Posts by slimboyfat

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

Again you reach for the flat earth nonsense. And this argument does not involve postmodernism, but you reach for both.

Why call me names and absuive language? Is there any way I could express my (perfectly mainstream) view that science does not impact theological issues that would be acceptable to you? You say that you intend to ignore my comments from now on, but I would struggle to tell the difference, as you have not engaged with anything.

The point I made is incredibly simple, and almost boring in how mainstream it is. You asked what impact scientific discoveries on the origin of life would have on believers and how they would respond. The question assumes that scientific discoveries impact philosophical or theological questions. What's the basis for that assumption? Some popular science writers make this assumption.

JW believers and some atheist counterparts share the same belief that at some point in the future their view of reality will be confirmed beyond doubt, once and for all. They have faith that the evidence will be so overwhelming at Armageddon/following some scientific breakthrough, that their opponents will simply have to recognise the "truth" of the situation. This is a fantasy.

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

Can you explain what you believe is the difference between a God doing something by "natural" means as opposed to "supernatural" means. I am not convinced this is a meaningful distinction.

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

Only if you think God cannot use natural means. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The distinction between natural and supernatural is itself problematic. I can't think why descriptions of God giving life, and life arising from non-life, cannot be used to describe the same phenomenon, in as much as life arising from non-life may be the means by which God gave life.

I can say I stopped the water in the sink from running. I don't need to go into the mechanics of how I turned the nozzle and how that prevented the water from flowing. "I stopped the water" and a technical explanation of the same thing are not in competition with one another. They are different levels of explanation.

9

Japan's branch office. began to crumble?

by nakanozzi in

ebina assembly hall, where the japan’s branch office is located,need to be fixed all over inside, but they have no money.

ameblo.jp/c00-c00/entry-12198348850.html.

.

slimboyfat

Publisher numbers and congregation numbers have been s.owly declining in Japan for,decades now. I wouldn't be surprised if donations are down significantly and maintenance of their properties has suffered.

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

Not all atheists argue for atheism on the basis of evidence or science as Dawkins does in part. A different approach to the problem that I appreciate is from Raymond Tallis. He has no time for the idea that empirical evidence can decide the issue. At the same time he doesn't believe in reductive materialism either.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/73/Why_I_Am_An_Atheist

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

Your first intervention on page 1 was outrageously stupid. You are now trying to pretend that you said something different and dishonestly twist my words.

My post on page 1 was to show that JWs and some atheists seem to share the belief that at some time in the future they will be proved right beyond all doubt, and everyone will be forced to acknowledge their version of the truth. In the case of JWs this will happen at Armageddon. In the case of some atheists they believe that scientific discoveries will confirm their philosophical position.

I have at no stage pretended to say something different and I stand by the point I made.

It's your position that has changed during the thread. In the first post you speculated on how theists would respond to the perceived challenge posed by naturalistic origins of life, explored different possibilities, but that none of them would be satisfactory in your view. Now instead you talk about "theological implications", doctrine might need to be adjusted, and that you in no way implied this has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of God.

But what is most amazing is that your materialist reductionism apparently blinds you to the fact that the same phenomenon can have different levels of interpretation. A river can be cold, it can be blue, it can be rough, it can be clean, it can be amazing, it can be ugly, it can be ancient, it can be artificial. What makes no sense whatsoever is to pit different kinds of descriptions against one another as if they are in competition. Like if someone was to say, the river can't be rough because it's ancient, or it can't be majestic because it's cold. Just because we can talk about life and how it arose in naturalistic terms does not exclude other ways of talking about it. It is not a competition.

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.