Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    I get the feeling that you got beat black and blue as a Christian in your online discussions after you left - Ruby

    I never participated in any online discussions as a Christian.

    I worked out for myself that theism was in error and left just as I did as a JW.

    You could not be more wrong.

    I think its a real shame that you didn't meet nice people lke slimbyfat

    I have utter unmitigated contempt for SBF's postmodern pseudo-intellectual bullshit and dishonesty. How would meeting him have helped me exactly? I didn't need his help and still don't.

    You make a lot of assumptions.

    I think there is a nice guy who collects ancient coins in his spare time trying to come out

    That is arrogant and condescending.

    Apart from my contempt for SBF my interactions with believers in this thread has been nothing but respectful.

  • cofty
    This isn't a "different level of interpretation," (a different focus, or scale), like saying the river is cold and the river is blue. It's like saying the river is blue and the river is red - A Ha

    To all intelligent rational people this is a knock-down argument.

    To purveyors of postmodernism it isn't.

    SBF has argued that in regards to the shape of planet earth that the perspective of a worm - that the earth is flat (not seems flat, is flat) is just as valid as that of an astronaut.

    I foolishly made the assertion that the planet earth is not flat only to be told "it depends what you mean by "the", it depends what you mean by "earth", it depends what you mean by "is", it depends what you mean by "not", it depends what you mean by "flat".

    Remember too that god does not exist therefore he exists is also a valid argument in SBF's world.

    You are dealing with a level of obscurantism and dishonesty that it hard to comprehend. If there were two people destroying threads in the way SBF does I would leave the forum tomorrow.

  • prologos
    A ha: "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.

    provided that the Laws we have identified in nature, which is moving through time since the big bang, apply into the pre-beginning realm.

  • prologos
    A ha: "To return to the Planet Fairies example, a culture believes that PFs are responsible for the motion of planets,

    Kepler, Newton, Einstein, described the laws that govern the orbits. The energy for the velocity comes from their "fall" during accretion, contraction, --having a potential that was set up from the energy causing the expansion of the universe, all which did not exist at one time. appeared, were created? but all are natural with a pre-natural origin. The rivers are older than the mountains we have today.

  • Vidiot

    This thread gave me a headache.

  • John_Mann

    Human mind search for meaning.

    No animal do this.

    How evolution explains the search of meaning in the human mind?

  • Viviane
    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).

    As I said, had you been a microbiologist as you claim, you would know that you've just gotten it 100% wrong. But, you weren't, so you don't.

    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.

    This is also 100% wrong. However, in an attempt to prop up your wrongness, Newton failed to continue because, ironically, much like you are doing, he posited "God did it". It took someone not using God as a prop to get closer. Interestingly, your attempt to show yourself wrong only shows how wrong you are.

  • Viviane

    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.

    You did write it. You wrote " I am pointing out that this approach to understanding reality rests upon various assumptions that are difficult the establish. Such as the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God. Also the assumption that human rationality is the measure of what is real and exists in the world."

    Cofty's comments don't rest on that at all. Please explain what point you are making without a central tenant of your argument.

    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.

    Well, so far you've not shown an example of one of those assumptions. Please do so. (and that's not cuircular reasoning, BTW)

    . 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.

    First, you make a classic category error. "A river" is many things. It can be both cold and hot at the same time, much in the same way "a house" can have both a bathroom and a kitchen. Unless an entire river shares all properties at all places all the time, the proper way to speak of it would be "this section of the river at this point time has properties X, Y and Z".

    So, now that you know you've made at least three fundamental errors in attempting your argument to denigrate others, please reformulate and get back to us.

  • cofty
    How evolution explains the search of meaning in the human mind? - John Mann

    It's a good question but this thread is about origin of life.

    Edited to add - Thank you Viv for having the patience to explain that to SBF. I lacked the energy and motivation so I resorted to fuck off instead.

  • slimboyfat

    Again you reach for the flat earth nonsense. And this argument does not involve postmodernism, but you reach for both.

    Why call me names and absuive language? Is there any way I could express my (perfectly mainstream) view that science does not impact theological issues that would be acceptable to you? You say that you intend to ignore my comments from now on, but I would struggle to tell the difference, as you have not engaged with anything.

    The point I made is incredibly simple, and almost boring in how mainstream it is. You asked what impact scientific discoveries on the origin of life would have on believers and how they would respond. The question assumes that scientific discoveries impact philosophical or theological questions. What's the basis for that assumption? Some popular science writers make this assumption.

    JW believers and some atheist counterparts share the same belief that at some point in the future their view of reality will be confirmed beyond doubt, once and for all. They have faith that the evidence will be so overwhelming at Armageddon/following some scientific breakthrough, that their opponents will simply have to recognise the "truth" of the situation. This is a fantasy.

Share this