Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dilbert’s creator, Scott Adams, gives lessons in being a troll for science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Courtesy Salvo 49:

Last fall, Dilbert creator Scott Adams held his first online “Troll College.” Sitting in front of a wonky whiteboard, the satirist extraordinaire and sarcastic poker-of-fun at all things pompous, taught seven rules for would-be internet trolls. One capitalized on the straw man fallacy, which involves misstating your target’s argument, then criticizing the misstatement. Others focused on rhetorical strategy: always issue a “halfpinion,” for example, which reduces a complex issue to one variable, rather than a real opinion, which would require taking all factors into account.

“You should also pretend,” Adams said, moving on to rule number five, “that you as a troll [do] something called ‘understanding science.’ . . . Just make the assumption that you know more about science than other people.” And like a good teacher, he modeled how it should be done. “Ah huh huh huh,” he guffawed, demonstrating the condescending, arrogant, mocking tone you should assume. “You don’t know anything about science, ah ha ha. . . .” A troll should never give reasons for what he “understands.” What matters is the attitude.

Terrell Clemmons, “When Darwin’s Foundations Are Crumbling, What Will the Faithful Do?” at Salvo

They seem to have followed the script, Clemmons reports, with Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves.

You can sit on the observation deck here.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Dilbert’s Scott Adams And The Reproductively Effective Delusion Evolutionary Thesis

and

Schrodinger’s cat applies for a job

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Vivid -- yes your 66 -- I made a point to go back over to the Egnor thread to trace the action there and got a very good laugh out that one. It happened just as you said. Hazel followed her good sense and was defending the integrity of the American founders and then just openly sided with you. BB caught it and said "Et to [sic] Brute!" as if she had just stabbed him in the back. Wow, traitors to the cause will be pressured. And that's what happened, as Hazel broke down and fell into line again. That was pathetic. But as before, I'm glad you pointed that out because a very illuminating episode would have been lost to me otherwise. It's going to be more difficult for me to think that there is some kind of integrity in it -- rather than just group-think and propaganda to support a cause.Silver Asiatic
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
SA Your welcome. I started laughing at your first sentence “Yes it’s hard to get a clear understanding on this” because I was thinking the same thing. I laughed even more as your post went on and as you proceeded to turn Hazels brain into a pretzel. As to Hazels devastating rebuttal “Have you folks ever heard of Buddhism..? No Hazel we never heard of that is this something new? You say 1/2 billion people? Wow when did this happen? Sheesh Hazel likes her worldview window to be smeared as much as possible, you went to the window and cleaned the window and said “Hey Hazel look out the window” Hazel on the other hand turned her head away while smearing it again “ Hey folks have you never heard of Buddhism..? I liken Hazels gobbledygook to a vat of jello, she likes her worldview to be as amorphous as possible. BTW you might take a look at my post 66. Vividvividbleau
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Vivid
Hazel never addressed these questions has she? And no ,mumbling about “have you heard about Buddhism” is a pretty pitiful response I think
Thank you, Vivid! I'm sitting here, after offering a detailed explanation that taught her what she was clueless about, and which (in my view) destroyed whatever sort of ill-considered concept she was proclaiming, and … not a word. If you didn't say anything, this would have been lost. I was tempted to do something, say something to her. But I always wonder, "did anybody read what I said? Even friends?" I then wonder if perhaps what I said didn't make any sense. So, the explanation and discussion just gets lost. It's a thread-killer. Hazel will just go off and repeat the same stupidity elsewhere, as if I never said anything. A month later, she says the same thing about "components that manifest the mind" and how these are not something that actually exist, or maybe they do or whatever … then we have to repeat it. Then she says "you never refuted my view before". Of course nobody can remember this because the thread died and was lost. Did she read what I said? Maybe, probably yes. She read and was silenced. Then moved on. Did she understand what I said? Well, if so, she can't say a word? How about "thank you for explaining what I didn't understand. I am going to rethink my opinion"? Ha ha. We wish for that day. Anyway! I truly appreciate your attention to what actually happened here. I will remember it when I see the arrogant attitude surface again. There is simply nothing behind the posturing and when clearly and patiently corrected, in detail, the individuals would no longer engage in the topic and no longer pretend to be interested in learning.Silver Asiatic
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
SA re 90 “Yes, it is hard to get a clear understanding on this. There an immaterial “component”. But this “component” does not exist? If the “component” exists, then it is an “existence”. It is something that exists. Also, it does something. As you said, it “manifests itself”. So, it is an “existence that manifests”. Additionally, it is a “component” which exists (or it doesn’t exist?) which is (or manifests itself as?) a creative force. A “creative force” does something. Usually, it “creates”. Or, perhaps you’re saying it does not actually “create”. It’s a “creative force component” which does not exist, does not create. Right? You assert this “creative force manifesting component” which actually does not exist? Or? Perhaps it actually does exist? So, it is an existence. An existence is something real. An immaterial existence possesses that which makes it exist. Your immaterial component (an existence) actually does things (creative forcing, manifesting) and has an effect on other aspects of reality by manifesting mind.” Hazel never addressed these questions has she? And no ,mumbling about “have you heard about Buddhism” is a pretty pitiful response I think Vividvividbleau
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Mimus
No. There are press releases from uni offices, but even they are usually filtered through a very strange lens here.
We read articles from popular science media and most of those reference the actual papers and research. But yes, we take a very critical view of the claims that are presented in favor of evolutionary theory.Silver Asiatic
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
hazel:
The Dylan song is not at all about science.
Neither is materialism nor its bastard child evolutionism.ET
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Mimus:
I have this, admidetly naive, idea that exposure to real evolutionary biology/thinking might be encourage people to learn more about the science.
That is true. Once you learn about evolutionary biology and science you will see that evolution, as it is currently taught, does not meet the definition of science. Mimus is clearly just a bluffing troll.ET
July 2, 2019
July
07
Jul
2
02
2019
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
No. There are press releases from uni offices, but even they are usually filtered through a very strange lens here.Mimus
July 1, 2019
July
07
Jul
1
01
2019
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Mimus
I have this, admidetly naive, idea that exposure to real evolutionary biology/thinking might be encourage people to learn more about the science.
We don't read "real evolutionary biology/thinking" here every day?Silver Asiatic
July 1, 2019
July
07
Jul
1
01
2019
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
June 30, 2019 at 8:41 pm I’d think that if you’re intelligent and interested enough to be debating about Intelligent Design on this particular blog, you’d also have the interest in the metaphysical foundations of ID and evolutionary theory. The concept of Design itself is a metaphysical concep
Well, taht might be the case if the blog was about design or the Intelligent Design movement was still moving. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. I have this, admidetly naive, idea that exposure to real evolutionary biology/thinking might be encourage people to learn more about the science. As I say, coming from a place where evolution is not part of identity politics I probably underestimate the degree to which any science contributes to folks position on this , though.Mimus
July 1, 2019
July
07
Jul
1
01
2019
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Hazel
I have knowledge of subjective things, such as values, moral beliefs, political beliefs, etc. These are not amenable to scientific investigation (other than verifying that I say I have those beliefs.)
I agree with this. But, if all of reality (everything that exists) is reducible to the physical or material, then your thoughts, beliefs, dreams and imaginations are physical. They can be investigated through brain-scans, and materialists imagine more powerful instruments that can observe the exact molecular formation of every human thought. That's what scientism is.
Such beliefs would not be scientific but they would be ultimately reducible to physical causes. (I know you don’t believe this is possible, but that is not my point.)
That's a contradiction. If they are reducible to the physical, then they are observable. They are molecular patterns of some kind. Materialists believe those patterns are generated in the brain. So, science, for them, will tell us everything about human thought, emotion, spirituality -- everything.
I thought the fundamental point of ID was that design was scientifically detectable. But here you are saying it is a matter of metaphysics.
I think Mimus' quip about the Epic Metaphysical Claim revealed a common mistake about what metaphysics is. I think you have followed that. For a lot of people, metaphysics is like magic. It's weird stuff that might happen, or spiritualism, or fortune tellers. That is completely wrong. I hope Mimus is reading this. Metaphysics is the foundation of all science. It is the study of Being or Existence or Reality. It structures our rational thought through logic. It gives us the first principles, like Law of Identity. Science cannot function, cannot exist without metaphysics. What do we mean by chance? Science cannot tell us that. We interpret scientific results through metaphysics.
Again, the theistic evolutionary Christian (or whatever they are called) would agree that design exists from a metaphysical (in this case, theological) sense, but not in the “scientifically detectable” sense.
Again, I gave you a specific case that contradicts what you said above. You did not address the example I gave. "Scientifically detectable" means "observable in reality". Every Christian believes that ID, in the scientific sense, is true. The Gospels show this in several cases. The Jews of the time had to fabricate a story to try to cover-up the scientifically observable evidence. A body was in one place, then the body was not there. That happened by chance or by intelligent design. That's how we do science. That is ID detection.Silver Asiatic
July 1, 2019
July
07
Jul
1
01
2019
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
mimus:
So, from my point of view most people here want to dismiss an entire field of study without every understanding any aspect of it in detail.
Perfect sentence for this thread. Evolutionary biology is devoid of details. That is its whole problem. All of its aspects are pure speculation devoid of science.ET
July 1, 2019
July
07
Jul
1
01
2019
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
H, the concept that big-S Science dominates credible knowledge goes along with onward views. Famously, there are physicists who hold that any given science reduces to physics, or else to stamp collecting. (I think the last was a dig at taxonomy.) The point is, cosmology sets up the world, leads on to OoL and thence origin of body plans including our brain, where too mind is held to reduce to brains. Metaphysically, Alex Rosenberg put it: the physical facts fix all the facts. Epistemologically, the frame is to reduce phenomena to dynamic-stochastic processes on material substrates amenable to physical calculation. Cosmology of course being expanded applied general relativity in its heart. Emergence, in that context is an unstable claim: it either explodes into dualism or else collapses into physicalist reductionism. The consequences for freedom to be rational are well known. Provine's summary is but one of many. That's why I have so often highlighted that naturalism in essence is evolutionary materialistic scientism. Where, the scientism claim shows how incoherent it is: it is an epistemological claim that undermines philosophy including logic and epistemology. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2019
July
07
Jul
1
01
2019
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
Hazel
More misreading! ???? The Dylan song is not at all about science. It was in response to your Bible quote.
I got it. What is interesting is that BS77 didn’t. Very telling.Brother Brian
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
SA writes, "The concept of Design itself is a metaphysical concept. Science cannot tell us what Design is. We use philosophy to distinguish between chance and design." I thought the fundamental point of ID was that design was scientifically detectable. But here you are saying it is a matter of metaphysics. Again, the theistic evolutionary Christian (or whatever they are called) would agree that design exists from a metaphysical (in this case, theological) sense, but not in the "scientifically detectable" sense. So I'm confused about which of the two you mean by ID?hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
I'm interested in all this kind of stuff, or I wouldn't be here. My remarks to EDTA were about the fact that the majority of people aren't interested in this kind of stuff. As to scientism, I think it is quite wrong, but I think you give two different definitions. I think it's possible for a materialist to not support scientism. Let me explain. You write,
Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Is all knowledge ultimately reducible to the physical and therefore to physics? That is a widespread belief. Science is the only path to knowledge. All human thoughts and actions can be understood through science. That’s a very significant metaphysical position — and we shouldn’t be blind to it through lack of interest..
I think scientism means your second definition: “Science is the only path to knowledge.” That is different than saying scientism means that “all knowledge [is] ultimately reducible to the physical and therefore to physics.” I have knowledge of subjective things, such as values, moral beliefs, political beliefs, etc. These are not amenable to scientific investigation (other than verifying that I say I have those beliefs.) A materialist might believe that such knowledge is grounded exclusively in a material body. Such beliefs would not be scientific but they would be ultimately reducible to physical causes. (I know you don’t believe this is possible, but that is not my point.) My point is that I think scientism is generally understood to mean that science is the only path to knowledge, which is a stronger point than all knowledge can be reduced to physical causes. Wikipedia says,
Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, pointing to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.
I think this is a good statement about the fundamental flaw of scientism.hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
I'd think that if you're intelligent and interested enough to be debating about Intelligent Design on this particular blog, you'd also have the interest in the metaphysical foundations of ID and evolutionary theory. The concept of Design itself is a metaphysical concept. Science cannot tell us what Design is. We use philosophy to distinguish between chance and design. Darwin was arguing against the Teleological Argument itself. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Is all knowledge ultimately reducible to the physical and therefore to physics? That is a widespread belief. Science is the only path to knowledge. All human thoughts and actions can be understood through science. That's a very significant metaphysical position -- and we shouldn't be blind to it through lack of interest.Silver Asiatic
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Hazel
Also, as I understand it, ID claims that design is scientifically detectable, not just that something other than materialism is true.
Right, the two go together. If there is evidence of design (at the cosmic scale), then materialism is false.
As discussed a bit recently, and often at other times, millions of Christians believe in God and don’t accept ID, which is a sectarian issue about the nature of God among Christians, so I don’t see how “if all of atheism moved away from strict materialism, I think ID would just call it a victory.”
If some kind of immaterial, creative presence is accepted as existing, then there is no argument against ID. As you stated before, all Christians accept some form of Intelligent Design. It is contradictory to state that Jesus rose from the dead as the Gospels state, and yet that event was not scientifically observable. There's no argument against ID from that perspective.Silver Asiatic
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Thanks, EDTA, for, may I say, the generous comment. I agree that most people aren't very interested in the issues discussed here and they still lead good, productive lives. You say, "Beliefs need to be tested in the fire of reality,", but I think most of the metaphysical matters we are discussing can't really be tested. And again, most people are concerned primarily with how to act, not the metaphysical background. People of very different metaphysics can agree, for instance, to pay more taxes for a mental health center and yet have very different political, social, and metaphysical philosophies about why one should do that. I think the world is much too diverse to expect our culture to settle on one metaphysic, especially since, in my opinion, they is no way to test one against the other.hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Mimus states, "plenty of Christians who are evolutionary biologists and almost noone who thinks that the sceince of evolutionary biology si a threat to their religion." The disconnect of logic in that sentence is fairly obvious. I've never heard of anybody being led to Christ through Darwinian evolution. NOT ONE PERSON! Whereas I've heard of plenty of young people who were led away from Christianity through Darwinian propaganda. A couple of prominent Evolutionary biologists too, Provine for example. My take is that Mimus himself has never once ever considered becoming a Christian because of the ideas contained within Darwinian evolution. And for good reason:
Daniel Dennett's Dangerous Idea Daniel Dennett's fertile imagination is captivated by the very dangerous idea that the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution should become the basis for what amounts to an established state religion of scientific materialism. Dennett takes the scientific part of his thesis from the inner circle of contemporary Darwinian theorists: William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George C. Williams, and the brilliant popularizer Richard Dawkins. When Dennett describes the big idea emanating from this circle as dangerous, he does not mean that it is dangerous only to religious fundamentalists. The persons whom he accuses of flinching when faced with the full implications of Darwinism are scientists and philosophers of the highest standing: Noam Chomsky, Roger Penrose, Jerry Fodor, John Searle, and especially Stephen Jay Gould. Each one of these very secular thinkers supposedly tries, as the simple religious folk do, to limit the all-embracing logic of Darwinism. Dennett describes Darwinism as a "universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view." One thinker after another has tried unsuccessfully to find some way to contain this universal acid, to protect something from its corrosive power. Why? First let's see what the idea is.,,, http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm
Now if Mimus is the rare exception to the rule and has become a Christian because of Darwinian evolution, I certainly would like to hear exactly he achieved that. Indeed, if he did so, he should write a book on his conversion experience. The title would certainly be an eye catcher, i.e. "How Darwin Led Me To Christ" :)bornagain77
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Mimus
I guess SA and crew think I want to focus on details becaus as a distraction from some Epic Metaphyscial Claim that i’m not the least bit interested in.
You really can't promote the theory without making an epic metaphysical claim. It is the supposed science of how bacteria became human beings. Evolutionary theory makes a claim about the origin of human life and therefore has a huge impact on the meaning, purpose or goals of life and human culture. To say that you're not in the least interested in that, while at the same time, being an avid promoter of the theory, is not very thoughtful. It's like a guy who invents a bomb that can destroy an entire continent and when asked he says that he's really only interested in the mechanics of the device and has no interest at all in what the bomb could actually do to human life on earth.Silver Asiatic
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Hazel, >No. What an ungenerous reading of the situation. Not much sense in discussing something with somebody who thinks I don’t have considered thoughts and have honestly expressed them. I think your beliefs are well thought-out, and that your are being honest. But I'm wondering about the millions of others in the general category. Many people don't like to think really hard about their beliefs (I've met them), and they really don't want them to be criticize-able. So they seem to end up where they are most comfortable. A local minimum if you will. This dynamic really could be at play here. >Maybe your problem is that you think people need to be “pinned down”, though. That's a good point. I do think that. Beliefs need to be tested in the fire of reality; otherwise, they can go off the deep end to where few peoples' beliefs match up with reality, and nobody agrees with anybody else. Then we can't get along. If we ground ourselves properly in the same reality. our culture might start to come back together again. Although I don't expect it.EDTA
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
EMC (tm) = Epic Metaphysical Claim. I like that. It really is what virtually all of this is about.hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
I find this thread kind of interesting, in as much as it highlights the massive difference in background between myself and other commentators I don't live in the US, so I don't come from a place where acceptance of evolutionary biology is part of cultural identity. I don't plenty of Christians who are evolutionary biologists and almost noone who thinks that the sceince of evolutionary biology si a threat to their religion. So when I talk about evolutionary biology I'm interested in the scientific field, how makes sense of biological data and the framework it gives us to ask more questions about the history (and present and future) of life on earth. However, most posters here are more interesting in the metaphysical ramifications of evolutionary biology. So any correctin of push back agaisnt a mistake is seen as support for a metaphyscial position and, almost inevtiably, any error is leads to a gish gallop back to the origin of life or the latest acronym -soup to replace CSI. So, from my point of view most people here want to dismiss an entire field of study without every understanding any aspect of it in detail. I guess SA and crew think I want to focus on details becaus as a distraction from some Epic Metaphyscial Claim that i'm not the least bit interested in.Mimus
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Also, as I understand it, ID claims that design is scientifically detectable, not just that something other than materialism is true. As discussed a bit recently, and often at other times, millions of Christians believe in God and don't accept ID, which is a sectarian issue about the nature of God among Christians, so I don't see how "if all of atheism moved away from strict materialism, I think ID would just call it a victory."hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Are you folks familiar with Buddhism, which has no gods? A Buddhist is an atheist who is not a materialist, and there are over 500 million of them.hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
EDTA
Atheists who are not strict materialists? I’ve only heard of such folk in the last year or two. But with survey evidence, plus several guests here saying so, I guess I’ll have to accept that it happens.
I mentioned something similar. I had not seen the presence of non-materialist atheism. I'm going back to the early days of the atheist surge online, when Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and the like were preaching materialism and seemed to have a lot followers. My unofficial survey here says that about 70% of the atheists active now on UD are of the standard materialist sort.
This is only speculation, but it understandably crosses my mind: I wonder whether some wish they could be true atheist/materialists, but after taking a hard look at what that entails, they have decided that it is indeed unlivable.
I think that's right and it's a good thing. I see it as progress. Once there is "something else" in reality, the whole evolutionary program is threatened. Now, the origin of human consciousness would have a reasonable cause - an immaterial power. But more importantly, it's difficult to dismiss ID. Dawkins says that reality looks like it has been designed by intelligence. Well, an immaterial entity of some kind would be a candidate for that designing power now. This is very good for ID. If all of atheism moved away from strict materialism, I think ID would just call it a victory and be done with it (not that ID alone would be the cause of that change in atheism). Moving from "a spiritual or immaterial essence of some kind", which still permits atheism, to a theistic belief, is outside of the scope of what ID can work with. It's all about philosophy and religion after that point.Silver Asiatic
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Hazel
I, like Dave, think I can say that I have never opposed the ID proposition. I remember asking some questions about the source of design, prefacing my questions with an acceptance of the design inference, and about details about where design took place (which kf had mentioned as a factor.) I don’t think you can find any place where I have “opposed the ID proposition”, much less consistently done so.
I find that to be very good. To not oppose it, is to accept the evidence of intelligence in the design found in nature. I think this is very big. We observe aspects of nature. Perhaps you would observe the human mind. We observe that material mechanisms alone cannot produce the effect. But we know intelligence can - so a Designing Intelligence is the most reasonable cause. If you don't oppose this kind of approach, I don't see that you can go that much farther with ID. People here could argue about what the intelligence is. But you could claim a number of things, as has been discussed, including something from any number of religious traditions, or some sort of immaterial force (as you've asserted). From an ID perspective, there's nothing to debate on that.Silver Asiatic
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Hazel
It is so hard to get clear understanding with people in a forum like this.
You didn't address my comments in #68
No, I have tried to make it clear that I don’t believe there are any “immaterial existences” out these, as in entities which interact as individual beings with the world. I do believe there is an immaterial component to the world which manifests itself in our experience as our minds, and possible manifests itself as a creative force at levels beyond our immediate experience. But these are not “existences.”
Yes, it is hard to get a clear understanding on this. There an immaterial "component". But this "component" does not exist? If the "component" exists, then it is an "existence". It is something that exists. Also, it does something. As you said, it "manifests itself". So, it is an "existence that manifests". Additionally, it is a "component" which exists (or it doesn't exist?) which is (or manifests itself as?) a creative force. A "creative force" does something. Usually, it "creates". Or, perhaps you're saying it does not actually "create". It's a "creative force component" which does not exist, does not create. Right? You assert this "creative force manifesting component" which actually does not exist? Or? Perhaps it actually does exist? So, it is an existence. An existence is something real. An immaterial existence possesses that which makes it exist. Your immaterial component (an existence) actually does things (creative forcing, manifesting) and has an effect on other aspects of reality by manifesting mind. So, there's a lot to explain here. Where did it come from? What evidence do you have of this? How do you know this is not simply God?Silver Asiatic
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
I don't think very much of what I post is about science, either. I usually discuss philosophy or social or psychological issues.hazel
June 30, 2019
June
06
Jun
30
30
2019
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply