Soul --- I think a discussion on where did God originate is about pointless . It is too difficult to argue a being just simply was and always will be when they don't wish to present themselves as evidence .
The question centres, not on the origin of life on earth, but the origin of life
Your question maybe, not mine!
To me the question of "God," or rather of the "Divine" (which is attested millenia before "God"), has nothing to do with origins but everything to do with human consciousness.
The original forms of life (earthly or otherwise) had probably no more need for "God" than the cats in my garden. Otoh, as soon as homo sapiens emerged, their consciousness implied a relationship with an invisible realm (realm of the dead, of the souls, of the gods; its imaginary forms changed but its imaginary existence is a constant).
From this perspective it is not so much "God" (as one kind of representation of the "divine") which is in question but the very meaning of "atheism". An empty shrine is still a shrine.
I'm of the opinion that human self awareness is at a new threshold. Your implied invisible realms, the numinous etc, evaporate when a person becomes aware of the mind's ability for self deception. This leaves the shrine not just empty but cleared out to make room for the laboratory.
Your implied invisible realms, the numinous etc, evaporate when a person becomes aware of the mind's ability for self deception.
If potential does not equal actuality, then capability does not equate to actuation. When your laboratory can prove that invisible realms are self-deception, you will have a point. Until then, there is no point to your comment.
I appreciate you sharing that there is a laboratory in your shrine, I assumed as much from your posts. How do you respond to the charge that the Scientific Method is a belief generator, any of which beliefs may later be proven false? Ultimately, if you accept something as fact that may be false, and you use it as though it were true, and you rely on its truth for developing other things believed to be true, how is this not a belief system?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
How do you respond to the charge that the Scientific Method is a belief generator, any of which beliefs may later be proven false? Ultimately, if you accept something as fact that may be false, and you use it as though it were true, and you rely on its truth for developing other things believed to be true, how is this not a belief system?
I can see your point. Since our knowledge (scientific as well as other kinds) is currently incomplete, we're left extrapolating and positing some of it to some degree. And since some uncertainty is always to be expected it'll always have that element of "believing". Thats why I never tire of these debates and one reason why I presently lean on agnosticism. Although in nearly all my actions and thoughts I'm practically atheist.
Yes, materialists presuppose that there actually is an objective reality beyond each of us. How our consciousness interacts with it is by no means free of subjectivity, but I'd say that the "beliefs" arrived at by the scientific method are some of the surest we've ever had.
I'd say that the "beliefs" arrived at by the scientific method are some of the surest we've ever had.
Unless their foundations (i.e. Newtonian Laws of Physics) are basically flawed, in which case sweeping chunks of beliefs are erroneous and must be recast, reforged in the belief generator. But for years, scientists accepted their collective knowledge as true based on "evidence" that was considered "proven" but which was later proven to be subjectively derived and erroneous.
The new set of laws will prove to be the same. And the next. And the next. But every set of laws has its following, even flat earthers, not surprisingly. Because that is how sects are born in memes.
And the generator, the scientific method, is capable of generating as many beliefs as are needed to explain everything. And again. And again.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Anyway I thought we were debating why we aren't going to debate............................LMAO
I agree evolution science for one, expects people to make huge leaps of faith . For instance when they changed their belief from animals changing on the molecular level and gradually over millions of years to evolve they decided the fossil record couldn't support it so came up with new species over night theories which is very subjective .I think to the point of absurdity .
