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.
I read both WT pages. Neither of them contradicts their own brochure which says scientists may one day succeed in creating living cells.
Can you quote where either page says scientists will never be able to create life from non-life? I can't find any such comment.
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.
You are correct that WT literature is often contradictory. But if it is contradictory in this case you've yet to show where. The WT says that scientists may one day create living cells from non-living matter. It also says that life comes from life and that God is the source of life. Since the scientists who may one day create life will themselves presumably be alive (just as women who give birth are also alive) I think you falsely accuse the WT of contradiction in this case.
But let's be clear about what Cofty got wrong. He stated:
As a JW and then a christian my belief was that life was something ethereal that belonged only to god... On this understanding the efforts of scientists to see if life will emerge from geochemistry is an impossible task. It is not doomed to failure because it is too technically difficult, it is doomed because life comes only from the lifegiver. The barrier is theological not scientific.
Whereas the WT brochure states:
Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance... Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a "simple" cell.... If scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing-but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything they would prove the very opposite, would they not?
Any plain reading of the WT comments shows that Cofty has misunderstood what they teach. For most people a statement from the WT saying that scientists may one day create life from non-life would be enough to show that's what the WT teaches. If that's not evidence enough for you or Cofty I'm not sure what to say after that.
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.
Well, first, I don't "declare" you wrong. I simply point out that you are based on evidence. It's no different that if you were claiming 2+2=5. Viv
If you have evidence for the assertions you make why not include it in your post?
your quote refuting that obvious fact was, in fact, a snippet from an article on naturalism, something very different Viv
You imply I am not familar with the source I cite without explicitly saying so, a neat rhetorical trick. However I have read Betley Hart's book and this was a quotation from it. The link was to a review of the book that includes the quote. What distinction do you make between naturalism and materialism?
That's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. And it's wrong. Viv
Argumentum ad lapidem. Thanks for your opinion, where's your evidence?
It's little more than an attempt to undermine science by making the same mistake you did, mis-labeling what circular reasoning is and being far less than honest about what science is and how it works. Viv
That may be the case or it may not. Once again you forgot to include any argument to accompany your assertion.
How can science ever "show" that life doesn't come from God? slimboyfat
Ooh, ooh! Strawman alert! Science doesn't seek to show that, nor was that in any way Cofty's point. Viv
What Cofty said was:
If theology says that life comes only from his [sic] and it turns out otherwise, that's an impact Cofty
What is a "theological barrier"? Viv
Ask Cofty, what he wrote was:
On this understanding the efforts of scientists to see if life will emerge from geochemistry is an impossible task. It is not doomed to failure because it is too technically difficult, it is doomed because life comes only from the lifegiver. The barrier is theological not scientific. Cofty
Oh my, you are accusing Cofty of doing EXACTLY what you are doing. This is what happens when you use pseudo-intellectualism and dishonesty to try to make a gap to wedge god in. SBF gets caught. Again. Viv
I consider myself an agnostic. Lots of labelling there, not much (or anything) in the way orf argument or evidence.
If only he didn't post in an intentionally obtuse manner, we might know what that position is. Viv
I think the points I made were pretty straightforward.
1. Cofty asked how theists might respond if scientists manage to demonstrate how life can arise from non-life. I pointed out that the view that scientific discoveries can tell us anything about God or his existence involves a particular philosophical stance and is not a given.
2. I pointed out that the optimistic view some people have of science, that it will be able to answer ultimate questions, such as about God, at some time in the future, resembles the belief JWs have that the final truth about reality will be established at Armageddon. That looks like fantasy, or wishful thinking, in both cases.
3. Cofty claimed that JWs teach scientists will never be able to create life from non-life because there is a "theological barrier" rather than a technical one. WT publications say the opposite, that scientists may be able to create life at some point in the future. For most people a quotation from the WT saying that scientists may create life at some point would be enough to convince them that's what the WT teaches. But not Cofty. A strange position for someone who claims to believe in facts.
I don't see how any of these points are obscure or esoteric.
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?.
Average publishers increased from 127,000 in 1945 to 570,000 in 1955. (443,000 or 349%)
Compared with an increase from 1,034,000 in 1965 to 2,062,000 in 1975 (1,028,000 or 101%)
So yes a larger absolute increase between 1965 and 1975, but a much higher percentage increase between 1945 and 1955.
1945 to 1955 - 349% increase
1955 to 1965 - 81% increase
1965 to 1975 - 101% increase
So the early postwar period was the best for growth, even the decade leading up to 1975 did not match it.
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.
I've not destroyed anything. You asked how theists would respond if scientists succeed in creating life. You were apparently unaware that WT literature has answered this question directly.
If scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing-but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything they would prove the very opposite, would they not?
You apparently misunderstood JW teaching as meaning there is a theological barrier to scientists ever creating life from non-living matter. In fact WT literature says scientists may well succeed, but they argue that would be different from life arising by itself.
You're welcome.
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.
So you worked backward from your understanding of JW teaching on "spirit" and assumed this meant they would object theologically to the possibility of scientists creating life?
Except you forgot to check if the WT actually teaches that scientists will never be able create life on theological grounds. Well the WT does not object to scientists creating life, in fact it says they may well do so. So the thread is based on a false premise.
Maybe it's true that other Christian creationists claim that scientists will never be able to create life because only God can do that. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case, but JWs don't teach that.
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.
Why do you assume that life created by scientists would be without spirit?
You claimed JWs teach there is a theological barrier, not merely a technical barrier to scientists creating life.
WT literature actually says the opposite: that creating life is a technical challenge but that scientists may be able to do it one day. And if they do JWs argue it only goes to show that intelligence is needed in order to create life.
I wonder where did you get the idea that JWs teach there is a theological barrier to scientists creating life? Did it ever state this in the literature? I am looking at the older books but I can't find any comment on those lines.
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.
Where does the WT say scientists will only be able to make "lifeless" cells? It makes no such distinction. It says that life arising from non-life is a "challenge" for scientists but If they manage it it will be "something truly amazing".
Can you quote where JWs have ever taught there is a "theological" barrier to scientists creating life from non-living matter? That's what you claimed above but I am not aware that they ever taught this, Maybe they did teach this at one stage I don't know. Their recent publication have no problem with the idea. In fact they incorporate it into their argument for an intelligent .creator.
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.
Can you show me where the WT has said that creating life from non-life is "theologically" impossible for humans?
Read it for yourself, page 6. It's talking about humans making life from non-living matter. It's the whole point of the discussion.
https://download-a.akamaihd.net/files/media_books/d0/lf_E.pdf
See also the Creator book page 37 that talks about scientists attempting to create life from non-life. It does not say it is theologically impossible. Instead it asks the question:
If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out the experiment represent?
JWs argue that the chances of life arising from non-living matter spontaneously are remote, they do not say it is theologically impossible. They allow for the possibility that scientists may manage to do it some day, but they argue this only goes to prove that intelligent beings need to set the conditions for it to happen.
Your thread is based on a misunderstanding of what JWs teach.
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.
Oh dear. Not content with misrepresenting your own OP, you now deny the plain meaning of WT comments on the feasibility of scientists creating living cells from non-living matter.
You claimed that for JWs there is a theological not simply a technical barrier to scientists creating life. However JW publications as far back as I remember have always talked about life arising from non-life as a technical and statistical problem, not a theological impossibility. Anyone acquainted with the blue Creation book, the Creator book, or their various brochures on the topic knows this.
Where did you get the idea that JWs teach there is a theological barrier to scientists creating life in the laboratory? I guess it is possible they taught this at one stage but I don't know how far back you would have to go.
