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

_{GilDodgen
February 4, 2012

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

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!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PST}

Moreover you are falsely accusing me of ‘not understanding the argument’ Explain the difference between local realism in physics and metaphysical realism. Then retract posts conflating the two.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PST}

Champ: "Sam Harris says he’s not a relativist and writes an entire book arguing against relativism and for an objective, science-based morality. Noted Sam Harris expert Mike1962 says that Harris is a relativist. Well, that settles it. Sam Harris is a relativist."
What he does is argue against a "relativism" which is against his own view after he makes the bald declaration about what he considers to be valuable, namely that consciousness deserves to have it's suffering reduced. Do you see the problem here? Obviously not. Again, his entire load of jibber jabber boils down to this: "I think the suffering of consciousness should be reduced and I hope you agree with me." How does science establish that as an "objective morality"? It doesn't and it can't. Sam Harris's philosophy springs from his own feelings about consciousness. He cannot point to an *absolute* standard out side of his own feelings for the basis of his philosophy. This is what Relativism *is*, despect Harris's (and your) ridiculous claim to the contrary.mike1962_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PST}

Maybe you could pick one of the predictions of materialism you offered, and show where that prediction is entailed by materialism? That would be a good start on substantiating your charge. Already Done! And I gladly stand behind my words, for you are indeed a liar!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST}

Champ are you being the mindless atheistic lapdog again? It is truly pathetic that you would so quickly and willingly buy into such pathetic tripe from eigenstate, without even pausing to see if he were actually being forthright in his analysis!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PST}

@BA77,
eigenstate, you are thoroughly dishonest! i.e. A liar!
I deny the charge, but note, for the record, that you've explicitly accused me of being a liar. I'm not one to get honked off at that kind of stuff, but will bookmark this for the next time kairosfocus supposes being contradicted somehow violates his sacred honor, and demands some form of cosmic satisfaction. Maybe you could pick one of the predictions of materialism you offered, and show where that prediction is entailed by materialism? That would be a good start on substantiating your charge. As it is, it's instructive to see what kind of responses you post when you have to go off the spam-catalog. What happens when links to YouTube videos aren't even relevant enough for your goals here? I grew up with lists like the one you are working from. These are "echo chamber" artifacts, and work the same way as the "creationist chestnuts" that get cycled around in evangelical circles filling in the faithful on "proofs of a young earth", for example by realizing that the moon's orbit would have closed to a point where it collided with the earth if the earth was old, or if the earth was old, the ocean should have WAY more salt than it does, etc. These are welcome faith builders and useful in sympathetic circles, but they fail spectacularly when you get them outside those sympathetic and credulous communities. They do not survive contact with science or skeptical thinking. Most of the time, it's just not worth the effort to rebut -- nobody outside the 'circle of sympathy' pays any heed -- but this one was such a complete fail, it seemed worth a quick pass over the list. It didn't even stumble into getting one right or squared with the terms it used. One might expect at least THAT by accident.eigenstate_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PST}

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. Unfortunately neither Hawking nor you seem to be aware of the fact that materialism cannot even ground the scientific method in the first place. So it is hysterical that he is so self deceived by his materialistic worldview that he thinks it is the same thing as science, and would even equate the falsification of the materialistic worldview as the 'breakdown' of science! The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit etc.. etc.. etc.. You supposed rebuttals just get worse from there eigenstate!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PST}

axel
Still, that’s neither here nor there, as regards the curious silence of champignon and velikovsky in response to BA77?s so-called ‘spam’
I would have thought eigenstate's herculean effort would suffice.velikovskys_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PST}

Touché! You've really got him on the ropes, BA!champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PST}

eigenstate, to further clarify in technical terms for you, your responses are complete and utter garbage!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PST}

bornagain, Nice rebuttal. Very persuasive.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PST}

eigenstate, you are thoroughly dishonest! i.e. A liar!bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PST}

@Gil,
If the materialist is correct, and all that exists is the product of physicality and not mind, then I must have lost my mind (which is kind of a weird concept, since from a materialist’s point of view mind does not exist — it’s all matter in motion).
"Matter in motion" doesn't militate against the reality of the mind -- it reifies the concept. Matter and energy are what makes mind real. I understand that coming from a dualist mindset, there is this reaction that the mind doesn't exist on monism, and on dualist terms, it doesn't. But you are committing to a category error in doing so; you are applying dualist semantics for "mind" to monism, and they don't apply. A material mind is real *because* it doesn't obtain in a supernatural/immaterial reality. If you consider materialism as true, just provisionally, so as to evaluate it on its own terms, there is no problem with the reality of mind. Your dualist understanding just doesn't apply. This is one reason why I find it highly unlikely you were ever an active atheist/materialist. Even if you don't embrace that view anymore, it's clear from everything I've read from you that you have never understood that distinction. You could 'switch sides', but you would be familiar with the basic conceptual framework of materialism/monism. Think of this as another item in state's evidence that your "former atheist credentials" are likely quite bogus.
The only logical conclusion I can reach, from a materialist’s perspective, is that my inference to design is a manifestation delusional thinking, as Richard Dawkins would propose.
I think it is delusional, but it's neither remarkable nor particularly alarming. As a Christian, I had this same false dichotomy cultivated in the church culture: either I'm CRAZY, or God exists! I don't *feel* crazy, ergo God exists! Boom. This is a way of exaggerating our mistakes to such an extent that we reject our mistakes as mistakes. It's a caricature of what's really happening. Humans are naturally superstitious. It has some evolutionary advantages, and it's a side effect of having a strong 'stance of intentionality'. So that doesn't mean you are crazy, or have lost your mind. You're just not using it in a rigorous or careful way. That's not a great method for getting high-performance models and results, but it's not something that will leave you unable to function. So, just consider that your common sense is a very crude tool, and is prone to errors small to gigantic, and science is a tool we have available for calibrating that judgment. A deer that is "paranoid", skittering away at the sound of a snapping twig, for fear it might be a predator lingering in the brush, is not crazy. The vast majority of the time, the deer is not correct in suspecting there is a menacing predator behind that twig-snap, but on balance, it benefits the deer to "err on the side of safety". It costs a modest amount of energy to be wrong and "run from nothing". It's a fatal error if it does not detect an actual mountain lion snapping a twig as it approaches. So that paranoia, that delusion, is natural, practical, and adaptive. You are similarly paranoid and 'design-centric'. This is how evolution has developed your psychology, such that you create designs, see designs everywhere and have a hair-trigger "design identifier" that is prone to fire all the time with false positives for the same reason the deer runs away. If you are a "conspiracy theorist" and suspect your tribal rival is planning to kill you so that he might have your possessions and take your wife as his own, better for you to be "paranoid" and think it's happening even when it's not -- over and over -- than to be lax one time and be the victim of such a plot. People with a propensity to such "false negatives" tend to get weeded out of the gene pool. So it's a gross miscalculation, a basic misread of what is going on around you, but you are in many ways naturally inclined to do it. If you choose to let your intuitions and superstitions be subject to OTHER mental tools you have -- the ability to think skeptically, objectively and critically, you can engage in the team sport of knowledge building, and understand those proclivities and "blind spots". Anyway, the "I'm right or I'm crazy" is lazy thinking, a false dichotomy. You may be just mistaken in very natural and expectable ways. Not crazy, but thoroughly wrong.eigenstate_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PST}

@BA77, I realize from your google doc link that even this post does not rise above the apologetics-spam threshold, but it's worth ticking through them, it's an impressive array of mistakes and misconceptions:
1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. – Big Bang points to a creation event. -
Not. Materialism makes no such prediction. Materialism isn't a scientific theory or hypothesis, but a philosophical conclusion, which holds that all of reality is reified as space/time/energy/matter (STEM). As such, it makes no predictions about the eternality of the universe. Per materialism, our universe could be created, but if it is, the creation would a be material phenomenon, whether personal or impersonal. And, the Big Bang doesn't point to any creation event that is a problem for materialism. In a cascading universe model of the multiverse, the Big Bang is a local "bubble" in a "foam" of universes. This is not a conflict at all with materialism. FAIL on this one.
2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. – Time was created in the Big Bang. -
See #1 above. Materialism makes no such prediction. As for "time had a creation", this is an incoherent concept. By definition, creation requires time. No change, no time. The theistic view, as you've stated it, is self-contradictory. FAIL on this one.
3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) – Space was created in the Big Bang. -
An eternal universe and a non-eternal universe are both compatible with materialism. I think you, or the author of the apologetics bit there, remain confused about what materialism consists of entails, philosophically. FAIL on this one.
4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted ‘material’ was created. – ‘Material’ was created in the Big Bang.
Maybe you are thinking of "Steady State Cosmology", or something? Materialism demands nothing like this. Never mind that this is a false dichotomy as posed -- matter and energy created in our local universe does not discount the eternality of a metaverse as an option. FAIL on this one.
5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space – Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -
There must be a "cdesignproponentists" problem at work here, and you've bungled a search/replace on some other term for materialism. Materialism just holds that reality is identical with STEM. Theism is not a model that generates the kind of predictions you are offering here, either. 'Limited by time and space' is another confused term, having to steal concepts from STEM ('limited' trades on concept of extension and dimensionality from STEM). FAIL on this one.
6. Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality. Thesism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even central, position within material reality. -
Materialism makes no such prediction. Materialism would only require that consciousness, if it is real, exists in the context of STEM. Quantum mechanics, of course, has revealed anything like what you say here. Contact your nearby university physics department and ask them, if you suppose it has. FAIL on this one.
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 – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) -
Materialism has not, does not, and cannot predict this. Again, you are confusing materialists with something else. GR and SR are completely compatible with materialism. Theism can't even participate on questions like this, as it is incompatible with scientific epistemology whenever it postulates conjectures like "God is eternal and is outside of time". It's a divide by zero, it's theology. FAIL on this one.
8. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind – Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. -
Materialism does not make, and cannot make such a prediction. Materialism is a monist ontology, standing in contrast to dualism, an ontology which understands there to be a material and immaterial domain of reality. Many theists are dualists, but some forms of theism are monist, materialist. Pantheism, for example. I understand you are given to conflating your Christianity with theism. FAIL on this one.
9. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe – Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. -
There's a pattern emerging, here. Materialism makes no such prediction. I have friends who are materialists, who, for reasons unrelated to their materialism, believe that the universe is filled with a multitude of alien life forms, and also friends who believe we are either alone in the universe, or one of just a handful of habitats for complex life. I won't bother to correct you on the statistics for hability/life-amenability. FAIL on this one.
10. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. -
OK, let's unpack this. Same error, first, as all the others: materialism makes no such prediction. Second, evolutionary theory does not predict or require the accumulation of nonprotein-coding DNA. Neither does it predict the absence of same. As for "fearfully and wonderfully made", well that speaks to the level of seriousness being applied here to our knowledge and theories. FAIL on this one.
11. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -
Materialism makes no such predictions. Materialism != evolutionary theory. And evolutionary does not lay "ultimate" responsibility for biological diversity on mutations. Evolutionary theory predicts the vast majority of mutations will be deleterious or neutral, and adaptive mutations rare. It's another part of the process -- selection -- that provides the key element for adaptation, differentiation, diversity and speciation. It's not seriously questioned where there are truly beneficial mutations. FAIL on this one.
12. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -
Materialism makes no such prediction. FAIL on this one.
13. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth -
Materialism makes no such prediction. Perhaps you have confused evolutionary theory with materialism? And, given your citation of Genesis, you are apparently confusing theism with Christianity? In any case, this item also misundertands what it purports to argue against (and what it hopes to argue for, in this particular item). FAIL on this one.
14. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. – The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. -
Materialism makes no such prediction. I'm not aware of any prediction of theism that says life must appear "abruptly" on a "fifth day". Evolutionary theory does predict the growth of diverse and complex forms in fossils over time, but there is no prediction that anything will be "self-evident". The "sudden appearance" of major phyla in what is called the Cambrian Explosion spanned 75 million years or more, and does not represent a conflict or problem for evolutionary theory. Not that this anything do with materialism. Or theism. FAIL on this one.
15. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record – Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. -
Materialism makes no such predictions. On evolutionary theory, ALL fossils are transtitional forms, as EVERY INDIVIDUAL is a transitional form (you are the transitional link between your parents and any children you may have, and have a different phenotype than any of them. The creationist idea of "transitional" reflects a basic misunderstanding of the theory. That said, many fossils exist which exhibit features common to types of organisms traditionally thought to be distinct. Darwinopterus, for example, is basal to pterodactyloids and rhamphorhynchoids. There are no fixed "types" per evolution. Even those groupings we are accustomed to thinking about as "types" have fossils that demonstrate structures common to disparate "types". FAIL on this one.
16. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. -
Materialism makes no such prediction. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction either. As for "suddenly appeared", it's not coherent on the terms you've offered. If, some hundreds of thousands of years ago, humans branched apart from some other lineage (apes), humans are no more recent than those apes. Both were "born" as distinct nodes in the clade at the same time, by definition. This is what "split" and "branch" imply. What you've said can't be true as you've said it. FAIL on this one. So... there's either just the routine spam reflex being indulged here in posting this, in which case you're just not aware of the mistakes and confusion of the people you are copying from, or the mistakes and confusion are your own. Even if we look past the pervasive confusion about what materialism is and what it holds (and the same goes for your use of 'theism', by the way), the commitments and demands you assign to evolutionary theory are not even "n00b" level problems. I do appreciate that this comes across as more "by your hand" than the normal spam you dump in the channel, though. It takes a little more effort, which is good, and it attaches all those errors and mistakes more directly to you, which is good. Don't forget to keep mentioning you're an evangelical Christian, and you think this is how an evangelical Christian should approach these topics in your posts, thanks.eigenstate_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PST}

I'm essentially a very simple person. I just look at stuff and try to figure out what makes sense. By "losing one's mind" I'm referring to not thinking rationally. It could be that inanimate matter spontaneously generated sophisticated, functionally-specified information and the associated hardware and software. It could be. It could be that the universe spontaneously popped out of a theoretical multiverse with all the laws of physics mysteriously fine-tuned for the eventual production of living systems. It could be. If the materialist is correct, and all that exists is the product of physicality and not mind, then I must have lost my mind (which is kind of a weird concept, since from a materialist's point of view mind does not exist -- it's all matter in motion). The only logical conclusion I can reach, from a materialist's perspective, is that my inference to design is a manifestation delusional thinking, as Richard Dawkins would propose. Everywhere I turn I find materialistic thinking to be infused with self-contradictory propositions, not to mention denial of the obvious implications of the discoveries of modern science, which, in my view, point evermore persuasively to design as the only reasonable and logical conclusion. I therefore reaffirm my original thesis: Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs.GilDodgen_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PST}

Stu,
Ok, but as the OP referred to — what do you make of the seemingly improbable amount of integrated fine-tuning...
The fine-tuning argument is problematic because it is essentially a probabilistic argument, yet we don't have the information we need to compute the relevant probabilities. The argument boils down to this: If the universe was created by an undirected process, the odds are extremely low that it would have the properties that it does -- properties that enable life. Therefore it must have been designed to have those properties. But how can we establish that the odds are low? We would have to answer questions like the following: 1. Are the parameters independent, or does setting the value of one parameter restrict the values that another parameter can take? 2. What do the probability distributions look like? Are all possible values of a parameter equally likely, or are some values far more likely than others? 3. How many universes are there? 4. What are all the possible sets of parameter values that could support intelligent life? Not just life as we know it, but any kind? Answering the first three questions is especially problematic. We don't have any experience in creating universes, so we can't rely on that, and we don't yet have a sufficiently complete theory of universe creation with which to answer the questions. So the fine-tuning argument ends up being another God-of-the-gaps argument: "We don't yet know why the universe's parameters have the values they do, so God must have done it."
So you’re open to the idea of a God (with proof) just not the God of the Bible.
Right. The Bible contains too many errors and contradictions to be a trustworthy source of information about God. It was clearly not written by an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God.
Surely you are basing that on your own subjective notion of morality.
No. An evil God is a logical possibility. In fact, an evil God -- or at the very least an indifferent one -- is far more plausible than a good God, given the amount of evil and suffering in the world.
And these days (not sure how long ago you turned to atheism)?
It was a while ago. I started doubting Christianity at about fourteen, and had progressed to atheism by the time I got to college.
How do the fairly recent revelations of fine-tuning square with your intellectual justification of atheism?
Pretty well, given the objections I raised above to the fine-tuning argument.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PST}

And just how do you presuppose to bless me Champ??? Is your god of random chaotic chance going to bless me??? Which reminds me; This following experiment is really interesting: Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007 I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?" The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes) http://vimeo.com/33479544bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PST}

Champignon, you are clearly in denial. Shoot I've seen more blind faith from Atheists in their nihilistic worldview (religion) than I EVER seen from Christians!,,, Regardless, of you confusing what is self-evident (again) please address the evidence here and do not run away (again)! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/either-i-have-lost-my-mind-or-materialists-have-lost-theirs/comment-page-1/#comment-418878bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PST}

Bornagain, In all sincerity, bless you for not spamming me this time.
Champignon, Atheism IS a religion, in that it seeks to answer life’s most important questions, like where we came from, where we are going, is there purpose and meaning to life.
No, it doesn't. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. As Bill Maher put it the other day, "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." Watch the video. It's funny.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PST}

champignon, please tell me, using your very own atheistic/materialistic worldview, (and not borrowing from Theism) exactly why it was morally wrong for Stalin and Chairman Mao to murder tens of millions of their own citizens; Cruel Logic – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI Description; A brilliant serial killer videotapes his debates with college faculty victims. The topic of his debate with his victim: His moral right to kill him.bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PST}

Champignon, Atheism IS a religion, in that it seeks to answer life's most important questions, like where we came from, where we are going, is there purpose and meaning to life. For you to deny that Atheism is a religion is for you to be thoroughly confused (as usual) as to exactly what a 'religious worldview' entails.bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PST}

Stu7,
Well as BA77?s statistics reveal, there are more than enough tragic events throughout human history that are attributed to an atheistic worldview.
Attributed to atheism by people like BA77. The real question is which (if any) atrocities were motivated by atheism in the way that the Crusades, 9/11, Heaven's Gate, the Thirty Years' War, and many others were motivated by religious zeal.
Remember the original quote was: “Indeed, it is surely religious zeal rather than atheism which is historically notorious in the fortunes of mankind.”
You were the one who changed the focus to relativism, not me:
Moral relativism, the progeny of Atheism, is just as, if not more so, historically notorious in the fortunes of mankind than religious zeal.
You continue:
And if you reject to being lumped into one “large atheistic grouping”, I reject being categorised into a group of “religious zealots”.
I'm not sure why you mention this. I didn't call you a religious zealot, and neither did Stoppard. Anyway, this is all tangential. My purpose in this exchange was just to point out the egregious quotemine of Stoppard.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PST}

Any scientific papers coming out with grand claims of "New evidence of chance, undirected causes!". Nope. Didn't think so.Bantay_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST}

Champ, seems that you are making excuses for not engaging the evidence. Moreover you are falsely accusing me of 'not understanding the argument' when I have in fact found you to be thoroughly misinformed of the evidence against your sophomoric atheistic position several times (every time?!!). As far as I can see you merely proclaim your position to be true with never any substantiating evidence and when confronted with solid evidence to the contrary you NEVER address it forthrightly, but merely 'run away' as you accused me of doing. Now I have addressed you in detail here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/either-i-have-lost-my-mind-or-materialists-have-lost-theirs/comment-page-1/#comment-418878 Are you going to 'run away' again? Or are you going to honestly admit that your atheistic position is completely falsified?bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

Axel,
Instead of constantly rabbiting, “Spam, spam, spam, spam,” champignon, why don’t you take the normal, simple, rational step of rebutting, point by point, the utterly compelling EMPIRICAL evidence bornagain77 has adduced in defence of Intelligent Design and theism. It is one of the most primordial purposes of these fora. YOU CANNOT. They are established science. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT OR NOT? You materialists simply refuse to comment on them, still less put the jigsaw peices together. Why would that be?
I usually don't bother with bornagain77 because 1) His spam tends to be irrelevant to the topic being discussed; 2) When you engage him, he usually just responds with more spam instead of mounting a counterargument; 3) He doesn't understand the things he's spamming about; 4) He doesn't understand the arguments that his opponent is making, so that on the rare occasions when he responds with a non-spam argument, it's typically a non-sequitur; 5) He gets upset and runs away when you catch him in an error. If you think I'm being overly harsh, take a look at this thread. BA77 butts into a conversation I'm having with Bruce David and spams us. When I ask him to address the actual argument I'm making, he scores an impressive own goal, gets upset, and runs away. I come to UD to 1) test my ideas against folks who are highly motivated to disprove them, 2) to enjoy the challenge of debate, 3) to learn what "the other side" is thinking, and 4) for sheer entertainment. BA77 is useless for #1 and #2. He's useful for #3 for a while, but that trails off rapidly because he repeats himself so much. The only thing left is #4. BA77 can be amusing when he lets his true colors shine through (as with the bizarre triple and quadruple commas), but after a while it's no longer worth mining these nuggets out of the mountains of spam. I gave BA77 a chance, but it just wasn't worth it.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PST}

For years I've wondered how the German people could have been deceived by the propaganda being espoused by the nazis, but since researching the Creation/I.D/Evolution debate, I've come to understand how it was done. Evolutionists are spreading propaganda as if it were 'fact' and the more outrageous the claims, the more (a large number) of the public believe them. It boggles the mind to see allegedly rational, logical people ACTUALLY believing the nonsense of darwinism.Blue_Savannah_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

further notes:
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
Verse and Music:
Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;,,, Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PST}

It is also interesting to note that materialists, instead of honestly dealing with the obvious theistic implications of quantum wave collapse in quantum mechanics, will many times try to invoke something along the lines of Everett's Many Worlds interpretation when dealing with quantum mechanics, in which the quantum wave is held to be abstract instead of real.
Quantum mechanics Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[39] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Yet the 'quantum wave packet' is shown to be real, not abstract in the following; 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
Further notes on the 'quantum wave packet';
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA
Thus the 'necessary consciousness' that is collapsing the wave packet to each central point of unique conscious observation in the universe, is found to be a 'infinite dimensional consciousness' which possesses the attribute of control over infinite informationbornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

As well, preceding the fact that there must be a 'First Mover' for the movement of the particles themselves within this universe, there is now also shown to be a necessity for a sufficient 'conscious' cause (God/First Mover) to explain why quantum waves collapse to each unique point of conscious observation in the universe.
Quantum mind–body problem Excerpt:Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601
Moreover, The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PST}

"My supernatural destiny is entirely my own business, thanks very much," A puerile remark. In your dreams. Get over it, Kevin. "God exists, because look at all the stuff He has made." No. Because of the evidence, we are fortunate enough to have had BA77 lay before us. Would you care to rebut ANY OF THE EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE? Please feel free. It's shut everyone else up. "The existence of something is not a proof of a particular preference for cause..." Gobbledegook. Well, slovenly writing, presumably reflecting your thought process. – even if the proponent is utterly convinced that all ‘supernatural destinies’ hinge upon others sharing the recognition that he himself has come to." Your weird personalisation of the assent or rejection of even a putative truth, is indicative of where your interest in truth, as opposed to your clamorous emotional esurience, is located in your hierarchy of values. I can't find it. Are you calling that Italian scientist a liar or a fool? You can have your own opinion, but not you own facts. Once you grasp that, let me know. In the meantime, don't call me. I'll call you.Axel_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply