Posts by slimboyfat

14

A News Item from The Golden Age January 13, 1937

by Nathan Natas in

.

slimboyfat

I can't even make sense of it. What happened?

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

slimboyfat

Viv if you go back and read what I wrote, I did not say that science itself involves the assumption that its results can tell us about God. I say that some people, using science to undermine God, rely on the assumption that science can tell us about and whether there is a God.

Science itself relies on methodological materialist assumptions in order to operate. There is no problem with that. The problem is when people use the results of relying upon those assumptions as evidence for a philosophical materialist position. That is circular reasoning.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

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.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

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.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

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.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

slimboyfat

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.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

slimboyfat

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.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?

as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.

there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.

slimboyfat

I expressed my total contempt for SBF's bullshit attempt to destroy the conversation before it began. I am very interested in opposing views on this topic. That is why I started it. I find Vidqun's previous post to be very honest and interesting. Basically he, like many other theists are hoping it will never happen.

My post was an attempt to further the conversation by pointing out that the idea that scientific discoveries can settle questions about the nature or existence of God is itself questionable, at the very least.

You claim you are interested in hearing opposing views, but it seems to be along very narrow lines: creationists or theists with predictable responses that you feel you can easily dispatch are welcome.

However opposing views that question your approach at a more fundamental level don't appear to be entertained at all, to put it mildly. But why call an opposing view "trolling" just because you disagree with it?

53

The Real Reason why the WT predicted Armageddon in 1975

by OrphanCrow in

i am of the opinion that the wt doctrine is influenced more by external factors that it is by internal ones.

one of the doctrines that has puzzled me for some time is the armageddon prediction of 1975. why would the wts make this prediction?

what was their real purpose?.

slimboyfat

Actually the growth was better from 1945 to 1955 than 1965 to 1975. I haven't checked this again right now but I remember from comparing it a few years ago.

But yes it's true to say 1975 appears to have been a net gain for JW numbers because growth was slowing down considerably in the 1960s before the prediction was made.

36

This week's WT study article "Keep on the Watch" - the latest dumb article from the Gang That Couldn't Think Straight

by sir82 in

ok so this week's wt study article is entitled "why must we keep on the watch?"..

it is filled with statements on the importance of "being watchful" for the beginning of the "great tribulation".

paragraph 2: “keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is.”after that, jesus admonished them repeatedly: “keep on the watch.”.

slimboyfat

Reminds me of the genius WT a few years ago that explained how a "short period of time" is really "an extended period of time".