The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Refutation? I just asked a question.

And, just like theist tactic I explained before, I get an insult instead of an answer.

See, I have an idea of how "a mind" works. It is quite "obvious" to me... and I dare say that it totally contradicts your version.

So I have two options now: I can pout and declare that I am "obviously" right, and everyone not accepting that is "obviously" playing dumb.

Or I can present my idea, and hope that this will result in a discussion rather than a simple dismissal, evasion, or a declaration of "obvious" victory of your (unpresented) idea.
That hope is small... because I have already seen you dismiss, evade and mock just right here.

Please note that since I am only one person and the atheists and agnostics and even some professed Christians I am conversing with are approximately maybe 20 or more, this repetition of being unable to understand can become extremely tiresome and convey the impression that no matter what I say it isn't going to be understood and much less accepted. That is the reason why I have lately been opting to say let us just agree to disagree. So my apology if indeed it came across as an insult which it wasn't intended to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please note that since I am only one person and the atheists and agnostics and even some professed Christians I am conversing with are approximately maybe 20 or more, this repetition of being unable to understand can become extremely tiresome and convey the impression that no matter what I say it isn't going to be understood and much less accepted. That is the reason why I have lately been opting to say let us just agree to disagree. So my apology if indeed it came across as an insult which it wasn't intended to be.

I can sympathize. When one feels that one is outnumbered it is hard not to strike back at times.

The problem is that the concept of evidence has been explained to you. You did not join in on the discussion except for one weak post where you quoted a source on evidence. Even the source that you quoted showed that what you have is not evidence. Your refusal to deal with this concept is the main reason that it seems everyone is hammering you with the same point.

In a discussion on evidence we don't even need to bring evolution or creation into the topic if you would like.

 

[Radrook]

That's because both intelligent and natural processes can produce organization towards purpose. Why is that a problem?

That conclusion becomes possible only because you suspend your criteria for ID when convenient. As I keep pointing out to no avail-there is NOTHING that justifies that kind of mind-numbing strategy. The criteria must be brought to bear regardless of whether the process appears in nature or apart from it. Refusal to do so indicates selective blindness and selective blindness or inflexible presuppositions aren't part of the scientific method. They are its antithesis.

 

[bhsmte]

That conclusion becomes possible only because you suspend your criteria for ID when convenient. As I keep pointing out to no avail-there is NOTHING that justifies that kind of mind-numbing strategy. The criteria must be brought to bear regardless of whether the process appears in nature or apart from it. Refusal to do so indicates selective blindness and selective blindness or inflexible presuppositions aren't part of the scientific method. They are its antithesis.

I know you really want to believe what you wrote, but evidence would help your cause.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That conclusion becomes possible only because you suspend your criteria for ID when convenient.

Except that we have identified and understand how a natural process produces organization towards function in living systems.

And as I have previously shown you with the polar bear fur thingy... your "criteria" do not work and/or are insufficient to determine wheter or not something was artificially designed.

 

[Freodin]

That conclusion becomes possible only because you suspend your criteria for ID when convenient. As I keep pointing out to no avail-there is NOTHING that justifies that kind of mind-numbing strategy. The criteria must be brought to bear regardless of whether the process appears in nature or apart from it. Refusal to do so indicates selective blindness and selective blindness or inflexible presuppositions aren't part of the scientific method. They are its antithesis.

You mean something like the inflexible presupposition that everything must be designed, because you simply cannot accept a natural process resulting is organization?

See, that is why I asked the previous question... the one that you so masterfully managed to dogde.

Those of us who object "ID" can present a potential mechanism. We can provide explanations. They may be wrong... but simply declaring them "impossible" isn't enough.

But you, on the other hand... your proposed mechanism is "a mind". So, how does that work? And there you are at a loss - you don't have any potential explanation. A mind just works. It creates. That is what minds do. It is "obvious"... no explanation needed.

And that is what is antithetical to science.

 

[Radrook]

glibly brush that asidewhat

You mean something like the inflexible presupposition that everything must be designed, because you simply cannot accept a natural process resulting is organization?

See, that is why I asked the previous question... the one that you so masterfully managed to dogde.

Those of us who object "ID" can present a potential mechanism. We can provide explanations. They may be wrong... but simply declaring them "impossible" isn't enough.

But you, on the other hand... your proposed mechanism is "a mind". So, how does that work? And there you are at a loss - you don't have any potential explanation. A mind just works. It creates. That is what minds do. It is "obvious"... no explanation needed.

And that is what is antithetical to science.

Please note that I am aware of your explanations. Explanations come a dime a dozen. I had one fellow explaining that the reason he savagely beat his wife was because he loved her!" that was and explanation. But it wasn't a satisfactory explanation. Why wasn't it an acceptable one? Simple., because love and beating 'someone into a bloody pulp are totally incompatible. In the same manner, your explanations involving abiogenesis are unsatisfactory because the activity of a mind cannot be mimicked by mindlessness.

You say that you see no activity of a mind. I say I do see the clear activity of a mind which justifies my inference of mind. You demand evidence. I say that you have the criteria for determining what is mind activity and what isn't yet attempt to make nature an exception. I say that simply declaring nature an exception doesn't explain the activity of mind. At that point you declare total incomprehension and demand I begin anew ad infinitum. Whereupon, in order to avoid an infinite repetition, I suggest we agree to disagree. At which point you declare that I am evading.

BTW
For the last time let me try to communicate. You ask how that works. I assume that by the pronoun ""that"" you are referring to mind displayed in nature. OK. It works by the mind in question programming DNA and RNA to accomplish what is observed. Um, what do I mean by all you are observing? Well, the construction of the brain the most complex computer known is an excellent example. You glibly brush that aside by proposing that blind, mindless chemicals do it. I say a mind is behind it because computers don't program themselves. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

glibly brush that asidewhat
Please note that I am aware of your explanations. Explanations come a dime a dozen. I had one fellow explaining that the reason he savagely beat his wife was because he loved her!" that was and explanation. But it wasn't a satisfactory explanation. Why wasn't it an acceptable one? Simple., because love and beating 'someone into a bloody pulp are totally incompatible. In the same manner, your explanations involving abiogenesis are unsatisfactory because the activity of a mind cannot be mimicked by mindlessness.

You say that you see no activity of a mind. I say I do see the clear activity of a mind which justifies my inference of mind. You demand evidence. I say that you have the criteria for determining what is mind activity and what isn't yet attempt to make nature an exception. I say that simply declaring nature an exception doesn't explain the activity of mind. At that point you declare total incomprehension and demand I begin anew ad infinitum. Whereupon, in order to avoid an infinite repetition, I suggest we agree to disagree. At which point you declare that I am evading.

BTW
For the last time let me try to communicate. You ask how that works. I assume that by the pronoun ""that"" you are referring to mind displayed in nature. OK. It works by the mind in question programming DNA and RNA to accomplish what is observed. Um, what do I mean by all you are observing? Well, the construction of the brain the most complex computer known is an excellent example. You glibly brush that aside by proposing that blind, mindless chemicals do it. I say a mind is behind it because computers don't program themselves. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Does objective evidence come a dime a dozen?

 

[Freodin]

So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, considering how active you are posting "explanations" and declaring how science works... it is quite clear that "agreeing to disagree" is foremost on your mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does objective evidence come a dime a dozen?

Who needs evidence?

Just make it up (hypothesize it), if you have to.

That's why we have about seven different ways we got our moon.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the same manner, your explanations involving abiogenesis are unsatisfactory because the activity of a mind cannot be mimicked by mindlessness.

You have not demonstrated that there is anything to mimick in the first place... how could you, considering that it is currently unknown how life comes into existance?

You say that you see no activity of a mind. I say I do see the clear activity of a mind which justifies my inference of mind. You demand evidence. I say that you have the criteria for determining what is mind activity and what isn't yet attempt to make nature an exception

I've asked you for those criteria, you gave it and I subsequently showed it to be inadequate.

I say that simply declaring nature an exception doesn't explain the activity of mind

Simply declaring the activity of a mind, isn't exactly usefull either.

Back in the day, it was simply declared that Thor caused lightning. That didn't work out well either, now did it?

BTW
For the last time let me try to communicate. You ask how that works. I assume that by the pronoun ""that"" you are referring to mind displayed in nature. OK. It works by the mind in question programming DNA and RNA to accomplish what is observed.

How did you determine that this "programming" ever happened or was somehow required?
How can it be tested / verified that it is the case?

And perhaps more importantly, how could it be shown to be false?

Um, what do I mean by all you are observing? Well, the construction of the brain the most complex computer known is an excellent example.

Are you engaging in an equivocation fallacy here, or is it an argument from incredulity?

I say a mind is behind it because computers don't program themselves

Calling a brain a "computer", does not mean that brains are made in a factory in China.

So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

No. Instead, we'll have to agree that your bare assertions are just the same kind of fallacious PRATTs that creationists have been touting for decades.

 

[Jimmy D]

OK. It works by the mind in question programming DNA and RNA to accomplish what is observed.

So how does that work? It's not an explanation, it raises more questions than it answers.

At what point did this 'external' influence take place? We know the processes for designing and manufacturing computers and their software, how does that compare to what you're proposing for the brain?

 

[Freodin]

... because the activity of a mind cannot be mimicked by mindlessness.

And still you never got around to lay out your idea of how a mind works.
See, what you wrote here is "obviously" wrong. (It isn't, it is "demonstrably" wrong... an important difference.)

What is the "activity of a mind"? Not playing dumb... I really want you to consider this, and spell it out: what do you think this is.

I would say, it is "planning and initiating actions based on these plans." There would be more along this line, but it could but subsummed under the concept of "agency".

Now there is one thing that humans are really really famous for: it is attributing "agency" to inanimated objects. Computers crash to spite you. Your car will start if you ask it nicely. "(Pseudo)Artifical intelligence" make you have to think hard to indentify it as "not human". Heck... sometimes human phone operators get misidentified as elaborate computer programs!

So the "activity of a mind" can be mimicked by "mindlessness". Close enough to fool human beings.

For a scientific method to distinguish these two, you have to offer something better than "computers don't program themselves".

 

[Radrook]

And still you never got around to lay out your idea of how a mind works.
See, what you wrote here is "obviously" wrong. (It isn't, it is "demonstrably" wrong... an important difference.)

What is the "activity of a mind"? Not playing dumb... I really want you to consider this, and spell it out: what do you think this is.

I would say, it is "planning and initiating actions based on these plans." There would be more along this line, but it could but subsummed under the concept of "agency".

Now there is one thing that humans are really really famous for: it is attributing "agency" to inanimated objects. Computers crash to spite you. Your car will start if you ask it nicely. "(Pseudo)Artifical intelligence" make you have to think hard to indentify it as "not human". Heck... sometimes human phone operators get misidentified as elaborate computer programs!

So the "activity of a mind" can be mimicked by "mindlessness". Close enough to fool human beings.

For a scientific method to distinguish these two, you have to offer something better than "computers don't program themselves".

Again! It of course depends on what you demand as a demonstration. Demanding to see the architect of a building in order to be convinced it was designed is totally unnecessary and illogical. I am sure you would of course agree. However, once an ID is involved then the blinders are deployed.

No, this isn't based on superstitious animistic concepts. That is a false analogy and shows again that you aren't understanding anything that I am saying. Ironically, what you are describing is your own belief in how chemicals can mimic a mind and go about brilliantly constructing organic machines and computers. Please do not project your concepts on onto me. I never claimed that inanimate matter had any type of consciousness nor abilities to display mind on its own. The one making claims tantamount to that looney scenario is you. Also, since your response is that I offer something better and there is really nothing better to offer then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[Freodin]

Again! It of course depends on what you demand as a demonstration. Demanding to see the architect of a building in order to be convinced it was designed is totally unnecessary and illogical. I am sure you would of course agree. However, once an ID is involved then the blinders are deployed.

Standing in a majestic cavern and demanding that an unseen architect "designed" it is totally unnecessary and illogical.

I am sure you would of course DISagree... you keep doing that.

No, this isn't based on superstitious animistic concepts. That is a false analogy and shows again that you aren't understanding anything that I am saying. Ironically, what you are describing is your own belief in how chemicals can mimic a mind and go about brilliantly constructing organic machines and computers. Please do not project your concepts on onto me. I never claimed that inanimate matter had any type of consciousness nor abilities to display mind on its own. The one making claims tantamount to that looney scenario is you. Also, since your response is that I offer something better and there is really nothing better to offer then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

My "belief", as you like to call it, is based on an explanable, observable, demonstrable method about how "chemicals" can construct organic machines and computers. Your version is simply asserting that a "mind" can do that... without having an explanation or mechanism. It just works, because you say it does.

Do you want to know how our mind constructs machines and computers? By using the inherent attributes of "chemicals"... the attributes that you deny are able to do so.

I never claimed that inanimate matter had any type of consciousness nor abilities to display mind on its own.

And I never asserted you did. I know that you cannot do that... because you do not have an explanation for what "consciousness" or "mind" is. You just insert it as a black box, a deus-ex-machina that solves your problems.

 

[quatona]

Who needs evidence?

Just make it up (hypothesize it), if you have to.

That's why we have about seven different ways we got our moon.

So we better go with one of those without evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Who needs evidence?

Just make it up (hypothesize it), if you have to.

That's why we have about seven different ways we got our moon.

Show me seven ideas about the formation of the moon then. If any of them have been generally rejected by scientists in relevant fields, then they don't count.

Because I'm only aware of one theory which is currently generally accepted as the best explanation. (You wouldn't be trying to suggest that scientists can't agree among themselves in an attempt to discredit them, would you?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me seven ideas about the formation of the moon then.

I didn't say there were seven ideas about the formation of the moon, did I?

And for the record, you are free to use Google.

 

[Loudmouth]

That conclusion becomes possible only because you suspend your criteria for ID when convenient.

A claim without evidence.

The criteria must be brought to bear regardless of whether the process appears in nature or apart from it. Refusal to do so indicates selective blindness and selective blindness or inflexible presuppositions aren't part of the scientific method. They are its antithesis.

The criteria I am using is a nested hierarchy. We can observe natural processes producing a nested hierarchy in known populations. We can observe that intelligent designers do not limit themselves to a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

ronically, what you are describing is your own belief in how chemicals can mimic a mind and go about brilliantly constructing organic machines and computers.

Where in the process of conception, embryonic development, post-natal development, and maturation into adulthood is there an intelligent designer involved in the construction of a human?

As far as I am aware, the entire process is completely natural and devoid of any evidence for an intelligence.