by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I go for the rule: Life begets life. - vidqun
Who made up that rule? Again you are missing the main point.
Scientists are not trying to "make" life. They are trying to set up prebiotic conditions and observe how life emerges by purely naturalistic means.
If God could create life, so could man.
That surprises me coming from somebody who quotes the bible as an authority.
It's a rule from personal experience. This is what I see in nature. So far I have not seen anything else to contradict the rule, so I stick with it.
.. and here lies the real motive of threads like these. To bicker with and poke at those who don't see things the way you do. They might be hoping for it to not happen, but you as well are wishing for the opposite, so what's the point? It hasn't happened yet, and until it does, they have as much right to doubt it as you do to wish it
OK, so first, how do you presume to know the motive? Cofty posts many threads on science and evolution and does a good job of trying to keep things on track. He's also started threads on theism in which the discussion is around that topic. If theist are threatened by science, how is that Cofty's fault or motive?
Second, why is it the opposite to hope scientists discover more? Would hoping for a cure for cancer fall under that same "opposite"? I ask because it's the same science, biology, chemistry and physics, that will give us both answers.
Third, no one said they didn't have the right to doubt it, why would you pretend someone did?
I go for the rule: Life begets life
How do you solve the problem of that logic leading to the conclusion that your god must then, by definition, cannot exist, unless you are about to change your claim to some version of mysterious woo that your god isn't alive?
Also, that's not a rule, regardless of your personal experience. I mean, if "personal experience" was how rules are made, then it would be a rule that anyone on the internet claiming to be a microbiologist is a raging fraud.
In apophatic terms it could be said of God that he is both not alive and not not-alive.
Materialists see it as a cop out if theists say that God cannot be defined in terms of being alive or existent. But in a sense this could be said to be the very point of God, that he not be defined in human terms. Finite creatures are bound by descriptions. If God is in some sense infinite then he can be said cross boundaries of time, space and existence/non-existence.
It may be objected that this does not make sense in our mind. But is it a reasonable expectation that the nature of God should make sense to human thought? Because humans are endowed with remarkable thinking ability compared with animals, we may tend to imagine that our ability to understand the world and its nature is therefore unlimited. But it is obviously also possible that, while our ability to think is very good, it is nevertheless incapable of comprehending certain aspects of reality, including the nature of God.
Humanist materialists elevate human rationality to a kind of God. When presented with the situation that the human mind cannot comprehend how God could be said to be outside human categories, they conclude that therefore God cannot "exist". As if the ability of the human mind is itself the measure of what can and cannot "exist" in reality. Materialists are free to make this assumption if they wish. But it is also fair to point out that it is simply an assumption, and also that it involves making incredibly high claims for the human mind. If the ability of the human mind to make sense of certain phenomena is the measure of whether the thing exists in reality, then this is making the human mind into God, determining what exists and does not exist.
So there is a sense in which atheistiic materialism does not so much eliminate God but rather puts the human mind in the place of God.
SBF - Not one single word in your post has anything at all to do with the topic.
Just more pseudo-intellectual, vacuous postmodernism trolling.
Please feel free to fuck right off.
In apophatic terms it could be said of God that he is both not alive and not not-alive.
Apophatic theology is nothing more than an attempt to pretend not knowing anything means actually knowing something. It's funny that proponents of it think anyone older than 5 would fall for it.
The original post discusses the idea that future scientific discoveries about the origin of life may eliminate the need for God and leave theists with difficult questions to answer. I am pointing out that this approach to understanding reality rests upon various assumptions that are difficult the establish. Such as the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God. Also the assumption that human rationality is the measure of what is real and exists in the world.
These are hardly novel or particularly "postmodern" ideas in the philosophy of religion. They are common objections to a purely materialist conception of reality. That you apparently give them no consideration is not, as you seem to imagine, proof that I am talking postmodern rubbish. If you have not considered these sorts of arguments it does speak well of the robustness of your own position that you trumpet with such confidence.
Instead of trying to invent ways to embarrass creationists intellectually you could better spend time tidying your own intellectual back yard.
The original posts discusses the idea that future scientific discoveries about the origin of life may eliminate the need for God
No it doesn't.
It poses the question of how theism would deal with a purely naturalistic answer to the origin of life. Most theists have already learned to accommodate the fact of evolution. Would they adjust to abiogenesis so readily?
Now please shut up with your po-mo bullshit.
The original post discusses the idea that future scientific discoveries about the origin of life may eliminate the need for God and leave theists with difficult questions to answer. I am pointing out that this approach to understanding reality rests upon various assumptions that are difficult the establish. Such as the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God. Also the assumption that human rationality is the measure of what is real and exists in the world.
See bolded text. That's not an assumption in science any kind. It's a claim made by those wishing to discredit science.
Also, one of the reasons science works the way it does it precisely because nature DOES defy human rationality. The study of quantum physics is proof of that.
These are hardly novel or even particularly "postmodern" ideas in the philosophy of religion. They are common objections to a purely materialist conception of reality. That you apparently give them no consideration is not, as you seem to imagine, proof that I am talking postmodern rubbish.
It's rubbish because the objections aren't actual things. In other words, they get no consideration because the premise is false.
If you have not considered these sorts of arguments it does speak well of the robustness of your own position that you trumpet with such confidence. Instead of trying to invent ways to embarrass creationists intellectually you could better spend time tidying your own intellectual back yard.
Instead of attempting to denigrate others for not being intellectual enough, have you considered making valid arguments based on actual things? In other words, in your attempt to tell other people how dumb they are, have you tried not being wrong?
