Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  The original post speaks for itself, that it was about how scientific discoveries impact belief in God.

  If you don't perceive a naturalistic solution to the origin of life as a challenge to theism, then why frame the discussion in terms of how theists may "respond" to this new information?

  My point is that some theists will "respond" by pointing out that scientific discoveries do not tell us about the nature or existence of God. And that, remarkable as the human mind and science are, there may be things about the universe and reality that it is not able to pin down once and for all in human categories.

  I fully understand that this response does not fall neatly into the clever trap you believe you set for creationists or theists by raising this issue. It is a response to the point you made that underlines the dubious assumptions involved in the question you posed.
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Viv, my rule says: Life begets life. Life brings forth life. That's the evidence before me. Please, would you be so kind as to let me know of any example, where that is not the case. Thank you in anticipation.
• 

  Viviane

  The original post speaks for itself, that it was about how scientific discoveries impact belief in God.

  It does. You're attempting to claim that is related to " the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God".

  They are wildly different.

  If you don't perceive a naturalistic solution to the origin of life as a challenge to theism, then why frame the discussion in terms of how theists may "respond" to this new information?

  That has nothing to do with your claim about " the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God".
  
  

  My point is that some theists will "respond" by pointing out that scientific discoveries do not tell us about the nature or existence of God.

  Congratulations, you've identified a strawman argument.
  
  

  And that, remarkable as the human mind and science are, there may be things about the universe and reality that it is not able to pin down once and for all in human categories.

  Non-sequitur.
  

  I fully understand that this response does not fall neatly into the clever trap you believe you set for creationists or theists by raising this issue.

  It also doesn't fall into the trap of being a coherent argument.
  
  
  
• 

  Landy

  Viv, my rule says: Life begets life. Life brings forth life. That's the evidence before me. Please, would you be so kind as to let me know of any example, where that is not the case. Thank you in anticipation.

  God? In your mind anyway.

  
  
  
• 

  Viviane

  Viv, my rule says: Life begets life. Life brings forth life. That's the evidence before me. Please, would you be so kind as to let me know of any example, where that is not the case. Thank you in anticipation.

  Your rule invalidates itself. Logically there can be no first life using your rule, so there can no life at all. It's just a simple matter of not recognizing when you've created an infinite regression problem.

  If you say God created life, then God must have also needed a creator, a greater god, and THAT god must have needed a creator, so on and so forth into infinity.

  If you say God created life but isn't alive in the sense of biological life, then you break your rule, biological life DOESN'T need biological life to beget it, thus invalidating your rule, but with the added benefit of now having made the claim that god is not alive.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  The opening post was clearly about about possible scientific breakthroughs on the origin of life undermining belief in God, and how theists would "respond" to that situation.

  If that's not what it was about, then I don't know. Others can read and make up their own mind.

  I would simply suggest that when you are forced to deny the plain meaning of your own words, then something has gone seriously wrong with your argument.
• 

  Sanchy

  That is a false equivalence. Believers are hopeful it will never happen despite the evidence to the contrary. I believe it will because of the evidence. Until it does we can converse about the current state of the research and it's possible implications - if that's alright with Sanchy?

  Bicker away my friend. I give you permission
  
• 

  Viviane

  The opening post was clearly about about possible scientific breakthroughs on the origin of life undermining belief in God, and how theists would "respond" to that situation.

  What does that have to do with the false claim of "the assumption that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about the nature or existence of God"?
  

  I would simply suggest that when you are forced to deny the plain meaning of your own words, then something has gone seriously wrong with your argument.

  Who has done that? All that has happened so far is that you have attempted to make a false claim about the OP and then attempted to denigrate someone while being wrong. So far, no one is running away from their words, just pointed out where you made some serious errors regarding science.
  
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Not even one example? Not even a little one? Well, my rule stands then. Let's leave God out of the equation for the moment. This is the way nature works, whether you like it or not. In actual fact, my rule can be viewed as a law. A "law" implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions (e.g., the law of gravitation). See Webster.
• 

  slimboyfat

  If you ask how a certain scientific discovery would impact believers in God, and how would they "respond", this reasonably involves the assumption that such a scientific discovery would pose a challenge to belief in God in such a way that some "response" from believers is required or expected.