Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  Not even one example? Not even a little one? Well, my rule stands then. Let's leave God out of the equation for the moment. This is the way nature works, whether you like it or not.

  Yes! Exactly! Your rule stand as a classic example of a logical fallacy! That is EXACTLY how reality works. Now you're getting it! I LOVE IT!

  BTW, your rule is an example of a non-falsifiable position, in other words, it can never actually be proven true OR false as it would require the complete knowledge of all life everywhere for all of time. I know you only pretend to be a microbiologist and scientist, but if you're going to pretend, you should at least know some basic logic and science.
  
  
• 

  Viviane

  If you ask how a certain scientific discovery would impact believers in God, and how would they "respond", this reasonably involves the assumption that such a scientific discovery would pose a challenge to belief in God in such a way that some "response" from believers is required or expected.

  What does that have to do with your incorrect comments about science and attempt to denigrate others with your incorrectness?
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Viv, you are getting warmer and warmer. You're nearly there.

  Viv: it would require the complete knowledge of all life everywhere for all of time.

  Here you are talking of God, don't you know?
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Viv if you go back and read what I wrote, I did not say that science itself involves the assumption that its results can tell us about God. I say that some people, using science to undermine God, rely on the assumption that science can tell us about and whether there is a God.

  Science itself relies on methodological materialist assumptions in order to operate. There is no problem with that. The problem is when people use the results of relying upon those assumptions as evidence for a philosophical materialist position. That is circular reasoning.
• 

  A Ha

  Vidquin - A "law" implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions

  This doesn't really work when this law creates a chain but doesn't apply to the first link in your chain. Whether that life is a universal common ancestor, or if each "kind" of life is its own creation, you still must ignore your "law" to account for the first link.

  To ignore the first link, and to exempt God from the law, then to turn around and use this law as evidence in favor of God seems logically inconsistent.
• 

  Vidqun

  A Ha, you are mistaken to imply I use my rule to prove God exists. Take note, this is what I said (allow me to quote myself):

  It's a rule from personal experience. This is what I see in nature. So far I have not seen anything else to contradict the rule, so I stick with it.

  Here I implored Viv to leave God out for the moment:

  Not even one example? Not even a little one? Well, my rule stands then. Let's leave God out of the equation for the moment. This is the way nature works, whether you like it or not.

  See, God doesn't come in the picture here. That's my belief from what I gather from the evidence, nothing more, nothing less. In order to disprove my rule, you must come up with contrary examples, with evidence that refutes the rule. So far there's no takers, so the rule stands (until such time as the scientists prove me wrong).

  This would be similar to Newton's law of gravity being rewritten by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Gravity is not an ordinary force but a property of space-time geometry. The apple is not being pulled down by the mass of the planet. Its fall causes a gravitational wave and is pushed down by causing a ripple in the space-time continuum. So, there goes Newton's law out of the window.
  
• 

  Island Man

  Vidqun vs Cofy vs slimboyfat vs ...

  
  
• 

  cofty

  SBF - My position throughout this thread has been entirely consistent.

  Some scientific discoveries have theological implications. Darwin's hypothesis about the origin of species was of great significance to theists 150 years ago. In time the majority were able to reconcile evolution with faith. A minority continue to resist despite the overwhelming evidence that has accumulated over the past century and a half.

  Recent progress in origin-of-life science also has serious theological implications. I have opened a perfectly reasonable and respectful conversation about that.

  If/when science can demonstrate that life begins without any intervention through entirely naturalistic means it will not prove anything about whether or not god exists. I have never said otherwise. However it will require a significant adjustment to christian doctrine.

  You continue to misrepresent the conversation and derail it with your usual pseudo intellectual postmodern bullshit. Your first intervention on page 1 was outrageously stupid. You are now trying to pretend that you said something different and dishonestly twist my words.

  If in future I appear to be ignoring you that will be because I am.

  Vidqun - I am surprised by your answer. Regarding the possibility of scientists showing how life began naturally you said "nothing is impossible ... I am not sure man is going to be allowed to go all the way ... So yes, it's not impossible".

  As a former christian that seems to contradict christian belief. Genesis describes the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and then god breathed life into him. Life is generally viewed as an animating force that originates uniquely with god.

  This view would make it impossible for life to arise in a lab. The challenge is not just technical but metaphysical. But you seem to see it only as a technical challenge.

  I'm puzzled by that. Do you care to explain further?
• 

  A Ha

  Vidquin - See, God doesn't come into the picture here.

  But God is in the picture, and you put him there.

  As a preface to introducing your "Life comes from life law," you said, "God is the source of life..." it's all in the same post. Now maybe you didn't directly state that this law is evidence for God (I'm too lazy to go back and read everything again) but it's the clear implication given that this thread is about the origin of life.

  Viviane responded that the problem for your claim is that God, being alive, would then be in need of an explanation. You didn't reply to that, but repeated that this was your observation, and challenged anyone to come up with an exception. Landy said, "God?" and you didn't reply to that. Finally, I said that because this law of yours was setting up a causal chain, the first link in the chain has to be exempt from it to avoid an infinite regression. But that means you can't really make any claims about the first form(s) of life, only life after that--and even then it's going to be an inductive argument.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Your first intervention on page 1 was outrageously stupid. You are now trying to pretend that you said something different and dishonestly twist my words.

  My post on page 1 was to show that JWs and some atheists seem to share the belief that at some time in the future they will be proved right beyond all doubt, and everyone will be forced to acknowledge their version of the truth. In the case of JWs this will happen at Armageddon. In the case of some atheists they believe that scientific discoveries will confirm their philosophical position.

  I have at no stage pretended to say something different and I stand by the point I made.

  It's your position that has changed during the thread. In the first post you speculated on how theists would respond to the perceived challenge posed by naturalistic origins of life, explored different possibilities, but that none of them would be satisfactory in your view. Now instead you talk about "theological implications", doctrine might need to be adjusted, and that you in no way implied this has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of God.

  But what is most amazing is that your materialist reductionism apparently blinds you to the fact that the same phenomenon can have different levels of interpretation. A river can be cold, it can be blue, it can be rough, it can be clean, it can be amazing, it can be ugly, it can be ancient, it can be artificial. What makes no sense whatsoever is to pit different kinds of descriptions against one another as if they are in competition. Like if someone was to say, the river can't be rough because it's ancient, or it can't be majestic because it's cold. Just because we can talk about life and how it arose in naturalistic terms does not exclude other ways of talking about it. It is not a competition.