Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ruby456

  i didn't say there is a flaw in your argument - all I said was and let me quote

  yes and i ask why they can't just admit there is a small mistake and move on. Cofty's arguments are otherwise great. My suspicion is that the view held by viv and cofty is that the whole argument re origin of life stands or falls if there is one small mistake somewhere in argument. in fact everyone makes mistakes and the thing to do is to admit it and re focus on the actual main argument once again

  what i mean to say is that you are only mistaken re what witnesses say in connection with the soul/spirit.But even here as mephis pointed out the wts takes advantage of wiggle room to build their picture of the soul and spirit. In actual fact the verse in Genesis is fairly ambiguous regarding what God actually put into humans. However, since their main thesis is that there is no soul or spirit within humans we can take it that this verse will be rendered unambiguously supportive of their doctrine by jws
• 

  Viviane

  Viv, I used "computation" in the context of human thought. It was you who applied it to computers.

  Ah, so I what I wrote was correct in any context.
  

  If a soul is a thing, it does not need to be a physical thing, in order to be a thing

  I never claimed otherwise. Please stop making strawman arguments.

  Please see https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/279886/what-spirit-exactly for a long discussion on what this "thing" is which no one can explain.
  

  You are presupposing reductionist materialism, and therefore begging the question. (Yeah, yeah, you will say I'm wrong, I don't know what begging the question is, and I'm dishonest. There I'll save you the bother. Predictably what you won't do is supply any argument or evidence for any assertion you make)

  No, I asked what this thing is with some helpful investigative questions. The questions did not dictate the answer. And no need to save me time, it's always a pleasure to help people see where they don't understand what "begging the question" means or are being dishonest.

  It's nice that you're admitting it now, though.
  
  

  Non-physical things do exist, such as numbers and thoughts. The question is not whether non-material things can exist, the question is whether a "soul" is among them or not.

  Explain now "34" is a non-physical thing. The concept of 34 exists in our brains, a physical thing, and if you refer to 34 physical things, there are 34 physical things, with the number 34 being mathematical shorthand (that again, exists in our brains, in books, papers, computers, etc.) for reality, a physical thing.
  

  My suspicion is that the view held by viv and cofty is that the whole argument re origin of life stands or falls if there is one small mistake somewhere in argument.

  I can't speak for Cofty, but wrong again regarding me. OTOH, you would have to construct an argument to test that. I await the day you do so.

  It's refreshing to see you admit your dishonesty. Shame to see you won't step up and deal with it.

  
  
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  viv I'm actually quite pleased that you don't think I can construct an argument. who would want to listen to your advice anyway?
• 

  cofty

  you are only mistaken re what witnesses say in connection with the soul/spirit. - Ruby

  No I'm not. My description of what the WT teach about soul and spirit is 100% correct.
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  nope.
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Where is Cofty wrong Ruby?
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Wrong in saying JWs have a "theological barrier" to scientists ever creating life. Because their own literature says scientists may succeed at some point in the future. If Cofty can't admit a factual mistake as simple as that, what hope is there for more complex or abstract ideas?
• 

  Viviane

  viv I'm actually quite pleased that you don't think I can construct an argument. who would want to listen to your advice anyway?

  Smart people. In point of fact, I get paid quite handsomely for my advice on how to think about things, solve complex problems, come up with creative solutions to big problems and do it ensuring that we're not creating more problems. It involves math, science, philosophy, politics, knowledge of various regulatory agencies, understanding politics and human interactions and constantly updating education and knowledge on all of those topics.

  In terms of hobbies, I enjoy astronomy, physics, cosmology and geology as the subjects I read up on daily or weekly.Wrong in saying JWs have a "theological barrier" to scientists ever creating life. Because their own literature says scientists may succeed at some point in the future. If Cofty can't admit a factual mistake as simple as that, what hope is there for more complex ideas?

  Evidence is so inconvenient.

  LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201501/origin-of-life/

  
  

  If Cofty can't admit a factual mistake as simple as that, what hope is there for more complex ideas?

  Well, there is the hope that you could address your dishonesty or demonstrable misunderstanding of philosophy, science and logic.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  The WT teaches that life comes from life.

  It also says that scientists may succeed in creating life at some point in the future.

  Their argument is that this would only go to prove that intelligent life is required to make life. Life can't arise spontaneously.

  The WT does not teach there is a "theological barrier" to scientists creating life as Cofty claimed. In fact it says the opposite, that scientists may succeed some day.

  See pages 6 and 7:

  https://download-a.akamaihd.net/files/media_books/d0/lf_E.pdf

  If you don't accept a statement in the WT as proof of what they believe, then what sort of evidence would you accept?
  
  
• 

  Viviane

  It also says that scientists may succeed in creating life at some point in the future.
  Their argument is that this would only go to prove that intelligent life is required to make life. Life can't arise spontaneously.
  The WT does not teach there is a "theological barrier" to scientists creating life as Cofty claimed. In fact it says the opposite, that scientists may succeed some day.

  *sigh*... I know logic is hard, but try.

  First, they don't say that scientist may succeed one day. They say "Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident?"

  That does not in any way say "may", it says "if". It's similar to saying "Humans will never be able to shoot laser beams from their eyes, but if they could, that would be terrible." The latter hypothetical doesn't negate the former.

  How do we know that "if" and "may" are different? Try replacing them in a sentence. "If you go outside, then you will be cold" doesn't make sense as "May you go outside, then you will be cold". Similarly, "you can go to the movies if you finish your homework" doesn't make sense as "you can go to the movies may you finish your homework".

  The hypothetical "if" (not may) does not negate their teaching that God is the only source of life.

  Evidence is so inconvenient.

  LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201501/origin-of-life/

  PROTIP: If you are going to link to a doc to prove your point, actually know what it says and what the words mean.