Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chesterton" data-source="post: 73957261" data-attributes="member: 225709"><p>Carroll is wrong there. Mixing levels of description <u>is</u> metaphysics; it's in the etymology of the word "meta-physics" itself. It's the goal of any truth-seeker to find explanations which coherently unify various levels and various views of what reality might be.</p><p></p><p>Having said that, yes, I completely understand that there's some magic which takes place, which allows me to write a beautiful poem about a beautiful woman, that I could not write about the molecules which comprise her. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Just what I said - experiential evidence of experience. I experience a "me", therefore there is a "me", <u>by <em>your</em> definition</u>. You say "a statement is true if it corresponds to a state of affairs in the world". How can you arbitrarily decide that the experience of "2 + 2 = 4" is a true state of affairs, but the experience of the "you" which experiences it is not?</p><p></p><p>I don't know that the supernatual hypothesis makes any specific prediction. The scientific method is useful for examining aspects of reality, not reality itself. If you're a man trapped inside a windowless building, you can examine everything inside it, but you won't be able to see what surrounds and supports the building.</p><p></p><p>I didn't say it was better than those things.</p><p></p><p>Sorry, but my typical CF posts are one or two sentences. I can't read every book recommendation you give me for purposes of responding to you in this wordy thread. But the book synopsis says he has at least one "radical hypothesis", which is always a red flag that I'll likely be getting some non-science passed off as science. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Anyway, I could just as easily make this a "science-of-the-gaps" issue: we may be able to explain it with God in the future, which will show you to be wrong then, therefore you are wrong now.</p><p></p><p>It can't be deconstructed as you described. Set aside complexity. Before you can have any "simple logical steps", you have to have axiom from which to build logical steps. It's the ability to magically "see" and understand how and why a thing is or is not self-evident. If you're going to insist that mice or any animals have this ability, I think the burden is on you to show that.</p><p></p><p>It's one thing to say something is of little interest, it's another to denounce it as wrong.</p><p></p><p>But the empirical evidence does not support any one interpretation to the exclusion of others. Hypothetically, if there come to be consistent experiements where a subject's brain is actually shown to make a decision, even seconds rather than milliseconds, before the subject was aware of the decision, that still would not prove anything one way or another. Let me give you a passage from C. S. Lewis:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>And suddenly all was changed. I saw a great assembly of gigantic forms all motionless, all in deepest silence, standing forever about a little silver table and looking upon it. And on the table there were little figures like chessmen who went to and fro doing this and that. And I knew that each chessman was the idolum or puppet representative of some one of the great presences that stood by. And the acts and motions of each chessman were a moving portrait, a mimicry or pantomime, which delineated the inmost nature of his giant master. And these chessmen are men and women as they appear to themselves and to one another in this world. And the silver table is Time. And those who stand and watch are the immortal souls of those same men and women.</em></p><p></p><p>Now that is just a fantasy dream vision, but the point is this: even if our brains appear to have made a decision before "we" do, that does not at all imply that "we" didn't make the decision. I'm not asking you to accept this vision, I'm just asking you to be scientific; to not rule out what the evidence does not rule out.</p><p></p><p>I didn't say you could change the content of the <em>signal</em>.</p><p></p><p>Yes, and I think it's a misplaced insult. It varies some from religion to religion, but apart from the creation story, the Jewish and Christian scriptures express no interest in "how the world works".</p><p></p><p>But everything you've said so far could just as easily lead to the conclusion that "consciousness is fundamental". And doesn't your materialist view lead to solipsism? If your brain can produce your experience of your self, it could also produce your experience of me, and this conversation, and your chair, and everything.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chesterton, post: 73957261, member: 225709"] Carroll is wrong there. Mixing levels of description [U]is[/U] metaphysics; it's in the etymology of the word "meta-physics" itself. It's the goal of any truth-seeker to find explanations which coherently unify various levels and various views of what reality might be. Having said that, yes, I completely understand that there's some magic which takes place, which allows me to write a beautiful poem about a beautiful woman, that I could not write about the molecules which comprise her. :) Just what I said - experiential evidence of experience. I experience a "me", therefore there is a "me", [U]by [I]your[/I] definition[/U]. You say "a statement is true if it corresponds to a state of affairs in the world". How can you arbitrarily decide that the experience of "2 + 2 = 4" is a true state of affairs, but the experience of the "you" which experiences it is not? I don't know that the supernatual hypothesis makes any specific prediction. The scientific method is useful for examining aspects of reality, not reality itself. If you're a man trapped inside a windowless building, you can examine everything inside it, but you won't be able to see what surrounds and supports the building. I didn't say it was better than those things. Sorry, but my typical CF posts are one or two sentences. I can't read every book recommendation you give me for purposes of responding to you in this wordy thread. But the book synopsis says he has at least one "radical hypothesis", which is always a red flag that I'll likely be getting some non-science passed off as science. :) Anyway, I could just as easily make this a "science-of-the-gaps" issue: we may be able to explain it with God in the future, which will show you to be wrong then, therefore you are wrong now. It can't be deconstructed as you described. Set aside complexity. Before you can have any "simple logical steps", you have to have axiom from which to build logical steps. It's the ability to magically "see" and understand how and why a thing is or is not self-evident. If you're going to insist that mice or any animals have this ability, I think the burden is on you to show that. It's one thing to say something is of little interest, it's another to denounce it as wrong. But the empirical evidence does not support any one interpretation to the exclusion of others. Hypothetically, if there come to be consistent experiements where a subject's brain is actually shown to make a decision, even seconds rather than milliseconds, before the subject was aware of the decision, that still would not prove anything one way or another. Let me give you a passage from C. S. Lewis: [INDENT][I]And suddenly all was changed. I saw a great assembly of gigantic forms all motionless, all in deepest silence, standing forever about a little silver table and looking upon it. And on the table there were little figures like chessmen who went to and fro doing this and that. And I knew that each chessman was the idolum or puppet representative of some one of the great presences that stood by. And the acts and motions of each chessman were a moving portrait, a mimicry or pantomime, which delineated the inmost nature of his giant master. And these chessmen are men and women as they appear to themselves and to one another in this world. And the silver table is Time. And those who stand and watch are the immortal souls of those same men and women.[/I][/INDENT] Now that is just a fantasy dream vision, but the point is this: even if our brains appear to have made a decision before "we" do, that does not at all imply that "we" didn't make the decision. I'm not asking you to accept this vision, I'm just asking you to be scientific; to not rule out what the evidence does not rule out. I didn't say you could change the content of the [I]signal[/I]. Yes, and I think it's a misplaced insult. It varies some from religion to religion, but apart from the creation story, the Jewish and Christian scriptures express no interest in "how the world works". But everything you've said so far could just as easily lead to the conclusion that "consciousness is fundamental". And doesn't your materialist view lead to solipsism? If your brain can produce your experience of your self, it could also produce your experience of me, and this conversation, and your chair, and everything. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven
Top
Bottom