The missing link/intelligent design

[Gadarene]

Like what?

I believe he already gave the example of giant invisible immaterial marshmallows.

 

[super animator]

I believe he already gave the example of giant invisible immaterial marshmallows.

I want to nom nom nom.

 

[Received]

It sure sounds like he's saying that certain standards that allow the possibility of a deity through let a whole lot of other things through (that the people who already believe in the god they're trying to prove would reject).

So what's the subtext here? Whatever it is, it's fallacious. When you say:

Anything that allows for something like deities and other difficult to define things can't be true.​

You're putting a limit on the possibility of reality, simply because you don't like it. But reality is screwy, without even thinking of a deity. Quantum mechanics. Boom. What if someone was like:

Anything that allows for the possibility of things that don't work according to Newtonian physics can't be true.​

?

I believe he already gave the example of giant invisible immaterial marshmallows.

Which is a nonsense comparison because it's a self-contradictory statement, which by comparing to God presupposes by its very self-contradictory nature that God is self-contradictory. You know, a sort of loaded statement.

 

[twinc]

stuff and nonsense = is it not entirely absurd to accept that the earth,mountains,sun and stars be all contained within the narrow space of the human skull.We can only laugh at such nonsense and repeat that the brain is not the mind. It is a bit of nerve-stuff. We are able to see things as lying outside each other and events as happening after each other only because there is in us something which itself is not in space or time[Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[Wiccan_Child]

stuff and nonsense = is it not entirely absurd to accept that the earth,mountains,sun and stars be all contained within the narrow space of the human skull.We can only laugh at such nonsense and repeat that the brain is not the mind. It is a bit of nerve-stuff. We are able to see things as lying outside each other and events as happening after each other only because there is in us something which itself is not in space or time

Allegedly. I'd ask you for evidence or rationale to support this claim, but we all know that you've never once answered this request.

 

[twinc]

Allegedly. I'd ask you for evidence or rationale to support this claim, but we all know that you've never once answered this request.

yet such is the intellectual degradation of mankind that it irritably denounces this truth as illusory and impulsively upholds the error of materialism as truth ! For nobody has ever seen matter,nobody has ever handled it and nobody has ever known where to detect its presence.Its existence is a bluff. Matter thus becomes a merely illegitimate entity in our explanation of the world,a fiction that works quite well for the purposes of practical life but becomes meaningless for the purposes of philosophical truth. When such an erroneous notion is seen for what it is it will simply vanish from one's understanding and be regarded no more[Brunton] -more later - twinc

 

[Wiccan_Child]

yet such is the intellectual degradation of mankind that it irritably denounces this truth as illusory and impulsively upholds the error of materialism as truth !

Impulsively? Nonsense. Materialism has justified itself countless times with things such as vaccines, computers, and the International Space Station - none of these would exist if science and empiricism didn't work. Yet they do work, over and over, which is why, for all your blustering, science will win.

For nobody has ever seen matter,nobody has ever handled it and nobody has ever known where to detect its presence.[/quote]
Atoms are matter, and atoms compose all the solids, liquids, and gases (and others) that make up our world. Do you really disbelieve the existence of atoms? Because the evidence is kinda undeniable:

Its existence is a bluff. Matter thus becomes a merely illegitimate entity in our explanation of the world,a fiction that works quite well for the purposes of practical life but becomes meaningless for the purposes of philosophical truth. When such an erroneous notion is seen for what it is it will simply vanish from one's understanding and be regarded no more

Allegedly. You assert that matter doesn't exist, so do you have any evidence to corroborate your claim?

 

[twinc]

Impulsively? Nonsense. Materialism has justified itself countless times with things such as vaccines, computers, and the International Space Station - none of these would exist if science and empiricism didn't work. Yet they do work, over and over, which is why, for all your blustering, science will win.

For nobody has ever seen matter,nobody has ever handled it and nobody has ever known where to detect its presence.

Atoms are matter, and atoms compose all the solids, liquids, and gases (and others) that make up our world. Do you really disbelieve the existence of atoms? Because the evidence is kinda undeniable:

Allegedly. You assert that matter doesn't exist, so do you have any evidence to corroborate your claim?[/quote]

not I but science itself says so since it dematerialised matter-more later - twinc

 

[Wiccan_Child]

not I but science itself says so since it dematerialised matter

Allegedly. Can you substantiate this claim? You'll have to explain what you mean when you say science "dematerialised matter".

 

[Gadarene]

So what's the subtext here? Whatever it is, it's fallacious. When you say:

Anything that allows for something like deities and other difficult to define things can't be true.​

You're putting a limit on the possibility of reality, simply because you don't like it. But reality is screwy, without even thinking of a deity. Quantum mechanics. Boom. What if someone was like:

Anything that allows for the possibility of things that don't work according to Newtonian physics can't be true.​

?

Well, for one, that isn't what I said.

For the question at the end, it depends on whether or not we reject things evaluated by the same standard. It's a matter of consistency.

The issue is that frequently the standards used to assert God's existence admit a lot of things Christians reject.

Other, mutually exclusive deities would be a better example.

Which is a nonsense comparison because it's a self-contradictory statement, which by comparing to God presupposes by its very self-contradictory nature that God is self-contradictory. You know, a sort of loaded statement.

It requires about the same amount of apologetic jiggery-pokery to make it as viable

 

[twinc]

Allegedly. Can you substantiate this claim? You'll have to explain what you mean when you say science "dematerialised matter".

sure - wait for it - not that it or I will be very welcome for the very ground will be cut from beneath your feet so to speak - more later - twinc

 

[Received]

Well, for one, that isn't what I said.

For the question at the end, it depends on whether or not we reject things evaluated by the same standard. It's a matter of consistency.

The issue is that frequently the standards used to assert God's existence admit a lot of things Christians reject.

Other, mutually exclusive deities would be a better example.

I know it's not what you said, and I appreciate your not saying it.

But finding the "same standard" is an incredibly difficult, and likely an impossible, thing even without God's existence becoming a question. There are hundreds of philosophical theories out there: existentialism, positivism, logical positivism, scientism, evidentialism, pragmatism, dualism, epiphenomenalism, Berkleyean idealism, Hegelian idealism, Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, etc., etc., etc.

It requires about the same amount of apologetic jiggery-pokery to make it as viable

wompwompwomp

 

[Wiccan_Child]

sure - wait for it

Tick tock...

not that it or I will be very welcome for the very ground will be cut from beneath your feet so to speak

Arrogance is unbecoming.

 

[Davian]

It sure sounds like you're saying:

Any standard that allows the possibility of a deity is false.

Not at all.

I am asking for you to describe a standard - *your* standard - that allows for your particular deity(s), but allows for the rejection of other, in some cases unfalsifiable, claims.

 

[Davian]

I want to nom nom nom.

...
It requires about the same amount of apologetic jiggery-pokery to make it as viable

...
wompwompwomp

Thumpthumpthump

 

[twinc]

Tick tock...


Arrogance is unbecoming.

sorry if it seems like arrogance but I am hoping to present[irrefutable] evidence as requested - "at one time science stated that the reality behind the world was made of atoms,later it said the real stuff was made of molecules,still later it said things were really electrons.Now it is beginning to stutter something else. Science now confesses it has not reached the last secret of the supposed world-stuff - so science is dealing only with what appears to us,with what is presented to us,but not with what is ultimately hidden beneath all these presentations of atoms,molecules,electrons and what not.Thus the path of human knowledge is a progressive awakening from illusory things that exist but are ultimately unreal"- The Hidden Teaching[Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[twinc]

sorry if it seems like arrogance but I am hoping to present[irrefutable] evidence as requested - "at one time science stated that the reality behind the world was made of atoms,later it said the real stuff was made of molecules,still later it said things were really electrons.Now it is beginning to stutter something else. Science now confesses it has not reached the last secret of the supposed world-stuff - so science is dealing only with what appears to us,with what is presented to us,but not with what is ultimately hidden beneath all these presentations of atoms,molecules,electrons and what not.Thus the path of human knowledge is a progressive awakening from illusory things that exist but are ultimately unreal"- The Hidden Teaching[Brunton] - more later - twinc

contd:- the old science said the earth is merely a shifting mass of rigid lumps of cold dead matter of indivisible particles called atoms but when asked what was this substance which it called matter,it became somewhat incoherent.It could not explain without admitting that vast unsolved mysteries were involved in the answer and later experimental research into sub-atomic working forced the old science to liquidate itself. With it went the belief in an ultimate matter which exists in space,changes in time and affords a foundation for the universe.The new science now openly declares that atoms are not the last word nor matter the last substance.Atoms have been divided and found to be "waves". Waves of what we ask.Certainly not matter but energy,it replies. A sum of dynamic processes has replaced the old time storehouse of inert substances.Thus the scientists who have discarded belief in matter still believe in energy. The latter has become their ultimate stuff. But the energy out of which they would derive the world is as uncertain as matter [The Wisdom of the Overself/Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"at one time science stated that the reality behind the world was made of atoms,later it said the real stuff was made of molecules,still later it said things were really electrons.

It said none of these things. First we thought matter was a continuum, then we discovered atoms and molecules, then we discovered atoms were made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then we discovered that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons. At no point did anyone say "There, that's it, it goes not further". We've always been quite open to the idea that there could be something more fundamental yet - perhaps sub-quark particles.

Now it is beginning to stutter something else. Science now confesses it has not reached the last secret of the supposed world-stuff

It's hardly "now confessing" if it's stated it openly from the start.

- so science is dealing only with what appears to us,with what is presented to us,but not with what is ultimately hidden beneath all these presentations of atoms,molecules,electrons and what not.

Nevertheless, whatever atoms are ultimately made up of, they still exist. Discovering that lightening is created by static electricity and not the hammer of Thor doesn't make clouds cease to exist - they're quite obviously still there. Likewise, that we're learning more about atoms doesn't mean atoms themselves don't exist.

Thus the path of human knowledge is a progressive awakening from illusory things that exist but are ultimately unreal"

Like God.

contd:- the old science said the earth is merely a shifting mass of rigid lumps of cold dead matter of indivisible particles called atoms but when asked what was this substance which it called matter,it became somewhat incoherent.It could not explain without admitting that vast unsolved mysteries were involved in the answer

You act as if this was some dirty secrets that scientists only admitted with much hand-wringing and feet-shuffling. This is simply false. Scientists have always been eager to point to the mysteries that still baffle us, because that's what fascinates us to probe deeper. It was never a secret that, after the discovery of the atom, the nature of the sub-atomic was a complete mystery. This was openly and excitedly discussed.

and later experimental research into sub-atomic working forced the old science to liquidate itself. With it went the belief in an ultimate matter which exists in space,changes in time and affords a foundation for the universe.The new science now openly declares that atoms are not the last word nor matter the last substance.Atoms have been divided and found to be "waves". Waves of what we ask.Certainly not matter but energy,it replies. A sum of dynamic processes has replaced the old time storehouse of inert substances.

I can only assume you're talking about the paradigm shift from classical to quantum mechanics.

Thus the scientists who have discarded belief in matter still believe in energy. The latter has become their ultimate stuff. But the energy out of which they would derive the world is as uncertain as matter

Mhm. So? Again, you act as if this is some great conspiracy, yet scientists are shouting it from the rooftops. There are countless documentaries constantly being made on the discoveries made by science, and the new mysteries these unlock.

 

[AlexBP]

In another post in this thread, you said "I'm only offering a critique of the materialist theory."

What other theories are there?

Dr. Beauregard lists a number that have been taken seriously in academic literature on the subject: Spinoza's daul-aspect theory, Malebranche's occasionalism, Leibnizian pre-established harmony, identity theory, central state theory, neutral monism, anomalous monism, and about a dozen others. Clearly the matter is far from settled.

 

[AlexBP]

Post #33 does not make that claim. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Post #33 makes exactly that claim. You quoted the paragraph I wrote, which ended with this:

if I want to know exactly what physical event an interior mental monologue or dialogue is and the materialist answers "the movement of neurotransmitters across the synapses in your brain", that response is unsatisfactory. At a minimum, a materialistic explanation would have to explain what physical parts of the brain are doing what and how we know it.
​

Immediately after quoting that, you wrote this:

The article I referenced, and links within that article, did just that. Specifically, it referred to how the brain works to create the illusion that something "more" is happening, and how introspection is not reliable.
​

So you did indeed claim that the article by Jan Westerhoff would explain what parts of the brain are doing interior monologue and dialogue. Perhaps that's not what you meant to do, but in that case we're right back at the original question. If all mental events are one and the same with physical events, then what specific physical events are interior monologues? No answer seems to forthcoming.

(And incidentally I did read the article in New Scientist. Some fascinating stuff there, and I thank you for drawing my attention to it, but nothing that addresses interior monologue. One part by Graham Lawton says this: "What is it about a mere arrangement of matter and energy that gives rise to a subjective sense of the self? It must be a collective property of the neurons in your brain, which have mostly stayed with you throughout life, and which will cease to exist after you die. But why a given bundle of neurons can give rise to a sense of selfhood, and whether that subjective sense can ever reside in a different bundle of neurons, may forever remain a mystery." So while the folks writing this stuff assume the materialism must be the answer, they acknowledge not having and probably never having an explanation for the 'why?' of it all.