What is your problem? Do you mean to imply I don't really mean what I say? The idea that our picture of reality will never be finally settled is hardly a far out notion. It's pretty mainstream. The fact that JWs and some atheists share this confidence, that one day they'll be "proved right", once and for all, is worth pointing out. Or am I a "troll" simply because I don't agree with you that the nature of reality will one day be finally settled? And how on earth does calling me names (no personal attacks?) address the argument?
Origin of Life
Every single time you engage with me you knowingly attack a strawman.
I no longer care enough about your opinion to correct you.
The thread is based on the assumption that scientific discoveries will tend to support an atheistic view of reality and asks how theists well respond when confronted with the new proof. I am saying that reality does not work like that and scientific discoveries do not solve ultimate questions.
Where is a strawman involved in making that basic observation?
SBF, you changed your characterization from "their view of reality will be confirmed beyond doubt, once and for all..." to "will tend to support..." That's a huge difference.
You are correct. I thought my point was already reasonable, but struck by Cofty's response, I attempted to express it in even milder terms, and I unnecessarily altered the meaning. I could have better said:
"This thread is based on the assumption that scientific discoveries will establish an atheistic view of reality and asks how theists will respond when confronted with that reality."
The idea that science can answer ultimate questions about existence is far from an established fact. In fact it's probably a minority view, mainly popular among some science writers. The idea that anyone challenging it must be a troll is bizarre and startlingly blinkered.
For what it's worth, not that I give a rat's behind about how life started, nor that such thing will ever make me believe one thing or another differently, theists still keep measuring atheism and atheists in the same way they think and view things. Time and time again, they still keep bundling every single atheist in the same place as if there's some kind of organization named atheism, with an atheist temple where they congregate to study atheism and worship something. Keep that in mind.
I don't think it will make much difference to those theists that do not believe in evolution currently. There is now pretty much overwhelming evidence that we evolved, yet a certain percentage of believers will not accept it, so they probably will not accept any new evidence of how life originated either, they will just say scientists are mistaken or making it up.
As far as theists who accept evolution, I doubt any new findings will cause them to lose their faith in God, they will just accept the new evidence, but still feel that God exists, because they prefer to believe God exists.
Yes, Slimboyfat, I do think you have nailed it, whether they like it or not. Only two outcomes possible here:
1) Scientists find life on other planets, e.g., Mars. In that case I will have to reconsider my theistic, ID outlook. By the way, even if scientists do succeed in creating life in a lab, that will not sway me in the least. I will just say: See you need an intelligent mind to create life.
2) God is the creator and will make himself known. Even then the majority of anti-theists and evolutionists will reject His authority (cf. Rev. 11:18).
A Ha: "Their challenge will change from "You can't say how life got here," to "You can't provethat your successful lab experiments are the way life actually got here." (A variation of the 'you weren't there' argument.)
well in that case, if at least two ways to fire up life exist, that would take away from the uniqueness we believe in now. or? is not most life's energy a fire, oxydation?
I will just say: See you need an intelligent mind to create life. - Vidqun
But that would be disingenuous.
When scientists do succeed it will prove that life is not an ethereal force emanating from god. That will have real theological implications.
The idea that science can answer ultimate questions about existence - SBF
It has nothing at all to do with answering "ultimate questions" How the process of life began is a scientific puzzle not a metaphysical one. That is the point. It's not about whether god exists, it's simply about how the process of life gets started.
You are a troll. You constantly hijack threads with your tedious po-mo bullshit.
is not most life's energy a fire, oxydation? - Prologos
Yes that is true. There is a process called chemiosmosis that is common to every living thing including bacteria, archaea and complex multicellular life. Cells use the energy from redox reactions to pump protons across a membrane. They then flow back through a protein complex called the AT synthase to turn ADP into ATP - the universal currency of energy.
We quite literally "burn" food by stripping electrons from glucose and passing it on step by step to oxygen.