Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Miserable Creatures

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Imagine if atheistic materialism was actually true and humans are nothing more than biological automatons – complexly programmed and reactive robots that behave and think in whatever manner happenstance chemical interactions dictates at any given time.  Let’s think about what would actually mean.

There would be no way for a biological automaton to determine whether or not any statement was in fact true or not since all conclusions are driven by chemistry and not metaphysical “truth” values; indeed, a biological automaton reaches conclusion X for exactly the same reason any other reaches conclusion Y; chemistry.  If chemistry dictates that 1+1=banana, that is what a “person” will conclude. If chemistry dictates they defend that view to the death and see themselves as a martyr for the computational banana cause, that is exactly what they will do.

All such a biological automaton has is whatever chemistry generates as what they see, hear, taste, smell, touch, feel, think, and do. If they eat some stale pizza and, through a chaotic cascade of happenstance physical cause and effect, accept Mohammed with great faith and zeal, then no determined atheist can resist – that is what will occur.  And they will think it was a logical conclusion, if chemistry says so.  They can only be whatever chemistry dictates.

Imagine the frustration of the atheist having to admit that they came to their views exactly the same way any religious fanatic came to theirs. Imagine the bleak realization that there is no way to prove it, or even provide any evidence, because such feats would require that one’s thoughtful capacity to consider such things be removed from, and in control of, the same chemical processes that generate all positions that disagree with theirs.

Imagine the misery of attempting to argue that some things are right, and others are wrong, when the same relentless, impersonal, uncaring chemistry produces both. One might as well call the shape of a fig leaf right and true, and call the shape of a maple leaf wrong and false.  How pitiful it is when atheists act as if their condition is somehow superior to some non-atheist condition, when all conditions are simply a products of happenstance chemistry and physics. It’s not like “they” had a hand in their own thoughts or ideas or conclusions; they have whatever thoughts blind mechanistic forces shoved in their brain.  “They” are nothing but a pitiful puppet doomed to think and act and feel whatever chemistry dictates while stupidly acting and arguing as if something else was the case.

Atheists insist that they live a life as capable of being good as any theist.  They are often proud of how “good” they are in comparison to theists they mock and ridicule. What are they proud of?  What are the mocking and ridiculing?  The inevitable effects of chemical interactions?  Any idea or thought or act that anyone has or does is nothing more than just another effect ultimately generated by mindless chemical interactions and effects.  You might as well be proud that grass is green or ridicule the color of the sky; the same mindless forces generated those things as your own thoughts, beliefs and actions.

How pitiful is it to rant and rave and argue against physics and chemistry?  If atheistic materialism is true, then atheists here are like Don Quixote, acting like windmills are great beasts, or like biological automatons are sentient creatures capable of doing something other than whatever chemistry dictates.  They might as well argue with a tree to get it to change the shape and color of its leaves, or with a stream to get it to change direction. They are tilting at windmills trying to convince the windmill to do something other than what windmills do.  They are madmen arguing with swirling dirt, animated by natural law and chance.

What a ruinous, ludicrous, miserable position to insist for yourself – arguing and debating against the onward, relentless march of happenstance interactions of matter ruled by chemistry and physics as if such arguments mattered, as if you and everyone else is something other than programmed biological automatons doing whatever chemistry dictates.  But then, pitifully, they really can’t do anything else except foolishly act out this absurd facade because they, too, are just the puppets of chemistry.

Comments
Vy @56: Thank you for the information. The text you quoted reveals tremendous ignorance about history and the contextual meaning of words. Really pathetic. I don't waste time on senseless debates with those folks.Dionisio
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
bb @54: Exactly! Thank you.Dionisio
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Pindi,
I don’t get the point of quoting a bunch of other people and then somehow relating that to me? I am only responsible for my own thoughts and opinions
I explained this in this thread, starting with my comment to WJM in #44, then my comments to you in #98, in which, after you asked me to "reference some of the academic atheists who recognise these truths", I provided you with a lengthy list of examples. You never responded. Allow me to once again address your question/statement in #48 of this thread (i.e. "I don’t get the point of quoting a bunch of other people and then somehow relating that to me?"). This statement from you implies that some theists here, myself included, are simply pasting in the subjective personal opinions of certain academic atheists and expecting you to be bound by their personal opinions rather than your own. That would be silly ... but that's not what is happening. The reason we are providing these kinds of quotes from numerous academic atheists is because the claims they are making are not simply their own personal opinions, but are conclusions that they agree are logically mandated by an atheist/materialist worldview. These are conclusions that follow from atheism and materialism as a matter of logical necessity. They are unavoidable conclusions widely recognized by both theists and atheists. Some of these atheists have written books laying out in great detail why these conclusions necessarily follow from atheism, with Alex Rosenberg being a prime example. The logic holds and the conclusions are really rather obvious. So for you to say that you yourself don't hold these opinions, as though they are no more binding on you than someone else's preferred flavor of ice cream, simply won't do. It's like agreeing that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, but then claiming that you don't personally hold the opinion that Socrates is mortal. You can make the claim if you like, but in the absence of a solid argument that can overturn the sound reasoning of theists and atheists alike, your declarations that you don't personally hold the opinions in question amounts to nothing more than an admission that your views about the world and your own mind directly contradict the atheistic worldview you claim to hold. If you are to be logically consistent, that worldview demands that you disavow the existence of any self, the existence of any thoughts that are about things, or any access to truth on the basis of free and rational deliberation. And yet, you see, because this the case, and because you claim to be an atheist, I don't even have any grounds for asking that you be logically consistent! If your worldview is true (whatever that means), then you will be whatever you will be and you will think whatever physics and chemistry make you think, and whatever that is will have nothing to do with any rational determination about its truth value, even if physics and chemistry somehow make it seem (to whom?) otherwise.HeKS
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Dionisio, it's rbv8's comment #21.Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Vy @45: RE: The text you quoted @45: where did you copy it from? What's the post #? Thank you.Dionisio
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
D @ 53 Wipe the dust off your feet and move on. Unless Pindi is willing to ask honest questions and be honest with himself, there is no point. His worldview has already been demonstrated as incoherent.bb
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
KF @44: I don't have spare time to squander on senseless debates with people who don't want to understand other points of view. That's why I ask simple questions to let them reveal their real motives. Their reaction to those simple questions is sufficient to know their motives, at least in general terms.Dionisio
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
KF, As an addendum to the above comment @43, see the comment @68 in this link: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heks-is-on-a-roll/#comment-616690 The case of your interlocutor in well documented now.Dionisio
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Oh come now. Materialists, by and large, are never going to accept that their ideas are the product of chemical reactions. However, they will continue to live, think, and speak as if everybody's ideas but their own are the product of chemical reactions. Their own ideas, to the contrary, are the product of Reason™.EvilSnack
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Alas, several Atheists don't bother with the smoke and mirrors anymore. From Atheist Alliance International:
In The Beginning...Was Atheism Earliest evidence for atheism predates Jesus by at least 500 years, Cambridge professor argues By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor, The Telegraph A new Cambridge University study argues that atheism is in fact one of the world's oldest religions – long predating Christianity and Islam.
No argument there! :)Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
I don’t get the point of quoting a bunch of other people and then somehow relating that to me?
The point heh? Here's one point: According to you, "When you guys say things like a bag of chemicals you are just using pejorative, reductionist language to make a point.". But in reality, it's the evolutionists like you who "say things like a bag of chemicals", all "[we] guys" do is apply it to "you guys" when "you guys" try to argue in a way that is inconsistent with evodelusionary belief. Need more points?
I am only responsible for my own thoughts and opinions.
Case in point.
That is not true of religious people of course, and its even less true of atheists (who are not a homogeneous group, they are just people who share a lack of belief in gods.
And Atheists are not "religious" people? You might wanna check again and again. "You guys" should really drop the "we're just a bunch of random people who just happen to share a LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of gods" act. Atheism is and has always been a religion.
I happen to be someone who doesn’t believe that 9/11 was carried out by the government. Does that mean I have the same views on everything as every other person that shares my lack of belief about that?
This is quite a terrible argument from analogy. You seem to think every Christian "ha[s] the same views on everything as every other [Christian] that shares [said Christian's] lack of belief about [X]".Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Vy @46 I don't get the point of quoting a bunch of other people and then somehow relating that to me? I am only responsible for my own thoughts and opinions. You seem to believe that all atheists share the same opinions on everything. That is not true of religious people of course, and its even less true of atheists (who are not a homogeneous group, they are just people who share a lack of belief in gods. I happen to be someone who doesn't believe that 9/11 was carried out by the government. Does that mean I have the same views on everything as every other person that shares my lack of belief about that?)Pindi
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
The explanations I read here, either seem incoherent to me, or don’t really explain anything.
Why would you hope otherwise? Do you think it's possible for chemical M and N to coherently understand that they can react?Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
When you guys say things like a bag of chemicals you are just using pejorative, reductionist language to make a point. You could call the Taj Mahal a pile of stone. It’s true, but it doesn’t convey the full picture.
Evodelusionists like you, not us, call humans a bag of chemicals:
Cashmore has argued that a belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs, since neither complies with the laws of the physical world. One of the basic premises of biology and biochemistry is that biological systems are nothing more than a bag of chemicals that obey chemical and physical laws.
More:
The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.
And ever so often - stardust:
Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today. ? Lawrence M. Krauss
Cute, right? :D
We have no idea how consciousness arises from it, or even what consciousness is. I am fine with that. I prefer open questions to pat answers.
Oh don't let chemical U deceive you, consciousness is an illusion! This bag of chemicals obeying the same physical laws as a bowl of sugar gives an amazing explanation there. Amazingly stupid that is. I can imagine the Taj Mahal would be happy your with earlier comment had it heard you. :)Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
This hatred, and contempt of people who simply say that God is an unecessary explanation for anything, is typical of the faithful; although I do vaguely remeber WJM telling me he wasn’t Christian; whatever! Also, please have the decency to remember, that when religion did have the power many here wish to regain, it did a really bad job of using it.
No kidding! The religious League of Militant Atheists does a really good job of showing what those faithful Atheists are capable of when left unchecked. I wonder why you Atheopaths think replacing your vague understanding of God with probablymaybecouldness and "Nature" somehow makes you not a religion. Then again, chemicals don't think.
Being freed of my Catholic past was the most freeing moment I felt, no more fear that my thoughts were being monitored by what Hitchens described as a, ‘celestial dictator’, was incredibly uplifting. No more listening to halfwits like Ham, whom if they had to actually think of an original idea would stumble badly.
I can imagine! But wait, was it "you" that was "freed" or chemical X? How sure are you that you're freed? After all, you believe that every feeling you have is nothing but the byproduct of some mindless chemicals reacting. Just sayin'
My ‘miserable creature’ self, is very pleased with the present. As you stumble on in your dark, miniscule, incurious world.
Self?Vy
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
D, we therefore have a right to draw conclusions and make fair comments in light of Pindi's behaviour in response to something so serious as clearly demonstrated reductio ad absurdum. And, to draw out and act on inferences for whether people who behave like this are reasonably to be entrusted with any responsibilities that require intellectual and ethical soundness. Especially, in the context of the potential or actual consequences for our civilisation in this hour of peril. That includes giving clear public warning. KFkairosfocus
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
KF @42: FYI - your interlocutor wrote @58 in another thread*:
I choose what I want to respond to, based on time available and how interesting the subject is to me. I don’t accept any obligation to continue any conversation I become part of. I do this out of interest and enjoyment, not as a job or obligation.
(*) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heks-is-on-a-roll/#comment-616655 However, previously he had failed to answer the simple questions posted @1949-1954 in another thread**. Note that in that occasion he had started the 'chat' with a vague comment apparently unrelated to the main topic of the given discussion thread. He started his own 'discussion' his way, but when it got too hot, he quit. Just FYI. Anyway, what else is new? :) (**) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-616302Dionisio
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Pindi, this is reductio ad absurdum you face; your inclination to agree or disagree is irrelevant; save as an index of how far wrong your thinking has gone. I suggest you wake up to that stark reality. KFkairosfocus
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Hi KF, I think and re-think all the time, but I don't agree with you. So let's just leave it at that. I acknowledge that you have a different view to me, and I'm alright with that. It seems to me that you are unable to return the sentiment. All you are interested in is changing other people's views, rather than just discussing them. That mode of discourse doesn't appeal to me. I don't enjoy it or find it enlightening. So there is nothing in it for me. cheers.Pindi
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Pindi, it is more than time for you to face the patent reductio ad absurdum produced by the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialistic scientism. Trying to distract and resort to rhetorical side tracks cannot make this central challenge vanish in a poof of rhetorical smoke. And beyond, lies the irretrievable amorality of the system; which is directly connected as it is the light of conscience within that urges us to the true, just, right and more. Attempts to reduce the moral government attested to by conscience to a purely subjective impulse make shipwreck of reasoning. Grand delusion lurks down that road. And indeed the reduction of the consciously aware self, the "I" to a further delusion, simply further underscores just how profoundly wrong this sort of lab coat clad atheism is. Nor is this particularly new, at the turn of the 1930's, J B S Haldane, a noted pioneer of the modern synthesis, observed:
>"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
It is time to re-think, turning from a patent march of absurdity, thus of folly. Where, it is deeply ill advised and less than sensible to cling to absurdity. KFkairosfocus
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
WJM, fallacy of the closed, indoctrinated, ideologised mind in action; driven by a self-refuting touchstone commitment that there just can be no God regardless of consequences. Evidently not seeing that the premise they cling to reduces mind, meaning and reasoning to utter self-falsifying incoherence. The echos of the grim warning, "as they refused to retain the knowledge of God, God gave them over to a debased mind . . ." leap out of our screens. It is time to stop, reassess, see the roots of utter incoherence and think again. KFkairosfocus
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Ellijacket, I don't know for sure. I just don't see any (good) evidence that there is anything else involved. When you guys say things like a bag of chemicals you are just using pejorative, reductionist language to make a point. You could call the Taj Mahal a pile of stone. It's true, but it doesn't convey the full picture. The explanations I read here, either seem incoherent to me, or don't really explain anything. Saying there is an immaterial soul that is really me and is making my decisions, doesn't sound right. It's just pushing the issue away. How does the immaterial part of me make decisions? Do you believe like WJM that every decision is an uncaused first cause? An inexplicable third cause beyond determined and random? The brain is an incredibly complex organ. We haven't even scratched the surface of how it works. We have no idea how consciousness arises from it, or even what consciousness is. I am fine with that. I prefer open questions to pat answers. And to Truth Will Set You Free and the others who regularly insult me and say I am stupid, I don't get why you do that. I engage in good faith. I most certainly am not stupid, even though I have different views to you. I am not certain of anything. But I enjoy puzzling over the mysteries of life. You want to polarise people and create divides. Them and us mentality. I don't think that is helpful. And completely unnecessary.Pindi
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
OldArmy94,
I don’t think they are stupid, per se, as much as they don’t have the ears to hear.
I agree. Furthermore, to call them stupid is to give them an excuse for failing to follow the logic where it necessarily leads. A stupid person is far more likely to say that they can't understand where the logic is pointing rather than to resort to the claim that logic isn't binding, the latter of which we've seen here too many times.HeKS
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
How terrifying it must be for an atheist/materialist, never knowing if a stray smell, noise or bit of food might cause a chain reaction that culminates in them suddenly believing that god and angels and demons exist. Or maybe they just wake up one day and some cumulative chemical reaction has created a certainty in them that fairies are real and that they are the reincarnated form of Napoleon. Hard to imagine the burden of going through a day never knowing what might change your mind, indeed your very identity, from one moment to the next.William J Murray
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
I don't think they are stupid, per se, as much as they don't have the ears to hear.OldArmy94
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
I hate to be harsh on the poor deluded souls, but the atheists who regularly post here are fairly stupid. Sad but true.Truth Will Set You Free
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Origines, They don't realize it. IMO, their thought process goes something like this: 1. Idea of god and supernatural is patently ridiculous, so ... 2. Atheism/materialism must be true, and ... 3. I think and act the way I do, so .... 4. Atheism/materialism must be able to account for my thoughts and behavior. You can't convince them otherwise because they are so absolutely certain #1 is true, which is why they always go back, one way or another, to belittling and ridiculing those concepts regardless of how carefully or seriously they are presented. Many times they have a deep, emotional commitment against theism (note rbv8's sense of elated freedom after leaving Catholicism) that serves as an identity anchor which disallows any critical examination. There are core drivers of our sense of self that are often simply too deeply rooted and important to give up unless one reaches a very critical point. Debating on the internet, no matter how logically compelling the point, isn't nearly enough to dislodge such tightly held issues.William J Murray
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Pindi, How do you know you and your chemicals are the same thing? If you are just your chemicals then you don't know anything. You only think you know what your chemicals decide you know. Don't you see the clear implications?ellijacket
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Pindi: me and my chemicals are the same thing.
It is as if they don't realize that such claims end rational discussion. Similarly when Jerry Coyne states (see #2) that blind particles in motion are in full control of his thoughts and behavior, there is really nothing left to say. Also, when Rosenberg claims that "... thinking about things can’t happen at all. The brain can’t have thoughts about Paris, or about France, or about capitals, or about anything else for that matter" simply because "... physics and neuroscience both tell us, for different reasons, that one clump of matter can’t be about another clump of matter", then, also here, there is, in fact, very little left to say. Only *silence* is appropriate.Origenes
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
There simply is no reductive materialistic explanation for atheistic materialists to appeal to in order to explain why widely separated parts of the waking brain would be instantaneously synchronized and correlated.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-quantum-imply-instant-causation.html
Whereas the Theist does have a ‘beyond space and time’, i.e. non-local, cause to appeal to in order to explain the instantaneous correlations of the waking brain:
Isaiah 50:4 The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of those who are instructed to know how to sustain the weary with a word. He awakens Me each morning; He awakens My ear to listen like those being instructed.
Moreover, besides the waking brain state, this 'spooky action at a distance', i.e. quantum entanglement, is also found in every DNA and protein molecule of the human body, thus giving the Christian Theist solid physical evidence for the belief that we have do indeed have a transcendent soul that could very well live past the death of the temporal material body:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCs3WXHqOv8 The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”) – video 2016 https://youtu.be/h2P45Obl4lQ
The fact that we have a mind that is irreducible to the brain is also made evidence by what is termed "brain plasticity". In direct contradiction to the atheist's materialistic claim that our thoughts are merely the result of whatever state our material brain happens to be in, 'Brain Plasticity', the ability to alter the structure of the brain, from a person's focused intention, has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as among other researchers.
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70 The Case for the Soul: Quantum Biology – (7:25 minute mark – Brain Plasticity and Mindfulness control of DNA expression) https://youtu.be/6_xEraQWvgM?t=446
Moreover, as alluded to in the preceding video, and completely contrary to materialistic thought, mind has been now also been shown to be able to reach all the way down and have pronounced, ‘epigenetic’, effects on the gene expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Then there is also the well documented placebo effect in which a person’s beliefs have pronounced effects on their material body
placebo effect a beneficial effect, produced by a placebo drug or treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient’s belief in that treatment.
Thus, all in all, the Christian in an excellent position as far as the empirical evidence is concerned and the atheist has basically not one shred of confirmational evidence for his claim that he is 'nothing but chemistry' Verse and Music
Isaiah 50:4 The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of those who are instructed to know how to sustain the weary with a word. He awakens Me each morning; He awakens My ear to listen like those being instructed. Evanescence – Bring Me To Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM Lyric Excerpt: Only you are the life among the dead All this time I can’t believe I couldn’t see Kept in the dark but you were there in front of me I’ve been sleeping a thousand years it seems Got to open my eyes to everything Without a thought, without a voice, without a soul Don’t let me die here There must be something more Bring me to life (Wake me up) Wake me up inside,,,
bornagain77
September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply