by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
John: The soul is what produces the sense of infinity in your mind. And the search for meaning, justice, beauty and so on. No other animal do that
How do you know this? How do you know that no other animal searches "for meaning, justice, beauty and so on"?
as I said don't take it personally but simply acknowledge that what sbf describes does happen in the world out there. You don't fall into that category but thanks sbf anyway for reminding us because as we know we could
Whoa, back up. The premise is not equal. With regard to evidence for a particular worldview, there is no actual evidence for a theistic world view. On the other hand, there is amble objective evidence on the scientific side. Secondly, "atheist" just means "doesn't believe in god, gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, demons", etc.. It has nothing in particular to do thinking evolution or abiogenesis is true. That has more impact on a theistic worldview than an atheistic one.
The soul is what produces the sense of infinity in your mind. And the search for meaning, justice, beauty and so on. No other animal do that. So we can assume we have some extra in our animal minds.
What is "the sense of infinity" in your mind? How do you know animals don't have it? How do you know animals don't have a sense of justice or appreciate beauty? It's a common trope in religious thought that animals were "dumb", but science has clearly shown (science wins over assumptions again) that animals are FAR more complex that humans thought. In fact, it was recently discovered that dolphins have one on one conversations. Animals have emotions and conversations, why would not have those other things?
At this point, what you are calling the "soul" is a metaphor for "your assumptions about animals".
I know you're a positivist. I don't know if you're aware of that but you belongs to a failed French philosophy.
I am not a positivist, which, BTW, predates the idea of France, French, and even Latin, which French is based on. Next time you decide to tell someone what you assume they are, try knowing what you are actually talking about.
Science could only be created in the Christian theology.
Science actually got started in Greece in the 5th century and really got going around the year 1000, by a Muslim. The Muslim world came up with all kinds of science that we still use today, fleshed out the scientific method, etc. Meanwhile, the Church was persecuting Galileo.
Not only does it pre-date Christianity by 500 years, it was championed by Muslims.
Why is it Christians know so little about their own past?
Viviane I was referring to the most recent common ancestor of humanity.
The most common recent ancestor for humans was a woman 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. The MRCA on the male side is longer ago than that. Are you suggesting that God implanted a soul (metaphor for your assumption that animals are dumb, a common religious trope) in a human and that for thousands of years there were half souled human/animal hybrids having sex?
Or are you going to suggest that he gave two humanoids souls at the same time and that their children were forced to engage in sex with non-human animals, basically that God forced them into bestiality? Or that they only had sex with each other, that God forced them into incest?
If so, what would be the modern justification for bans on incest and bestiality since god clearly approved of it?
Science could only be created in the Christian theology - not sure about this. Knowledge via the scientific method has been acquired under non-Christian rulership.
Perhaps the theory of evolution could only be successfully proposed in Christian-based countries.
Well if I have to tell you why we can say animals don't perceive infinity and humans do...
You're are wrong about the date of the most recent common ancestor of humans. It existed just a few thousand years.
Only Christians consider matter as separated from God. Others religions consider matter as a body of a god. In these religions you cannot study matter but you must worship it.
And you're are a positivist if you consider the scientific method the only valid knowledge.
You're are wrong about the date of the most recent common ancestor of humans. It existed just a few thousand years. - John Mann
No it didn't.
The last female ancestor of living humans - "mitochondrial Eve" lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The last male common ancestor - "Y-chromosome Adam" lived more recently, around 100,000 years ago.
Not all studies have some up with identical results but none of them date either of our last common ancestors less than 99,000 years ago. You can read more about the latest results here...
Only Christians consider matter as separated from God. Others religions consider matter as a body of a god. In these religions you cannot study matter but you must worship it.
The dualism of christianity is of no relevance to science. It is simply a method of investigating what is real and true about the world. It has only succeeded by making the working assumption that religious superstitions play no part in the real world.
That assumption has been astonishingly successful.
The Catholic view is God created the universe and set natural laws to it.
One of these laws is the evolution algorithm. It created the human body and the primitive mind in it.
In some recent point, God chose a pair of these humanoids and put a soul in them. If the sons of the first couple took theirs mates from the others humanoids it was not bestiality, because there was no difference in the material body. And theirs sons received a human soul afterwards because is believed that every soul is created directly by God.
This belief is consistent with the scientific knowledge about the most recent common ancestor and the human modern behaviour.
The recent fundamentalist view on Genesis is not the traditional view of Christianity. Saint Augustine said in the third century the Genesis account it's a theological explanation.
Well if I have to tell you why we can say animals don't perceive infinity and humans do...
All you have to do is show me the evidence.
You're are wrong about the date of the most recent common ancestor of humans. It existed just a few thousand years.
All you have to do is show me the evidence.
Only Christians consider matter as separated from God. Others religions consider matter as a body of a god. In these religions you cannot study matter but you must worship it.
Really? Excellent, show me the evidence for that.
And you're are a positivist if you consider the scientific method the only valid knowledge.
It helps to know something besides the scientific method. I mean, knowing how to make a salad is nice.
The Catholic view is God created the universe and set natural laws to it.
One of these laws is the evolution algorithm. It created the human body and the primitive mind in it.
OK, show me the evidence for that.
In some recent point, God chose a pair of these humanoids and put a soul in them. If the sons of the first couple took theirs mates from the others humanoids it was not bestiality, because there was no difference in the material body.
OK, interesting, not different except that one had a soul and one didn't, making them separate species. How is that not bestiality?
And theirs sons received a human soul afterwards because is believed that every soul is created directly by God.
So you're saying that only one parent is needed to pass on a soul? Also, sons? What if they had a daughter, would she have gotten a soul? Or did these hybrids only have sons? Is the soul passed on in the X or Y chromosome?
I need some more details on how this works.
And theirs sons received a human soul afterwards because is believed that every soul is created directly by God.
Interesting. What does he make it out of? What he made out of, for that matter? What tools, if any, would he need? A hammer? Screwdriver?
This belief is consistent with the scientific knowledge about the most recent common ancestor and the human modern behaviour.
Oh, well, don't get ahead of yourself. You've not shown any evidence yet. This is, at this point, just you saying stuff.
The recent fundamentalist view on Genesis is not the traditional view of Christianity. Saint Augustine said in the third century the Genesis account it's a theological explanation.
So 1700 years ago he knew it was a load of poop. Good to know.
What does that have to do with all of the evidence you need to be working on getting together?
I don't know what science you are reading but the most recent common ancestor of modern humans is just a couple of thousands years ago.
Assuming that no genetically isolated human populations remain, the human MRCA may have lived 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.
Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–6.Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R.doi:10.1038/nature02842.PMID 15457259
http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureAncestorsPressRelease.html
Oh, sorry, try again....
http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/CommonAncestors/NatureAncestorsPressRelease.html
A mathematical model from 12 years ago. No actual evidence. Actual science on the matter shows this not to be true.
So, anyway, try again, using actual evidence.
Well is Nature magazine.
And this concept is compatible with the genealogy in the Gospels. Adam and Eve lived about 4 thousand years BC.
