by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This is entertainment to SBF.
Lying about what others have said, posting impossibly obtuse statements and generally behaving like a drunk at a dinner party.
Three hundred posts on what should have been a simple and interesting topic about origin-of-life research and what it might say about theism. Probably 250 of those posts off-topic.
On the one hand you say that a scientific explanation for the origin of life would leave theists with questions to answer, that their various "excuses" wouldn't work, and that it would prove there is no "life force" from God.Try again. Just because I can make a little waterfall in my back yard doesn't mean that there is a life force waterfall and that all waterfalls must come from me.
On the other hand you say that any suggestion you are using science to settle the issue of God is a compete misrepresentation.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
What exactly sounds insane to you?
The time (6,000)?
Do you agree modern consciousness must had started somewhere in time? When do you think it happened?
Do you agree that modern humans are the only specie to develop a sophisticated consciousness? Like to be aware of the own death and concepts like infinity, justice and beauty?
What exactly sounds insane to you? The time (6,000)?
Modern humans with intelligence and hopes and fears and self-awareness just like ours have been around for approximately 100,000 years.
Your opening post did not ask how creationists would respond to origins of life research.
It asked how "theists" would respond, and speculated about possible "excuses" they would attempt to make.
Theism is defined as the belief that God exists, no more and no less.
Merriam-Webster
Theism: the belief that God exists or that many gods exist
Are you backtracking from saying that those who "believe that God exists" would have questions to answer? Are you now saying only that creationists would have questions to answer?
As for all the insulting comments I am not going to answer that, so you should give up trying to drag discussion down to that level. I am interested in ideas and viewpoints, not calling names.
What exactly sounds insane to you?
All of it. Magic zombie sky people with super powers, being that are implanted with an unknown substance and then forced to have sex with a different species, etc..
Do you agree modern consciousness must had started somewhere in time? When do you think it happened?
Wait, what do you mean by "modern consciousness"? Of course if it didn't exist in the past and then did, at some point that had to happen. but first explain to me what you mean by "modern consciousness".
Do you agree that modern humans are the only specie to develop a sophisticated consciousness? Like to be aware of the own death and concepts like infinity, justice and beauty?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160517-chimps-grieve-for-dead-friend
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-dolphin-conversation-revealing-spoken-language.html
http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/#mammals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#Consciousness
Interestingly, you included the concept of "infinity" in there. Why? Does a toddler have that concept? Did humans always have that concept? The earliest reference to it is from about 2400 years ago. Is that concept required? If not, then babies certainly aren't conscious and therefore, according to you, don't have a soul.
Anyway, animals certainly do express morals, grieve for the dead, exhibit consciousness of self and have spoken language.
So no, I wouldn't agree that humans are the only animals to have consciousness. Evidence doesn't support that notion.
Cofty do you believe in the possibility of aliens.Disclosure is not far away.Lets face it if humans exist why not other life forms from other planets.
Are you backtracking from saying that those who "believe that God exists" would have questions to answer?
He never said that. Which makes this bit....
As for all the insulting comments I am not going to answer that, so you should give up trying to drag discussion down to that level. I am interested in ideas and viewpoints, not calling names.
... hilarious. It's hilarious that you, who have misrepresented (often intentionally) every viewpoint you have brought up, suddenly is concern trolling about Cofty's consistency.
Ridiculousness, thy name is SBF.
Cofty, did you read about the bicameral mind hypothesis?
It's thought people even could not perceive the blue color in ancient times.
And the modern human behaviour theory says it started at least half of the time you mentioned.
