Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1) Needing to believe is not a reasonable starting point for anythingA. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says) <snip>
Gibberish? Seems pretty clear to me. If you don't understand it by now, I am not sure you ever will.The above reads like gibberish. What does any of that have to do with a second arrow of time as speculated by physicists?
My point is that even if there is no second dimension of time and those physicists are wrong, it does not mean that causality cannot occur in a timeless place such as "outside" this universe.eud: Is that a diversion? I don't see what that issue has to do with a second arrow of time either.
eudaimonia,
Mark
There are two primary kinds of science. Empirical or experimental science and theoretical science. My study I provided comes from theoretical physics. I admit that this second dimension of time is not proven but there is mathematical evidence for it. And in theoretical physics that is pretty good evidence. Ever hear of the theory of relativity? Its foundation is math also and is now one of the most well attested theories in science. It has far more evidence for it then another famous theory, the theory of Evolution.For me, a study implies some kind of experiment rather than math. Strominger does theoretical, not experimental physics. He uses ideas from string theory to provide potential resolutions of various problems in physics. String theory itself is not proven. There is no experiment to test the hypothesis.
No, need to. Look up cosmogony.I can't find it.
I can't read Dr. Goldsmith's own words on the subject in context, so I'm left without any way to continue with that line of conversation.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Please provide an example of a natural extracosmic Absolute.Again, this is about epistemology. The quote is talking about "disproof" and "mental roads". At no point do they write that the GIT actually supports or points to an "extracosmic Absolute" or "the contingency of the universe", but merely that one can't say that there is some necessary contradiction between that and the formal maths of physics.
The problem is that you are trying to make this into a gigantic Argument from Ignorance.
The quote DOES NOT mention anything about "non-natural explanations". An "extracosmic Absolute" can be perfectly natural.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ever hear of the field of Cosmogony?I would say that most physicists haven't touched the origins issue because it is so theoretical and the near if not absolute impossibility of testing any theory about the origin of everything. A man's gotta know his limitations.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence.
eud: All that means is that minds (that is, people) can be logical, at least if they choose to be logical. The mind can also contain contradictory thoughts. Reality cannot contradict itself, and presumably the nature of minds (as part of reality) cannot contradict itself or anything else, but the operation of the mind can generate logical contradictions. People can be illogical.
ed: But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.
eud: I don't know of anyone who thinks that the brain's operations "are based on the ratio of chemical reagents" in itself, any more than a computer's operations are based on the ratio of metal to germanium in its CPU. You are attacking a straw man.
ed: If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.
eud: I don't accept your straw man view of brain function.
ed: Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.
eud; No, it means that there is a relationship between brain function and the rest of the body.
ed: Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof.
eud: Those claims are dubious anecdotes. They belong to the realm of pseudoscience.
ed: And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa. Apparently totally unaffected by being in physically female body.
eud: You are talking about psychological conditions.
eud: Gender dysphoria has been linked to some extent to genetics. Why would that be if "male minds" and "female minds" are completely non-physical?
Please provide an example of a natural extracosmic Absolute.
Ever hear of the field of Cosmogony?
No, they cannot reason logically if the mind is purely physical, because physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. Physical entities can not reason logically.
They can BEHAVE logically. But because the mind is primarily chemical then all of its outputs are based on the laws of biochemistry, so that its output is determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in the brain.
So you deny that the brain is just a biological organ of the human body? Biology is ultimately just chemical reactions.
We know from Chemistry 101
But there was no chemical alteration to the body or the brain, so how could the physical illness be cured?
No, these were investigated by and confirmed by doctors and neuroscientists.
What is your definition of psychological conditions?
If the mind is physical then these are physical conditions.
Because their bodies are completely filled with the opposite sex's chromosomes.
That makes no sense if their minds are physical, they would match the rest of their physiology, correct?
Physical entities can not reason logically. They can BEHAVE logically. But because the mind is primarily chemical then all of its outputs are based on the laws of biochemistry, so that its output is determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in the brain.
I said they are separate but connected.But you're still treating them as seperate entities.
tm: The physical brain activity, is how you do your thinking.
Those are the underlying physical processes of how that works.
Why is that a problem?
But that is my point, if your mind is purely biochemistry then you CANNOT go where the evidence suggests, you go where your chemical reactions cause you to go irrespective of the evidence. Now do you see why it is self refuting?tm: I don't "believe" anything.
I only go by what the evidence suggests.
And what the evidence siggests is that that which you call a "mind" is no more or less then a function of the physical brain.
I don't see how any of this is "self-refuting".
tm: You might want to read up on what the placebo effect actually is.
It doesn't cure anything! Placebo's, in essence, are no more then self-deception.
There is no curing going on.
This is more than anecdotal evidence, these are cases that have been confirmed and analyzed by doctors and neuroscientists.tm: Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly enough to convince me of outlandish claims like that.
tm: For crying out loud....
Do you realise that the difference between males and females is biological?
And that that difference isn't restricted to just reproductive organs, but also brain chemicals, hormones, etc?
Fraid not, see above.tm: There's nothing there, there.
Because it means that your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain NOT on the logical weighing of evidence and arguments. But you continue to make arguments as if humans can do so, so your view is self refuting.
But that is my point, if your mind is purely biochemistry then you CANNOT go where the evidence suggests,
No, there are actual studies where people WERE cured. The Journal "New Scientist" in 2005 acknowledged this fact when they published their "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" and the placebo effect was No. 1 on the list.
This is more than anecdotal evidence, these are cases that have been confirmed and analyzed by doctors and neuroscientists.
Exactly.
That is my point. Biologically these people are either 100% male or female
If this is real then this shows a nearly complete disconnect between what they are mentally and what they are biologically.
Fraid not, see above.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, a large number reject it for more personal reasons such as not wanting to be held accountable for how they spend their time and their sex lives.
eud: Citation needed. I'm sure that you must have a study that shows this, and you aren't just inventing this from your imagination.
If you are just trying to be snarky, well done.
ed: No, it is actually an argument from knowledge, we know that effects require causes.
eud: That's just a matter of definition.
By definition effects are the results of causes. This is not knowledge in and of itself. It begs the question of just what is an effect or a cause in a particular case. That is where knowledge comes in -- identifying effects and causes.
I never said it proves God's existence, but as Jaki said it opens the door to the logical possibility of something exists that transcends the cosmos, ie is supernatural.eud: For instance, according to the quote you have provided, the GIT only implies that an extracosmic cause of our cosmos isn't going to be provably inconsistent with any consistent mathematics of the physics of the cosmos. It doesn't show that there is an extracomic cause of our cosmos. It is an argument from ignorance to conclude that there is one using the GIT.
No, citation needed, I found this out from self-knowledge and my experience with other humans. It is part of human nature.
Also Aldous Huxley actually admitted that one of the main reasons he accepted evolution was that it disproved God and freed up his sex life.
No, it is knowledge. knowledge of logical thinking. And scientists agree that effects have a beginning and/or change. That is how we identify them.
I never said it proves God's existence, but as Jaki said it opens the door to the logical possibility of something exists that transcends the cosmos, ie is supernatural.
No, they cannot reason logically if the mind is purely physical, because physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. Physical entities can not reason logically.
Amazingly, I think I articulated the non-theists problems with the OP quite clearly and yet no "likes" "winner" "informative," ratings...nothing. Maybe it is because I'm a theist and that might violate the rules.Not a single sentence you wrote in this paragraphe illustrates accurately why I am an atheist. Just saying.
Amazingly, I think I articulated the non-theists problems with the OP quite clearly and yet no "likes" "winner" "informative," ratings...nothing. Maybe it is because I'm a theist and that might violate the rules.
The underlying process is physical, yes. Bio-chemistry, to be exact.
Just like the underlying process of an AI engine is "just" the processing of 1s and 0s.
tm: You should read up on neurology and neural networks.
tm: Your entire argument smells like a species of genetic fallacy.
The function of the brain is just millions of electro-chemical reactions. Do you have any evidence that it is more than that?tm: You are confusing a function of the brain, with physical output of a chemical reaction.
Yes, the non-physical mind resides in the brain.tm: Here's a simple question: do you accept that your brain is where your reasoning/thinking happens?
The function of the brain is just millions of electro-chemical reactions. Do you have any evidence that it is more than that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?