Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ruby456

  whatshallicallmyself

  Where is Cofty wrong Ruby? whatshallicallmyself
  

  I weouldn't say cofty is wrong anywhere but that there are several mistakes and these I have chosen to ignore so that his main argument can stand because that is strongly argued.

  It is troubling though that his misrepresentation of JW belief isn't corrected - although this is a small mistake I think it would be huge for any jws reading here because I think they would dismiss his main argument because of it. for example, they can easily argue that their entire doctrine regarding the soul and spirit denies that there are ethereal qualities to spirit and soul as these are translated from ruah and nephesh and they have enormous research and painstaking evidence to support their veiw that ruah and nephesh do not indicate anything ethereal. The word breath in Gen is translated from neshamah. this verse for them suggests miraculous intervention from God to start life rather than anything ethereal. mephis has already argued something along these lines.

  Then of course there is slimboyfat's argument that even if scientists make life in a lab or can explain how life started by scientific means they are simply begetting life from life (so to speak) because they are already living. and moreover are also proving that life needs an intelligent creator. However here cofty's argument would be sound if he was arguing against anything miraculous in the origin of life rather than against any JW teachings that suggest ethereal qualities in humans.

  so this is a small mistake on cofty's part - easy enough to acknowledge and correct so that any jws reading may feel like continuing to pay attention to his main argument.
• 

  Ruby456

  prologos

  It would be a real shame if a unique event, like a solar flare of a certain frequency agitated the pre-bio compounds into firing up the energy gradient use, the inheritance scenario, and-- the inability to find and replicated it (even if you have all the ingredients right) for a long time, will be interpreted as only "God did it directly" --see!
  

  for theists God could be outside of the universe much like your creator. This is plausible simply because we are inside of the universe and would have no way of knowing. I'm not arguing that I believe this but Kurt Richardson argues that our universe could be a trial run by a God who is outside of the universe. He does not argue for theism or anything like that but argues that because of language most of what we know has to be conveyed metaphorically and that what we can aim for is a form of substantial realism (any takers here)
• 

  cofty

  there are several mistakes and these I have chosen to ignore so that his main argument can stand because that is strongly argued - Ruby

  There are no mistakes in my explanation of JW beliefs regarding soul and spirit. Absolutely none.

  there is slimboyfat's argument that even if scientists make life in a lab or can explain how life started by scientific means they are simply begetting life from life

  SBF is saying a lot of obtuse things but he is not arguing that. If he was it would especially silly. Sperm and egg making a new baby is "life begetting life". New life from rocks is not. You are confusing the argument in the brochure that making a cell is really really complex and requires intelligent design with the theological objection that making new life is impossible without the life-giver.

  cofty's argument would be sound if he was arguing against anything miraculous in the origin of life rather than against any JW teachings that suggest ethereal qualities in humans.

  According to the WT the only ethereal thing in every living thing is pneuma. An impersonal force of life that comes from god. Is is exactly analogous to electricity. This is JW dogma 101. Do you really need quotes to prove it?

  so this is a small mistake on cofty's part

  I have made no mistakes in regards to JW doctrines.
• 

  The Rebel

  Well Slim seems to be taking a bashing from Cofty and Viv. So for an interesting challenge, let's address Slims arguments from those reading the debate between Slim, Cofty & Vivianne.

  a) If you think Slim has essentially made reasonable and balanced arguments to Cofty & Viviane give a like.

  b) If you think Slim has essentially made unreasonable and unbalanced arguments to Cofty & Viviane give a dislike.
• 

  cofty

  Rebel - That's facile.

  Facts are not established by popular vote.

  How is clicking Like or Dislike addressing SBFs arguments? I have some who follow me around the forum clicking Dislike on almost every post. I consider it a compliment.
• 

  The Rebel

  Cofty, my aim is simply gain this indication:-

  if those reading the thread feel Slim has made reasonable and balanced arguments .I therefore equate convincing evidence and not popularity as the deciding factor to a like. That is the objective. And I hope that post establishes that objective not his popularity. And in so doing it will give an interesting indication on how those following the debate are thinking.
• 

  nicolaou

  Rebel, instead of asking for timidly anonymous likes & dislikes why not encourage posters to participate?

  I know many feel intimidated by these heated topics but a simple "I think Slimboy makes a fair point" or "Cofty's argument is compelling" won't necessarily be pounced on as fresh meat.

  Probably, maybe . . . I hope.
• 

  cofty

  if those reading the thread feel Slim has made reasonable and balanced arguments

  Do you mean this sort of thing...

  The question assumes that scientific discoveries impact philosophical or theological questions. What's the basis for that assumption? - SBF

  So science has not had any impact on religious questions. Really?

  Or this gem ...

  I guess what you mean is that if scientists manage to generate life from non-life you believe this some how will prove that life can arise without God. But what is the basis for the assertion? - SBF

  If scientists can produce life from rocks without god that won't prove life can arise without god!

  Or how about this puzzle...

  it could be said of God that he is both not alive and not not-alive - SBF
• 

  The Rebel

  nicolaou: -.Noted
• 

  prologos

  In a debate, argumentation,- to observers-, the gems of knowledge, of unexpected insight*** and the novel ways to present them often gets lost in the mud of mudslinging,, which is too bad. One debating technique is also, to denigrate , provoke, decimate, tire out your chosen target which is hilarious to some, but contributes nothing to enlighten the learners here.

  *** was not the term "big bang" the product of an intense debate, a snide comment really? and talking of Ruby's "god outside the Universe" comment:

  If a supposed creator was present during the big bang, and at that point in time was not outside the universe, he must have been of negative size. As it is, she is probably still outside the universe, cradling us in her inside. Interesting article on BBC ?: scientist are close to producing offspring from ova or even sperm alone. life at it's most basic reproduction.