Gobsmackingly Stupid Things Atheists Say, Example 8,264

_{Barry Arrington

June 13, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

Jason Rosenhouse writes:

We certainly do not know a priori that piles of bricks do not form images of imaginary unicorns, and it is not logically impossible that they do.

UPDATE:

I decided I could not resist adding Example 8,265 from the some post:

I do not know how the chemical reactions and electrical firings inside my head lead to mental images, but there is copious evidence that they do and zero evidence that anything non-physical is involved

Wow. How does Rosenhouse deal with all of the evidence contrary to his position? Easy peasy. Fiat. Just declare that it does not exist.

Turns out the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard after all. All David Chalmers needed to do was call up Jason Rosenhouse and the conversation would have gone something like this

Dave: Hey, Jason, I have all of these observations that I cannot fit into monist categories. The observations are so puzzling that I have coined a term, the “hard problem of consciousness.”

Jason: Do tell.

David: Yep. I have all of this evidence. How do I deal with it Jason?

Jason: Easy. The evidence does not exist.

David: I’m pretty sure it does.

Jason: Nope. You are wrong. It does not exist.

David. Well, OK then. I’m glad we talked. That’s a load off my mind.

In all seriousness, this is a persistent problem that materialists don’t seem to be able to understand, far less overcome. They genuinely seem to believe that evidence that does not persuade them is “non-evidence” instead of “unpersuasive-to-me-evidence.” See here where I discussed this in depth. Especially amusing is the smug certitude with which Rosenhouse and his ilk dismiss all evidence contrary to their position as if it does not exist. It must be nice to live in a bubble of incurious certitude where one’s beliefs are never challenged because anything that could possibly challenge them does not, by fiat, exist. Nice, but boring.

Comments

GC, all you tell me by your continued talking points is that you do not wish to address the trove of documents we do have [and an underlying formalised oral report dating to 5 or so years after the event], the context of an appeal in a controversy 25 years after the event pointing to the still living witnesses, and the broader context of up to a dozen minimal facts that force a serious comparative difficulties challenge. Those who do wish to address that evidence may find it useful to start here on. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Hello, Gordon Cunningham, # 45: ___________________________________________________________ "I am a materialist but I don’t say that there is no evidence for ID, or God, or objective morality, etc. But I do not believe that any of the evidence that has been presented by proponents is very convincing." ___________________________________________________________ Ultimately, it is not my job to convince in such matters. Clearly, the miraculous evidence that God presented to Moses, and the developing nation, was enough to convince them to worship every week; an unbroken chain, from Sinai to the present. That is, to remember He created in six days. Yes, that does seem a 'howler' in this day and age: that is, at first glance under beguiling Darwinism and the Big Bang theories. However, the intermittent shows of power by Yahweh, was enough to convince a good number of people; that is, within the limits of faith, either by fear or love - to listen. Still, people faded away, again and again, as reliable recorders of the truth stated. Then we arrive at Jesus. No human can prove that God is Jesus; God in part, and God in whole, in the flesh. However, faith is a conviction in the unseen, on scriptural evidence. A seemingly almost insignificant means to convay truth of upmost importance. As for conviction; Letters running through our bones, "Made by God," what would that do? Letters in the sky, "beware, I Am the Lord Almighty," what would result? Eventually, in terms of that belief, due to inherent flaws, we would come up with some excuse to ridicule and disbelieve. Jesus knew, even if someone would generate Himself from the dead, some would not believe. In terms of that belief, if the word of the Judaeo-Christian God will not do, nothing will. Free choice must be respected, and the consequences therein. KF was reporting a single event. Throughout those scriptures, God intervened in a consistent manner to thousands at a time. In this day and age, people in droves have witnessed mystical phenomenon, and of differing persuasions. As a side issue, in terms of evolutionist Christians; what would be the point of such a theoretical evolutionist God using chance, minus His intelligence, and mutations; then for Him to come along and use for humans, super- intelligent guidance, and with miraculous instant alterations to matter? Gordon; what would convince us of such a God? It appears, some do not need convincing, having believed they have convinced themselves, as in the case of the (almost) Rev Charlie Darwin, BA in theology; who wrote, the Judaeo-Christian God is "erroneous" and Christianity is not a religion divinley revealed. Where did such 'expertise,' such conviction come from? Surely a substitute God; belief in natural selection. Best of wishes.mw_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "Which of the arguments for God’s existence do you not find convincing?" I've already admitted that I have never felt compelled to get deep into the God/no god debate. Frankly, I think it is a pointless argument as there is no way to prove that he exists and no way to prove that he doesn't. This being said, I think that KF's claim about the 500 eye witnesses to the resurrection is not convincing. To the best of my knowledge, there is not 500 individual claims by 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. There is a claim by others that there were 500 eyewitnesses. As I said, this is still evidence, but IMHO, not very convincing. There are numerous people alive today who claim to have been abducted by alienate. And their descriptions are remarkably similar. I find their eye witness testimony to be unconvincing as well.Gordon Cunningham_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Gordon Cunningham
I am a materialist but I don’t say that there is no evidence for ID, or God, or objective morality, etc. But I do not believe that any of the evidence that has been presented by proponents is very convincing.
Which of the arguments for God's existence do you not find convincing?StephenB_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

KF: "MW, that’s right — we are dealing with those willing to find any excuse to dismiss eyewitnesses who so often paid in their blood for speaking the truth; and of the core 500 not one was broken..." With respect, but the fallacy of this statement has been pointed out many times. We are not talking about 500 eyewitness accounts. A document, or several, that claims that there were 500 witnesses does not carry anywhere near the same veracity as 500 individually documented witness accounts would. They are both evidence, but one form is far less reliable than the other. I am a materialist but I don't say that there is no evidence for ID, or God, or objective morality, etc. But I do not believe that any of the evidence that has been presented by proponents is very convincing.Gordon Cunningham_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

KF, thanks for the link; a good read. The graffiti from 200 AD, of a man with the head of a donkey, crucified and bruised on a tau cross, says enough. Your ref, http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds I believe this life is the backdrop to spiritual warfare played out in unseen realms. The repercussions are experienced one way or another. Satan is not bothered whether we are atheist or not. The perfection of evil wills to destroy, including atheists. His target is to rob Christ. More so, the crucifiction; the fulfilment of the Hebrew Scriptures.mw_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

MW, that's right -- we are dealing with those willing to find any excuse to dismiss eyewitnesses who so often paid in their blood for speaking the truth; and of the core 500 not one was broken, not in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse. Testimony put on record and passed down to us at equally fearsome cost. In choosing between those witnesses and today's so often supercilious and snidely dismissive skeptics, the contest isn't even close just on character. And we have not touched the millions transformed through encounter with the living God in the face of the prophesied, crucified, risen, glorified Christ. For those who want to think about it, I suggest here on. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

KF at 40. Indeed.Barry Arrington_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 34:
So, do tell us your positively easy solution to the formerly hard problem Sev.
Sev: [crickets] That's the second time this week Sev has made an outrageous claim and then slunk off when challenged. Starting to see a pattern here.Barry Arrington_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

BA:
this is a persistent problem that materialists don’t seem to be able to understand, far less overcome. They genuinely seem to believe that evidence that does not persuade them is “non-evidence” instead of “unpersuasive-to-me-evidence.”
The problem, of course is that the latter opens the issue that perhaps the problem is "me" not what is objectively warranted by the evidence. Ooooooooooopsie, how dare I point to objective reasoning and warrant, tut tut tut. (Esp on matters moral: https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/sad-news-event-mass-murder-at-nightclub-in-orlando-fl/#comment-610585 ) Selective hyperskepticism rides again. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

pardon typo, neurologicalkairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Seversky: Pardon an analogy. Economic and statistical predictions are a commonplace, and are often accurate based on insight and well warranted claims. A second. I often visit a shop here owned by relatives. They have an electronic monitoring system used for overwatch. I have every reason to believe the accuracy of what I see, but that I see and know what is going on does not constrain those in the vids. Though, knowing there is overwatch may constrain behaviour. Now, consider how every line of longitude converges to the N pole, so it is due north of a full cycle of hours at any given time. Now, consider the possibility of an entanglement of everywhere and every-when in the world that converges to a metaphorical north pole of reality. That pole would be present to everywhere, at every time. Further consider, a two-way interface that allows intervention not just awareness. Now, let us consider what ethical theists in the Judaeo-Christian tradition understand God to be: the inherently good, just, holy, loving, redemptive Creator-God, maker and sustainer of all worlds, in whom we live and move and have our being, upholding all things by the word of his power, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accordance with our evident nature . . . thus, manifestly evident, conscience attested core principles of moral governance. That such a God would be all-knowing would mean that he is aware of every where and all times, plus what might have been but is not. Obviously, as at the polar entangled node, he can act into the world at strategically judged times and in ways that would bring to awareness signs of his presence. But such does not automatically entail a forcing of the world to any given path, or of individuals to some rigid script not truly open to freedom. Recall, he is ALSO aware of what might have been but is not. Choice can be real, consequences involving responsibility can be real, without imposing fatalism or determinism. However the power of overwatch will allow general direction as opposed to specific arbitrary control undermining responsible, rational freedom. JDH is right, "It simply doesn’t follow that if God knows the future that we don’t have free will." Nor, does it follow from there being a general, lawlike course of events, that miracles are impossible. God's involvement is an enabling condition and he may have good reason for interventions of diverse degrees that go beyond the mundane. Where also, empirically grounded generalisations are always in principle subject to rare exception for good reason. We can rely on the general lawlike course of the world without being forced into some stereotypical dilemma of mechanistic determinism (perhaps modified by stochastic process) vs arbitrary and capricious interventionism. It may seem hard to accept but ethical theism is dynamically as well as logically coherent. Going further, evolutionary materialist belief that brain-cns facts fix all "mental" facts in a physicalistic cosmos is patently self referentially incoherent, leading inter alia to the hard problem of consciousness. For, mechanical and/or chance interactions in processors, precisely, are blindly mechanical processes as opposed to genuinely rational ones. GIGO obtains, and there is want of freedom to be rational. So even participation in a discussion implying freedom and responsibility to choose, is an indicator that we are not the mechanisms being suggested. Instead, and as I have done here at UD for years, I suggest the Smith model, two tier controller cybernetic loop model. The brain-cns serves as an in the loop i/o controller indeed, but it is not the whole story. A supervisory level allows freedom and responsible, rational choice that interfaces with the i/o level, perhaps through quantum level influences. So, we can take the neorological facts seriously without becoming locked into blind mechanical determinism or chance or both. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2016
June
06
Jun
16
16
2016
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Seversky @31:
Personally, I don’t hold “that there is something beyond the physical and the material” because I’m not sure what that might mean but I can’t rule it out for the same reason.
Well, that is part of the reason I asked the question I did about information @30. Just trying to see if you are willing to consider that anything could be non-reducible to the purely physical and material. Set aside God for a minute. Is something that you experience every day in your life – information – reducible to the purely physical and material?
I think those atheists are still atheist with respect to the existence of God or gods but they are agnostic about what might lie beyond.
You’re probably right. Seems a little strange to proclaim the absence of something if at the same time they don’t have an opinion about what might exist. But anyway.
I think it is true on the assumption of an omniscient God who exists outside our spacetime continuum but has full access to all of it from start to finish.
What does God being omniscient or existing outside our continuum have to do with our free will? It simply doesn’t follow that if God knows the future that we don’t have free will. That is a red herring, so I would suggest not trying to use that argument against the existence of God or against your conception of Christianity (or any other religious persuasion).Eric Anderson_{June 15, 2016
June
06
Jun
15
15
2016
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Seversky - First a little background -- It is obviously possible for a mind to create a system of beliefs which has axioms that constrain the possible, so that some simple statements become impossible. For example if I choose my mathematical world to exist ONLY of the non-negative integers ( 0,1,2,3....) and use as addition the usual form of addition we are familiar with, it is impossible to believe that M + N is less than M for any M,N that belong to the given world. M + N is less than M becomes a statement which can not possibly be true. Therefore, it would be foolish to believe that somehow, I have found an M and an N which make the statement true. Now onto the argument... I would much rather believe what is hard to believe than choose to believe what can not possibly be true. IMHO the difference between you and me on the issue of free will is that I believe something that is hard to believe, you believe something which is impossible to believe. Your axiom is materialism. You accept nothing inside of your worldview that can make a conscious choice to disobey the physical laws. So choice does not exist in your world view. Therefore the statement, "I have correctly chosen to believe I have free will" ( which I assert your life as a whole shows you believe to be true) is in your proposed world an impossible statement. Not just hard to believe, impossible. It is hopelessly impossible inside of the constraints of your chosen axioms. My axiom is an omniscient God who knows the future. Does this forbid the statement "I have correctly chosen to believe that I have free will"? My belief in an All Powerful God gives me several options which His future knowledge, does not constrain my ability to make a free choice. I admit it is hard to believe these things, but it is not impossible. You comment that you can not accept Christianity because of the insistences and contradictions. My comment is that I would much rather believe what is hard to believe, then to believe something that is impossible. I honestly hope you understand this and it helps you to find God.JDH_{June 15, 2016
June
06
Jun
15
15
2016
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Seversky, # 28, agrees: ____________________________________________________________ "I do not know how the chemical reactions and electrical firings inside my head lead to mental images, but there is copious evidence that they do and zero evidence that anything non-physical is involved." ____________________________________________________________ Produce any 2D motion picture by none intelligent design, let alone animate it or energise the system in order for it to become alive or active in some 3D manner? If we let the tools of materialism do the searching for the non-physical, how do we really know we are not simply using the 'wrong' tool to search for the immaterial or spirit? Faith, may be such an instrument, and which may lead to hidden dimensions. Some using occult magic spells, may also produce or experience phenomena. And it seems, magic mushrooms or mediums, may do similar in order to contact - though forbidden to search it out in Judaeo-Christian terms - the spirit world. Jesus said, it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. That is, matter left to itself. Zero evidence of such? There is recorded truthful eye witnessed evidence, ready to die after seeing beyond the physical boundaries of the flesh; the unbelievable.mw_{June 15, 2016
June
06
Jun
15
15
2016
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 28: "I would agree." This statement entails that you believe the hard problem of consciousness is not hard after all. In fact, if must be positively easy. So, do tell us your positively easy solution to the formerly hard problem Sev.Barry Arrington_{June 15, 2016
June
06
Jun
15
15
2016
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Hi Seversky, # 29: -------------------------------------------------- "An omniscient God knows all that exists to be known, regardless of dimensional properties. If He knows what is, to us, the future then it exists and will come to pass whatever we might decide. How can we then have free will?" -------------------------------------------------- Do you think you or I have enough free will or not? Are we captive to the thoughts and will, of say for example, the Judaeo-Christian God? That is, divine law? In Darwinian terms, is our free will not the result of human thought, behaviour, atmospherics and past animals grunts, with a great deal of mutated destructive free will and chance? (I include mutated free will in relation to the Judaeo-Christian belief, that 'we' were created in the divine will). Who therefore, even in some type of collective consenting Darwinian free will, is to be chief amongst us animals that is morally or amorally certain and reliable? I believe God knows which way everyone will go. In our own free we have chosen.mw_{June 15, 2016
June
06
Jun
15
15
2016
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

@seversky Again, it is totally obvious your view is geared towards facts only. If we purposefully set out to devise a view in which subjectivity is completely disregarded, then we would come close to your view. These muslims, christians, and "beauticians". They cannot evidence any beauty, so then if there is no evidence of beauty, than it is wrong to accept beauty as a reality.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @ 17
Let me make sure I understand. If by “no deity or some other intelligent agency” you mean nothing other than the physical and the material, then your statement is definitely true. However, it is also tautologically true, by definition: If there is nothing but the material, then everything is material.
With the caveat that by "material" we are referring to the current understanding of physical reality in physics, then, yes.
I think there are some atheists, at least in the sense of denying the existence of deity, who nevertheless hold that there is something beyond the physical and the material. Do you feel that this is a rational position an atheist could take? Does it mean they are more properly agnostic, rather than atheist?
I think there are some atheists who believe as you say. Personally, I don't hold "that there is something beyond the physical and the material" because I'm not sure what that might mean but I can't rule it out for the same reason. I think those atheists are still atheist with respect to the existence of God or gods but they are agnostic about what might lie beyond.
The other problem is that an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future completely undermines the concept of free will.
No. This is definitely not true. See my comments here, where this very issue has been discussed in detail (ironically, not because of the proposition from atheists, but by theistic evolutionists) – let me repeat, I truly hope some readers here will appreciate the irony of this claim being brought up both by atheist materialists and some theistic evolutionists: https://uncommondescent.com.....dr-hunter/
I think it is true on the assumption of an omniscient God who exists outside our spacetime continuum but has full access to all of it from start to finish.Seversky_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Seversky/rvb8: Is information physical or non-physical? How does it arise?Eric Anderson_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

JDH @ 13
Seversky – Please bear with me while I try to explain something to you. You said
The other problem is that an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future completely undermines the concept of free will.
Let me try to explain with all humility what I think the problems are with your statement. I will of course use my favorite example – the book “Flatland”. In Flatland a 3-d sphere injects himself into the 2-d world of Flatland whose occupants are 2-d polygons and circles. Of course, the sphere is quite aware that in reality he is a sphere occupying a small amount of the 2-d world of Flatland. The Flatlanders themselves however see him differently. They would describe him as a circle who can contract and expand up to a maximum size at will. He can also completely disappear and then reappear in a completely different place
I have read similar analogies that try to explain how additional dimensions might appear in our universe and I'm quite willing to entertain the possibility that such exist. I suspect that there I still a great deal we have yet to learn about this universe. Unfortunately, I don't see that this helps your case. An omniscient God knows all that exists to be known, regardless of dimensional properties. If He knows what is, to us, the future then it exists and will come to pass whatever we might decide. How can we then have free will?
You should know that one of God’s attributes is that He inhabits Eternity.
That may be. He may exist outside our four-dimensional spacetime continuum. That may also mean that He sees our past, present and future as all one, laid out before Him as we might see the whole landscape of the United States laid out before us, viewed from the International Space Station. Back in the days when the first explorers moved out into the uncharted interior of the continent, they had no idea what was out there, what they were going to see. But God would have. He would have known exactly what lay ahead of them in three-dimensional space, just as He would have known exactly what lay ahead of them in four-dimensional spacetime. God's existence in Eternity makes no difference to His knowledge of the future of our spacetime and its implications for our free will.
I feel sorry because if you continue to accept the untruths you have been taught and the corollaries you have deduced, you will miss it
I may well be wrong about a lot of things. I am just human like you and everyone else. If there is a difference between us it is that you appear to accept the ultimate truth of Christian theology without question. That is more important than any perceived inconsistencies and contradictions. I can't get around the inconsistencies and contradictions.Seversky_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 12
Seversky, consider this statement from Rosenhouse
I do not know how the chemical reactions and electrical firings inside my head lead to mental images, but there is copious evidence that they do and zero evidence that anything non-physical is involved
Agree or disagree that there is zero evidence?
I would agree.Seversky_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

rvb8 # 22: ------------------------------------------------------------ “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;" And expanded by evnfrdrcksn # 23: "I’ve always love that line. It’s beautiful. Thank you for quoting that. I agree. The things people miss for the trees. There is nothing in any religion that even comes close to being that concise about our existence." ------------------------------------------------------------ Of course, agnostic Darwin said the first line: "There is Grandeur...." He later regretted making reference to the Judaeo-Christian scripture in a seemingly endorsing manner. Ah the 'beauty' of Darwin's imagination. In "Origin," he said: 'let there be transitional forms in abundance.' But darkness dwelt in the land of Origin and he found not one. Then Darwin also lamented, 'why do life forms appear suddenly in the layers of fossils? And darkness dwelt in the land of Origin. Finally, Darwin said, 'let there be light, so by imperceptible steps, natural selection produces recapitulation in embryology, so everybody can see evolution happen.' Then dawned Professor Ernst Haeckel, who perverted the course of law. And more darkness was added to the land of Origin. Yet, true scientific light was shed on human embryology; they are nothing else but human. A theory that intellectually crushes the human validity of the unborn, in no way is beautiful, it is rather the destroyer of great beauty in potential. Common descent has never been observed, whereas, Moses and the emerging house of Israelites observed the miraculous, and as true witnesses, recorded the truth. Darwin held a BA from Cambridge, he was to be the Rev Charlie Darwin. Then darkness visible arose; the degrading, ugly theory, that humans are nothing but animals.mw_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

@rvb8 You are obviously drilled into thinking in terms of cause and effect only. Freedom has another set of rules, which is possibility and decision. If X can turn out A or B, and the decision turns out B, then the question "what was it that made the decision turn out B in stead of A?", can only be answered with a decision. This procedure then results in an opinion. So that is a totally different procedure from the logic of facts. Facts use a logic of cause and effect. A fact is a 1 to 1 corresponding model of something. The fact that 70 percent of the earth is covered by water, is forced by the evidence of it coming from the earth itself. The surface of the earth is the cause, the fact is the effect forced by that cause. But obviously when we talk about agency, we are talking about what is free. Agency by definition does the job of deciding. So it is impossible to apply the logic of cause and effect to it, which is the logic that facts require. In stead of objectivity, we have subjectivity to deal with agency. We simply express our emotion about the issue what the agency of a decision was, and expression of emotion operates by free will, thus choosing the answer as to what it was. So the question "what is it that made the decision turn out B in stead of A?", is answered by for instance choosing between love and hate, choosing love. Then the opinion is that love made the decision turn out B in stead of A. So there is 0 evidence for love and hate in the objective sense of it. There is evidence that decisions have been made. But that does not mean that love and hate are not real. In stead it means that subjectivity is a proper and valid tool to define the reality of agency of decisions. Just as much as objectivity is a proper and valid tool to deal with the reality of the resulting decisions.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Indeed, it's like when a skeptic makes the claim “there is no truth”, he is making a universal truth claim about truth... On what basis are limited finite humans in a position to make such a claim? Wouldn’t a better default position be, “I don’t know?” This is one of the reasons I think that most internet atheists are either deluded, dishonest or daft (or some combination of the three.)john_a_designer_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

rvb8
I do accept that description in its entirety, and just to show you how completely at odds we are, the quote gives me amazing satisfaction, and a strong feeling of well being.
The cite in question is a classic of self referential incoherence and self-falsification. KFkairosfocus_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

rvb8 I've always love that line. It's beautiful. Thank you for quoting that. I agree. The things people miss for the trees. There is nothing in any religion that even comes close to being that concise about our existence.evnfrdrcksn_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone on cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Use, "breathed" however you will, if you need it to mean God, I'm fine with that, of course it doesn't, but let that pass. I have the whole of Rosenberg's book and am pleased you quoted so honestly. Not here generally, but at other sites quote mining is rife; thank you?Yes! I do accept that description in its entirety, and just to show you how completely at odds we are, the quote gives me amazing satisfaction, and a strong feeling of well being. That is because it seems to convey a level of human equality religion aspires to but never achieves.rvb8_{June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

rvb8, Do you believe as follows, a clip from Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:
FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates. The physical facts fix all the facts. The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live. [W W Norton, 2011]
If so, you face utter incoherence as there is then no basis for the responsible rational freedom you presume by entering argument at all on the assumption that you hold that you seek to reason with us. If not, then you are looking at the first evidence that there is a lot more to reality than the physical-temporal observed cosmos. (Namely, our experience of responsible, rational consciousness. [As a first step consider the Eng Derek Smith 2-tier controller cybernetic loop model here, with brain as i/o interface and info store.]) From which, much else follows as we are patently contingent beings and so cannot be self-explanatory. So, as fair comment, the issue is not your rhetorical "there is no evidence" but instead that you need to re-evaluate the evidence that is there staring you in the face. KF PS: M62 is also right to point to the existence of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity, FSCO/I as a strong sign of design in life from its root on up. There is literally a trillion member observation base of FSCO/I, starting with the Internet and a world of technology all around. In no case is there an observed causation of such by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Instead, in every case, its observed origin is by design. Something, that is readily explained by inability of the resources of the observed cosmos to scan any more than an all but vanishing fraction of the config space of possibilities for 1,000 bits, 1.07 * 10^301.kairosfocus_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

If you think molecules banging against each other created the DNA/ribosome replicator, and the first cells, you're an idiot, and there's no reason to listen to you. Period.mike1962_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply