A science fiction writer explains why he thinks life is more than just matter

Truthfreedom, Exactly! For one thing, Severksy & Co. have chained themselves within Plato's Cave. For example https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm And that's why they're always asking for definitions of common words. -Q Querius

31 Querius

[sound of head exploding]

Seversky and co. have a very big problem with their heads*. They don't understand yet (or pretend not to notice) how damaging their (materialist) fall into epistemological idealism/ indirect realism is. So damaging that it's in fact irretrievable. Those so proud of "mapping the external world" live in fact trapped inside their little skulls. Ain't life ironic? :) Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare

"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world. Dr. Dennis Bonnette. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

Truthfreedom

at 10 Seversky states:

I would like to see evidence of a conscious intelligence not closely correlated with a physical brain or some other material substrate.

and later on Seversky claims that

I’m applying the same standards of evidence to all.

Yet, as Dr. Egnor pointed out, in looking at Near Death Experiences we find that there is abundant evidence substantiating the reality of "conscious intelligence not closely correlated with a physical brain or some other material substrate", and yet Darwinists, such as Seversky, refuse to accept any of that evidence and, in Seversky's words, to apply the 'same standards of evidence' to Near Death Experiences that they apply to Darwinian evolution. As Dr. Egnor stated, "NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn."

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html

Thus, contrary to Seversky's claim, Seversky is certainly not "applying the same standards of evidence to all." Seversky, very much contrary to his claim, is very biased in which evidence he will allow himself to even consider.. Seversky also stated that

I would like to communicate with a consciousness that survives the death of the physical body (without going through some human intermediary). Is that too much to ask,,

That is an Interesting claim for Seversky to make. Seversky, as far as I can tell, spends an inordinate amount of time on UD disparaging God as being on par with Hitler, or someone like that, and not ever 'listening' for what God may be saying in his personal life. And yet, despite that, he claims that he wants to hear God? Really??? Might I suggest that Seversky humble himself before God, (instead of constantly railing against God as if God is some sort of monster who is out to get him), if he truly wants to 'hear' from God? Just a suggestion. All I can do is relate my personal experience.

I served in the Air Force back in the 1980’s. I worked on jet engines. When I got out of the service, I landed a job working for General Electric (GE) working on some of the most advanced jet aircraft in the world. I loved that job. Besides being well paying, I was very much honored to work on America’s top stealth aircraft. And I was well qualified for that job having spent 4 years in the Air Force. Yet, I had a problem with alcohol and drugs that was getting worse and worse as time went along. To the point that that problem ended up negatively affecting my work life. Long story short, I ended up losing my dream job at GE. That evening, when I got home after losing my job, I was just numb. Devastated but just numb. Anyway, in my devastation I picked up my (very dusty) Bible. To this day, I do not know why I picked my Bible up at that particular time in my life. It was not like I was in a particular habit of reading my Bible. In fact, throughout my entire service in the Air Force I remember picking my Bible up only once. And that was because my roommate had asked me to see what John 3:16 meant during a football game. (They use to hold John 3:16 up in the end zones during professional football games back then). At that moment, as I began to read the Bible, and as clear as day, a miracle happened. That inanimate book, i.e. the Holy Bible, became alive and the words I was reading out of the bible at that very moment were speaking directly to me as if a living person were speaking directly to me. I was shocked to put it mildly. I ran my finger over the passage that I had just read, the passage that had spoken directly to me, and it felt as if someone had just opened a window on the passage I had read. The rest of the page felt normal, like paper, but that passage felt mysteriously cool and breezy. I knew in no uncertain terms, at that very moment, that God was really real and that He was and is very much a personal God who cares very deeply for each of us. Fast forward a few years later. I had relapsed into drinking and using. It was in the summer of 1993, I was down and out in Ft. Myers, Florida. This was about the second year that I was homeless. I was staying at the Salvation Army in Ft. Myers working temporary day labor and paying 8 bucks a night to stay at the homeless shelter. Since AA had failed me, I had come up with another idea to help me defeat the destructive desires for drinking and using that had kept me broke and bound to the homeless street life. I was finally going to read the Bible cover to cover. Surely, this would cure me once and for all of my destructive desires. Every night before I would go to sleep I made sure that I would read through at least 30 minutes worth of the Bible. This was done in my bunk in the open dormitory of the salvation army. Well, after about a month or 6 weeks of reading in this fashion, I was getting pretty far along into the Bible and had pretty much established myself, among the guys staying in the dorm with me, as some sort of Jesus Freak. One evening a man, who like me wasn’t fairing to well in this world, comes up to my bunk as I was reading the Bible. He angrily says something to this effect, “Where Is God? Just where is God? If I knew where God was my life would be alright.” Calmly I told him the truth “Well I know that it may sound strange to you, but sometimes when I really need it, God seems to speak directly to me from the Bible, giving me guidance and comfort, and I believe that He may speak directly to you since you seem to be in a pretty bad spot.” Then I closed my Bible and handed it to him. Then he asks me “Do you mean like this?” and he just randomly flips the Bible open, but instead of gently reading the first words that his eyes landed on, as I thought he would do, he went and stabbed his finger down onto the page that the Bible had fell open to. Then, he looks over to me and asks me “Like this?” I nervously, in spite of my reservations of the brazenness of his act, indicated that “I guess that will work.”. Well his boldness paid off for his finger landed right on top of Job 23:3 which says

“Oh, that I knew where I might find God, that I might come to His seat!”, Job 23:3

(In fact that entire passage in Job 23 was related to his particular situation). Needless to say, we both were in awe about God, the creator of the universe, personally revealing Himself to him in the ‘Living Word’ that clearly.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

We even went to the chaplain of the Salvation Army that evening, told the chaplain what just happened and got him his very own Bible from the chaplain. Let me end this testimony by saying that I believe God speaks to all people in many different ways. Don’t be upset if God doesn’t speak in this certain way to you through the Holy Bible. He very well could be speaking to you in special ways that He doesn’t speak to other people in. He could speak through your dreams, or visions, or He could speak to you through people 'coincidentally' showing up in your life when you need them most. He could also be in that still small, intuitive, voice that speaks warnings to you every so often which could express His feelings and guidance to you, or He could be etc… etc…. Here are some other examples of the different, and 'strange', ways that God has chosen to speak into different people’s lives,,,:

Good Morning America "GodWinks - When God let’s you know He’s thinking of you" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJRddhzFG4 (GodWinks) SQuire Rushnell & daughter of Emmett Kelly on FOX & FRIENDS 6/16/13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvdkCJgRzEk&list=UUhhpzDrOSynYa9xPfNtbrqw Eric Metaxas – Miracles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtsHFc2fHOI One of John Lennox´s Great Personal Stories Told to Harvard Students - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0M0EG2jKY Dr. Janis Amatuzio author of FOREVER OURS - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtnywJHLrLY

The point I’m trying to make clear is this. I’m firmly convinced that God is a personal God and that He does indeed desire to speak to each and every one of us personally, to ‘His children’! BUT, we have to be open enough to first allow the possibility that God, the Father of all creation, might actually care enough for each of us, His children, to actually want to speak intimately to each of us from time to time. And to then actually look to Him for guidance. Think about it. What parent doesn’t talk personally to each and every one of their very own children every once in a while? It would be a very uncaring parent who did not ‘get personal’ every once in awhile with each and every one of their children. How much more is this to be expected from the living God who loved us so much that he suffered the ultimate penalty of death for us, and then rose again, so that He could always be reunited with us forever?

Thus Seversky, God is CERTAINLY not hiding from you. If it is anything, it is you who is trying to hide from Him. Verse:

Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

bornagain77

Seversky, If God created time and space, what happened BEFORE God created time? [sound of head exploding] There goes your infinite regress of gods. ;-) -Q Querius

29 Seversky

The proposal of a questionable concept such as a necessary being reads like an ad hoc solution to the issue of an infinitely long causal chain which is regarded as equally problematic.

Thus spoke Seversky. How versed are you in A-T metaphysics? I'd bet you don't have a clue and you don't even understand what you're talking about. Run, Seversky, run! http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html?m=1 Truthfreedom

EugeneS/20

The ‘infinite regress of gods’ problem arises only if God is a contingent being, which He is not.

The proposal of a questionable concept such as a necessary being reads like an ad hoc solution to the issue of an infinitely long causal chain which is regarded as equally problematic. Seversky

seversky:

What do we mean by miracle?

Nature producing a coded information processing system would be the miracle of miracles.

That aside, it seems to me that either consciousness emerges by some as-yet-unknown natural process or it was ‘magicked’ into existence by some advanced being using some, again, as-yet-unknown process.

Was the software that runs your computer "magicked" into existence or are you just another agenda-driven troll?

But positing a god or some advanced alien is of no help.

It's actually a HUGE help to anyone who knows how to conduct an investigation. It tells us where to start looking and how to conduct said investigation- just for starters. So, again, your ignorance still isn't an argument. ET

25 Kairosfocus

Inescapably morally governed rational freedom does not reduce to or poof up out of a computational process.

I think Seversky has seen way too many times Terminator 2. The Materialist Religion

John Searle* tells us that “materialism is the religion of our time,” that “like more traditional religions, it is accepted without question and… provides the framework within which other questions can be posed, addressed, and answered,” and that “materialists are convinced, with a quasi-religious faith, that their view must be right” (Mind: A Brief Introduction, p. 48) http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html?m=1

*(John Searle is a prominent atheist philosopher). Truthfreedom

ES & TF, the roots in deep ignorance of logic of being issues are increasingly obvious. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, this is an information age. We know that GIGO-limited computation is a non-rational dynamic-stochastic process driven by organisation of the substrate, signals and/or codes, programmed elements etc. Not only for familiar digital machines but for analogue ones and neural, weighted sum networks. You are trying to pass a long past due IOU off because you have begged the worldview question and are forced to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Cannot is well warranted, and the poof magic of "emergence" is thinly disguised appeal to something from nothing. Inescapably morally governed rational freedom does not reduce to or poof up out of a computational process. And that moral government you cannot but appeal to in trying to argue with us is a further clue that the roots of reality go beyond an evolutionary, materialistic causal-temporal process. KF kairosfocus

EugeneS My pleasure. :) Hope you find it helpful! Truthfreedom

Truthfreedom, Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff! EugeneS

The argument against God is idiotic. If God created space-time, that means that God created space and he created time. Duh. So before God created time, there would not have been a "before God." In the beginning (at the beginning of time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). The earth was formless and void (chaotic or at the highest state of entropy) and darkness was over the surface of the deep ("Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result." - Wikipedia). Instead, some people say they don't believe that God created the universe and that somehow the universe somehow "musta" created itself out of nothing! It simply came into existence. Ah, but they assert that there's a great cosmic turtle named Multiverse that lays universe eggs. Plus, there are trillions of new universes that spontaneously generate every nanosecond from Nothing, which we call "the many worlds interpretation" (MWI) in quantum mechanics. And that Father Deep Time is infinite and thus can create anything through the miracle of Evolution. Even consciousness miraculously "emerges" from complexity---so, if we have consciousness, then this must also be an attribute of the universe that "musta" emerged at some point, somehow, scientifically. Those people actually do believe in God, they just prefer calling him "Science." And when questioned, they ask us to define every word we use. So, having a conversation with them requires numerous quotes from a dictionary. e·merge /??m?rj/ - move out of or away from something and come into view. - become apparent, important, or prominent. - (of facts or circumstances) become known. -Q Querius

18 Seversky

There is so much that is still weird and inexplicable – by us – about this Universe.

Yes, by "us" (rational creatures). We have an intellect to make use of it. Appeals to "magic" are childish and not helpful. Truthfreedom

I'll add to my earlier comment. The 'infinite regress of gods' problem arises only if God is a contingent being, which He is not. The problem of infinite explanatory regress exists in naturalism regardless of the question of God's existence. Any explanation is incomplete and requires additional explanations ad infinitum. This problem does not exist in theism for exactly the above reason: God is not contingent. God exists regardless of whether humans want it or not. EugeneS

17 EugeneS

The infinite regress of gods problem arises only if God is a contingent entity.

True! Atheists are poor thinkers knocking down a straw-man argument. If Everything Requires a Cause, What Caused God?

"The stock caricature in question is, of course, the “Everything has a cause, so the universe has a cause" argument. As I’ve pointed out many times on my blog, no major proponent of the idea of a First Cause ever actually defended this argument. Indeed, all the major proponents of arguments for a First Cause would reject the claim that “everything has a cause,” and on entirely principled, rather than ad hoc, grounds. Hence the stock retort to this caricature has no force whatsoever against their actual arguments. That stock retort is of course to ask, “If everything has a cause, then what caused God?” then to suggest that if God need not have a cause, then neither need the universe have a cause. Maybe, those who attack this caricature suggest, it is the universe itself (or the event that gave rise to it) that is the first or uncaused cause." https://strangenotions.com/if-everything-requires-a-cause-what-caused-god/

Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus/14

Seversky TF is right. A material, computational substrate cannot account for responsible, rational, significant, morally governed freedom. Such is a requisite of the very rationality you boast of in your argument by skeptical dismissal on demand for “evidence.” KF

I don't think we're in a position to say "cannot". There is so much that is still weird and inexplicable - by us - about this Universe. The Infinite Pattern That Never Repeats Seversky

Seversky The infinite regress of gods problem arises only if God is a contingent entity. EugeneS

==Not if I’m applying the same standards of evidence to all.== You don't appear to. That is obviously just my impression. I don't insist because I don't have time or desire to prove that you apply double standards. From what I remember, I have the impression that some of your comments do seem to contain very superficial statements. It is as if their author had just consumed them from somewhere else without much critical thought. EugeneS

Querius/13

Without that we are left with the option that life, like consciousness, arises from matter

But what do we mean by “arises”? Oh, I know . . . a miracle occurs!

What do we mean by miracle? That aside, it seems to me that either consciousness emerges by some as-yet-unknown natural process or it was 'magicked' into existence by some advanced being using some, again, as-yet-unknown process. Either way, the fact is we don't know yet. But positing a god or some advanced alien is of no help. It just pushed the question back one stage. Where did this god/alien - or even alien god - get its intelligence? Is there an infinite regress of gods? Seversky

Seversky TF is right. A material, computational substrate cannot account for responsible, rational, significant, morally governed freedom. Such is a requisite of the very rationality you boast of in your argument by skeptical dismissal on demand for "evidence." KF PS: Where this goes . . . and it is directly relevant to desperately needed reformation:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

kairosfocus

Without that we are left with the option that life, like consciousness, arises from matter.

But what do we mean by "arises"? Oh, I know . . . a miracle occurs! -Q Querius

10 Seversky

Not if I’m applying the same standards of evidence to all.

Lol. Certainly you are not. :) We want evidence of how a "material" brain can create an "immaterial" mind (what you materialists call "magic"/ "emergence"). And a clear, concise, non contradictory definition of "matter". We are waiting. (Your evasive tactics are quite boring). 1. __________ And while you are at it, how can your obsolete cult overcome the collapse of "direct realism" into "epistemological idealism". Those crickets are chirping. ___ Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare

"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world". Dr. Dennis Bonnette. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

Truthfreedom

No, seversky. It is not too much to ask. And by the looks of television programs and youtube videos, there are plenty of people to contact who can set you up. You will find more evidence for disembodied forces than you will for blind watchmaker evolution's ability to create the diversity of life. Or you can just sit back and pretend that your willful ignorance is an argument. ET

EugeneS/4

we have no compelling evidence of immaterial life

Doesn’t that depend on what you mean by ‘compelling’? (c)>

Yes, it does. I would like to see evidence of a conscious intelligence not closely correlated with a physical brain or some other material substrate. I would like to communicate with a consciousness that survives the death of the physical body (without going through some human intermediary). Is that too much to ask>

The true Scotsman fallacy

Not if I'm applying the same standards of evidence to all. Seversky

3 Seversky

Without that we are left with the option that life, like consciousness, arises from matter.

Hahaha! Only in your kindergarten materialist dreams. Your philosophical position is dead.

Third, a compelling case can be made that the empirical data we have now amassed on the correlations between brain activity and inner experience cannot be accommodated by materialism. There is a broad, consistent pattern associating impairment or reduction of brain metabolism with an expansion of awareness, an enrichment of experiential contents and their felt intensity. It is at least difficult to see how the materialist hypothesis that all experiences are somehow generated by brain metabolism could make sense of this. https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271

Truthfreedom

ET: A virus is not a living organism because it doesn’t fit the definition. It cannot reproduce without a host that has the components required for reproduction. A virus doesn’t consume energy to survive. A virus cannot regulate its own temperature. And a virus is an acellular particle. It is NOT made up of a cell or cells. It is tricky trying to decide where viruses fit into the 'tree' or bush of life. They're more machines than alive it seems. Where would you put them? Just curious. There is no right or wrong answer I think. I find yeasts much more interesting: they don't need a host to reproduce, they have mutations and change over time, they will probably continue on even if all other living forms cease. JVL

A virus is not a living organism because it doesn't fit the definition. It cannot reproduce without a host that has the components required for reproduction. A virus doesn't consume energy to survive. A virus cannot regulate its own temperature. And a virus is an acellular particle. It is NOT made up of a cell or cells. ET

2 Seversky

Doesn’t that depend on what you mean by ‘matter’ and what you mean by ‘life’?

How cute! It's your materialist cult the one that worships "matter", so it's you who has to have a clear and non-contradictory definition of it. Please share it with us, Seversky: "Matter" is: 1. ___________ (Your negative to reply will count as you conceding that you don't know the definition). Materalism's Epistemological Nightmare Materialism’s Epistemological Blunder Materialism’s Encroachment on Science Materialism’s Evident Falsity Yet Another Materialist Fiasco: No Substantial Forms Materialism's Unnoticed Achilles' Heel Truthfreedom

There isn't any evidence that life or consciousness arises from matter. There isn't even a way to test the concept. So, according to Hitchens, we can dismiss it. ET

Seversky:

we have no compelling evidence of immaterial life

Doesn’t that depend on what you mean by ‘compelling’? (c) The true Scotsman fallacy. EugeneS

Is life more than just matter? Doesn't that depend on what you mean by 'matter' and what you mean by 'life'? We no longer think of matter as being made of tiny lumps of solid stuff and when you look at viruses, for example, are they living or not?. Besides, does it even matter? Obviously, at some level, living things are material but we have no compelling evidence of immaterial life. Without that we are left with the option that life, like consciousness, arises from matter. Seversky

A recent bit of research on insect vision finds that some insects use the polarization of light in parts of the sky as a 'compass' to check their current position and location. They store the parts of the map in a way that's calibrated by azimuth and altitude, just like a human navigator using a sextant or transit. Try to imagine how that ability could have 'evolved'. http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2020/10/another-amazing-navigational-sense.html polistra

I am watching a spider making its web in complete awe. The amount of complexity required and the fact that obviously it is all right there in that tiny creature is absolutely mind-blowing! Eugene