This is part of your problem. It's an age old technique. Throw so many weak arguments into the discussion that no one will have either the time or the inclination to refute them all.
But I disagree they are weak arguements in the first plaaace. They may be weak to a hyper skeptic but they are a pretty common arguement. Most people believe in something beyond the physical. There are a number of ways to support this besides hard science like physics.
Look at the links I supplied. They are not as weak as being made out. They are in scientific journals. At least give them some credit. But I have read some of these ideas and arguements are well agreed upon by many others who actually think some of these explanations and arguements are strong and fit the observations very well.
So I disagree with the assumption they are weak overall. To Hans or a particular area of physics who may be limited in understand of other domains. Yes it may seem weak. But not in the overall lines of evidence on this.
It can appear as though you're hoping that by sheer numbers alone you can turn a lot of weak arguments into one strong one.
Or you could just deal with their content rather than dismissing them. I have gone through the (having no links and then having links and back again). It makes no difference. Its all dismissed lol.
It's a strategy that's popular with NDE defenders et al. I realize that in your case it's probably unintentional. And to your credit, as highlighted by the following quote, you seem to recognize this problem.
I think at least with NDE it needs lots of repeated examples. Thats how its designed. Because it faces such an uphill battle for recognition and believability. It has to work twice as hard lol.
But also this is really about experiential evidence which is different to hard physical evidence. So lots of experiences begin to buid a good case that there is something going on besides imagination, dreams or delusions. But again this is a different kind of evidence to hard sciences. But evidence nonetheless.
I get it, the evidence is somewhat subjective. But then again proponents of a flat earth, or bigfoot, or reincarnation, will make the exact same claim. And unfortunately, in a science forum, they're exactly who your 'supernatural' claims are going to get lumped in with, and for obvious reasons.
I disagree. For example with the Flat Earth idea we can physically get images of a sphere shaped earth. There is no invisible aspect that says its flat lol. But with Mind or consciousness as fundemental. Its experiential and we have some evidence of Mind over Matter. A NDE is not visible like the earth for you to see and measure.
So perhaps the effort for producing evidence is hard to begin wiuth. Not so much that there is no evidence. But that the evidence cannot be measured in the way a Flat earth can be measured.
So what's a proponent of the supernatural to do? Look for the points of agreement. Agree that your arguments are weak. Agree that the evidence is subjective. And agree that your interpretation of it is biased. Because all of those things are true. This won't necessarily help you win any arguments, but it will at least establish that you're rational. You recognize the weaknesses in your position.
I have not only done that but I have also conceded. I have no arguement against the material science and the naturalistic descriptions they give. Its pretty well spot on.
In fact those who believe in supernaturalism or Mind beyond the physical rely on accurate measures and descriptions to be able to know that what is being abserved is beyond the naturalistic lol. Otherwise where is the destinction. Where is anything.
Don't attack your opponents, even when they're the one's not being rational, it'll only turn into quid pro quo. Simply explain to them, as clearly as you can, why you disagree.
I've spent my entire life doing that lol. I have explained the best I can. In fact as I said I don't disagree lol. I simply disagree when the descriptions and science being used is then used to defeat supernaturalism or other ideas beyond the purely physical ontology.
In fact my whole point is not disputing the science. Its the silly idea that a science thread can discuss whether life was formed naturalistically or supernaturalistically without stepping into metaphysics.
See when you say explain to others best you can. That in itself is not allowed as its philosophy and we are told philsophy is not allowed. Nor is ID as thats a psuedoscience. Even though it may well be one way as I think this is trying to show that the same evidence that is proposed as naturalistic is actually teleological.
In fact there is a growing area in evolutionary biology that is now incorporating teleology. Thats may be one way. Because we can measure for example human free will and agency. Or perhaps the common mechanisms which are beyond mere chance. But I can hear all the objections now and it would be a mindfield of disagreement.
But really disagreement on belief because how could anyone verify that a particular development process or system was evolved due to naturalism or some supernatural intervention somewhere along the way.
That's the point that you have to get across to them... not that they're wrong, but rather why you disagree. The better that you can do that the more productive the discussion will be.
Yes I have tried that from early on and repeated the same over and over. In fact some agree. We have come to an agreement on the science and that it cannot ultimately verify whether life was formed naturalistically without supernaturalism or not.
Thats why I guess introducing some alternative science besides the hard sciences. Like psychology (Mind over Matter),, new ideas such as evolutionary teleology, and Consciousness studies and QM which just happens to poosit Mind as fundemental as a legitimate interpretation of QM.
But these are fringe areas and already there is resistence. The peer review stuff I have attempted to link are quickly dismissed as bunk. Even though they are peer reviewed and most probably have never bothered to actually understand the arguements and evidence.
One final point. From my perspective as a person with a short attention span. Your posts can sometimes be too long and redundant, with too many tangents. So, if you could try to be a bit more succinct I'd really appreciate it.
Yea I know. I sometimes tend to lay out the whole arguement and all possible associations in one go. A bit impatient in going in step by step. But you will notice after I do this I will start to reduce the replies to short answers based on what I have already tried to explain.
I have studied this area for years and I can see some who object don't understand such ideas. Have rejected them before getting to know them.
But thankyou for caring and being so nice about this. I take your advice as I know I carry on too much lol. That will get some reaction lol.
