Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs

_{Gil Dodgen

February 4, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

With what is now known about the fine-tuning of the laws of physics for the production of a universe that “knew” we were coming (Freeman Dyson), and with what is now known about the sophisticated information-processing systems and technology found in even the simplest living cell (not to mention the human mind), it is incomprehensible to me that this evidence would lead any rational person to the conclusion that it all came about by chance and necessity, and not by design.

Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs.

There is no third option.

Comments

Mike, how do you decide whether an action is right or wrong? And how do you decide whether it matters?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

HMM DrREC, you quote a paper by, of all people, Zeilinger to support your atheistic worldview? Perhaps you should take a closer look at Zeilinger's views, which are Theistic, but not necessarily Christian, before you go trying to twist his views to accord with yours:
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Well, I can. And for the moral dimension to decision-making. That fact that you can't see it isn't evidence that it doesn't exist. We see it just fine. BTW, JDH, I gave you half an answser on another thread, but I've lost the link! If you respond here, and give me the link, I'll finish it off. But I'd appreciate a response to the half-answer I already posted (especially as it may affect my response to the other half - the piece about the 2 rivers.) Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Dr(The Dogmatist)REC states:
You are the paragon of bullshittery
Well, coming from the one whom I consider the reigning master of bullshittery, that would be a supreme compliment! :) LOL But I do try to keep up. By the way DrREC, do you own a Chevy or a Ford?
Chevrolet Commercial - Mayan Apocalypse 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxFYYP8040A
here is some music to enjoy a Apocalypse in your Chevy with:
Casting Crowns - Praise you in this storm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGPS8sa-bRQ
bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Dr Torley: Very interesting comment. I have not seen the word "Zeitgeist" for ever so long, but spirit of the age is so right on so many levels. KFkairosfocus_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Well Maus, to defend the points you found fault with: your first objection:
'Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Copenhagen, IIRC. Do not confuse the philosophical conjurations with the math.'
Yet the wave state is found to be real, not abstract, here, thus overturning the notion that the wave function was merely abstract as is held in the Copenhagen interpretation: It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not 'physically real' but was merely 'abstract'. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity', (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity', to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:
Quantum Theory's 'Wavefunction' Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American - November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. "This strips away obscurity and shows you can't have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic," he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically - November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
Next you object:
This holds the same for (6) (7): Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time … Do not confuse the ignorance of scientists with fact. Seriously, do not do this. There are a number of flaws with the purported proofs of relativity on this count and you should do better than to take them uncritically. Besides which, none of the interesting ideas about a non-Euclidean geometry for spacetime have anything to do with actual spacetime or God. See Niels Bohr for details.
Yet the proofs for the time dilation held by General and Special Relativity are consistent from multiple lines of evidence:
Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation Time Dilation - General and Special Relativity - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7013215/ Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Moreover, though you appeal to ideas of Niels Bohr in support of your view that I should not place too much weight on these observations within science confirming the time dilation of space-time, the fact that Neils Bohr very own notion of a 'abstract' wave function was recently shown to be false, by both observational and mathematical proofs, for his very own specialty of quantum mechanics, should at least count somewhat against Neils Bohr concepts in a field not his expertise. I seriously don't understand your objection to 8 and find no merit for your objection; As to your objection to 10, If it is truly 'neither here nor there' then why in blue blazes are atheists, such as PZ Myers, fighting tooth and nail for as much junk DNA as they can deceive people into believing in?? You say 'see Cantor', but I find that statement itself to really be 'neither here nor there' as to addressing the persistent atheistic myth of Junk DNA. I think you may be confusing a larger scope of science with the day in day out reality of what is being debated between atheists and theists: As well your objection to 13 through 15, I agree though the points are not necessarily of falsification caliber, they are none the less very useful for establishing the pattern in science that atheists are at complete variance with.bornagain77_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

And yet we’ve seen even more ‘scientific’ beliefs collapse than ‘supernatural’ ones.
Of course, because scientific propositions are propositions, not beliefs, and can be falsified.. Supernatural ones cannot be. That doesn't make them more true. Scientific propositions are falsified every day, and all scientific conclusions are provisional. That doesn't mean that scientists change their minds every day, but it does mean that theories are subject to constant revision and refinement. Very few theories are abandoned completely, because theories, are models not reality itself, and even inaccurate models can be useful. Newton's model of mechanics is used in engineering application is all the time, even we now it does not hold true on vast or infinitessimal scales. The rigor of science lies in the fact that it is the art of fitting models to data not the other way round. That means that it is always the model that has to change.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

The evidence is there, but they simply choose not to look at it.
"Pearls before swine", as I saw in another post. There's a gulf of difference between knowing the answer and being able to explain to someone what the answer is. And then show them. Without the show n' tell you really can't get uppity about things. Doesn't mean you don't have the right answer, but you cannot prove it to someone else. They will be what they will be, and they will believe what they will believe. Do what you can for you and them; and knock the dust off your sandals when you need.Maus_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

The scope for quoting characters in plays as representing their author's opinions is immense! I don't believe Stoppard says much about his private life but I would guess he is either an atheist or very sceptical agnostic. After all he wrote the screenplay to the atheist film "The Golden Compass".markf_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

ba77:
OK vel, how about you or Champ address even just one of these 16 points;
I happen to neither, but these are good. Points (1) through (3), (9), (11), (12) and (16) ar a fair cop. Number (4) is a bye as it's arguable as to what Materialist held what position. (5):
Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space.
Copenhagen, IIRC. Do not confuse the philosophical conjurations with the math. This holds the same for (6) (7):
Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time ...
Do not confuse the ignorance of scientists with fact. Seriously, do not do this. There are a number of flaws with the purported proofs of relativity on this count and you should do better than to take them uncritically. Besides which, none of the intersting ideas about a non-Euclidean geomtery for spacetime have anytyhing to do with actual spacetime or God. See Niels Bohr for details. (8)
Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. That's neither here nor there. If Christianity is correct then Christianty is correct. If Atheism is correct then Atheism is correct. None of the notions of winning the lottery have any validity here. (Which goes for the point of the post as well.) (10)
Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made ...
Nothing surprising or interesting here. Humans have always believed that our ignorance makes the infinite larger. See: Cantor. (13) through (15) You're right, don't get me wrong. But it's meaningless. Especially about the punctuated equilibrium argumetn you use in (15). That the believers in the Cargo Cult of Science haven't ginned on in the face of Gould and HGT is neither here nor there.
Maus_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

I suspect that evidence trumps desire in terms of what he actually believes). But many (if not most) of us would have no problem believing in God if the evidence were there.
That's Not Even Wrong territory. If your view engages a 'truth' about ethics or creation then it is a religion. And Atheism is no guard against this as it is an assertion about the supernatural. Agnosticism, to the degree that it dabbles in the same, is no different. Absent empiricism all 'evidence' is either confirmation bias or cultural trivia. (Which does not mean you shouldn't believe whatever you like about what cannot be proven.)Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Interesting that supernatural beliefs get replaced with scientific beliefs, but not vice-versa. I repeat:
There hasn’t been even a single confirmed supernatural hypothesis in the history of science to date (but many that have been falsified). Given this dismal track record, it’s hardly surprising that atheism is so prevalent, particularly among scientists (only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God).
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

I didn’t allege that. I pointed out that unlike us, they “didn’t have the advantage of seeing hundreds of supernatural beliefs and explanations fall by the wayside as science advanced.”
And yet we've seen even more 'scientific' beliefs collapse than 'supernatural' ones. If you weren't indulging in a false dichotomy we'd then be required to accept that supernatural beliefs are more reliable than 'scientific' ones. And thus that we ought point ourselves towards the supernatural. There are only two kinds of beliefs. Those you can verify by picking up the artifacts of correctness from the local Walmart. And religious ones.Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

@GilDodgen,

Matter and energy are what makes [sic] mind real.
Huh?
You know, like... extended in space/time, like the rest of what you demonstrate and support as real. As it is, you have mind 'existing' as some kind of immaterial... "thing". But "exist" and "thing" are both stolen concepts you must borrow from the natural world. If you wanted to demonstrate "non-exist" vs. "exist" for something (again, 'something' as a stolen concept), you'd not have any thing to ground (there I go again) your criterion upon (and again!). So, mind as a material phenomenon, as our way of referring to the high-level patterns and dynamics of the brain (music being played back is sound waves, but it's not *just* sound waves in terms of its meaning and context for human listeners) makes mind real in way dualism can't hope to... realize. It has grounded semantic and coherent concepts governing its use in our talking and thinking about it. Does that help? On the psychoanalysis, I think I've said this to you before, but there's no psychoanalysis needed. I think I used a reference to the pronunciation of "Houston Street" in Manhattan, but here I'll say that if someone were regularly harking back to the wonderful days they spent in the 1980s in beautiful Aspen, Colorado, but when asked about the ski areas there, failed to recall any skiing in or around Aspen, I wouldn't need to probe that person's psychology, I'd just understand that something doesn't fit there, like your atheist past doesn't seem to recall the prominent, central aspects of that storied era in your past. It's not a matter of motivation or intention, it just has all the empirical patterns of posing. Saying "Huh?" where you did, in reference to the suggestion of mind-as-material is a good example of that incongruity. I'm not saying you weren't an atheist or unbeliever in the straightforward "I don't believe" or "I'm rebelling against God" sense. But reactions like this -- and they come up often in your posts -- just don't fit with an atheist who's been through the basics of materialism, or worldviews that eschew belief in gods or dualist notions of the supernatural. There's no harm in being a "casual tourist of unbelief". The friction from me is just your representation of it as something more than that. Why you would choose that, if that's indeed what you've chosen, as a matter of psychology, doesn't interest me, nor do I suppose I'm in a place to make headway on that even if I was interested. There's just a series of goofs and basic errors you provide as cues that something doesn't match up with your claims of a thoroughgoing and considered atheism. But kodus on the Tom Lehrer schtick. Comedy gold.eigenstate_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Mike,
He is one by the accepted definition of the term.
Which is? (References please, including evidence that the definition you supply is the "accepted" one.)champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

I don't care that Sam Harris says he's not a moral relativist. He is one by the accepted definition of the term. See above.mike1962_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Matter and energy are what makes [sic] mind real. Huh? I find it highly unlikely you were ever an active atheist/materialist. Thanks for the psychoanalysis, and knowing more about me than I know about myself. You must have amazing psychic abilities. I understand that a lot of money can be made in that profession. You should look into it. Or perhaps you could become a philosopher and give helpful advice to people who are happier than you are, as Tom Lehrer once observed about Hen3ry in his introductory patter to the great classic We Will All Go Together When We Go. As further evidence of my impeccable former-atheist credentials, back in my atheist days I used to regale audiences with my performances of the entire Tom Lehrer repertoire, singing and accompanying myself at the piano. I often heard, "You sound more like Tom Lehrer than Tom Lehrer!" Lehrer is quoted as saying: "I used to think atheists were arrogant but now I am one and I like it."GilDodgen_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.htmlDrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

What is the experimental observation of a "timeless state?" You claimed empirical proof of it. You clobber words, concepts, whole field of science together, without any regard for meaning or truth. You are the paragon of bullshittery.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Dr Rec, Sounds interesting,any introductory recommendations?velikovskys_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

See what I mean, Axel? Eigenstate engages BA point by point, and instead of defending his position with an actual argument, BA gets upset, calls eigenstate a liar, spams him, and then runs away:
oh goody obfuscation of obfuscation!,,, I’m done!
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Well, I will leave to the unbiased readers to decide who is being forthright and who is being severely misleading and dishonest.
Not a good idea to leave it to the unbiased readers, BA. You won't get the answer you're hoping for.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

oh goody obfuscation of obfuscation!,,, I'm done!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

ba77, I think you both are honest,it is just that you are wrong.On the bright side you have lots of people who think like you to hang out with.velikovskys_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

DrREC, contrary to you exalted opinion of yourself, a opinion I'm sure you take great pride in, I don't consider you to really know much of anything of importance in physics! ,,, And moreover, why should I go to all the trouble of laying out the logic for you when you will just dogmatically deny that it even matters just because of your a-priori commitment to atheism? Thanks but no thanks. Its late, I'm tired, and right now I could care less that you are determined to stay a atheist no matter what the evidence says!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

@BA77, Bearing in mind that it's a mistake to conflate Hawking with "materialism" in the first place, here's a quote from Hawking's recent The Grand Design, chapter 6, "location 1821" (since this is being referenced on my iPad with the Kindle version of the book):
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
I can provide more quotes if needed. Hawking uses "creation" throughout the book, but in a secular, materialist sense. You are either confused about Hawking's views, or quote mining in your citation above of Hawking. Moreover, Hawking's views one way or the other do not support your claim in Prediction #1.eigenstate_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Hmm Eigenstate, obfuscation of the truth is what you like to do instead of following the truth? How sad!!! ,,, Well, I will leave to the unbiased readers to decide who is being forthright and who is being severely misleading and dishonest.bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Mike, To be a moral relativist is to believe that morality is relative. Harris does not believe that morality is relative. Therefore Harris is not a moral relativist. Whether you think his position is consistent or not is beside the point.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Me: Explain the difference between local realism in physics and metaphysical realism. Then retract posts conflating the two. Explain the difference between local realism in physics and metaphysical realism. Then retract posts conflating the two. 4.2.2.1.2 bornagain77 "DrREC, well since I can empirically land non-local realism into a timeless state, I fairly comfortable with my grasp of the subject. But please do tell me of you mastery of the subject, I’ve been wanting to ask, Just what is your ‘non-local’ material basis that you materialists must appeal to so as to be the sufficient cause for quantum non-locality??? It’s worth a quarter admission to watch the dodge on this!" "I can empirically land non-local realism into a timeless state" Empirically? Go on please.... How have you empirically observed a timeless state? Are you immortal? Not to be harsh, but to someone who actually knows a thing or two about local realism (via Quantum Field Theory and the EPR paradox) you're babbling.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

@BA77,
Just to show others just how completely dishonest you are eigenstate, you state in response to point number 1: ‘And, the Big Bang doesn’t point to any creation event that is a problem for materialism.’ yet Stephen Hawking stated recently: A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.” Stephen Hawking.
You're mistaking the Big Bang with a "point of creation" -- "creation" implies "creator". That's not what Big Bang theory posits. And it's not what Hawking holds, either. You're convinced that the Big Bang is your "creation point" that you've made the mistake of conflating the two concepts. But even that rebuttal is not needed. Your "prediction" fails at a more basic level:
1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. – Big Bang points to a creation event. -
Let's just stipulate that that Hawking now believes in a supernatural creator, based on that quote (or some other reason). Now what? How does that bear on materialism? It doesn't. In that case, Hawking would not be a materialist. If we instead allowed that Hawking somehow remained a materialist but holds that the Big Bang was a "point of creation", by definition that creator would be a material entity, a material phenomenon. It would have to be, or else Hawking would not be a materialist, and we'd revert to the first stipulation above. But let's stretch it in your direction even farther and just ignore the definitional problem and grant that Hawking is a materialist who believes the Big Bang is a "point of creation". It doesn't help you, because right beside him is Lawrence Krauss, who's getting up a couple times a month and explaining the Big Bang as part of his model of the multiverse, generated by impersonal physical law. So where to go with that? Is Krauss not a materialist, then? Is he bound to Hawking's views, however we might mangle them (or not)? Your 'predictions' are not grounded in the concepts you want to hang them on. Materialism doesn't and cannot make the prediction you assert it makes. If it did, it would be some other concept.eigenstate_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply