Leading Scientist Walks Back Doomsday Claim

_{Barry Arrington
March 26, 2020

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The Scientist who panicked the world with predictions of up to 2.2 million American deaths now says “never mind.” See here.

Comments

___
"Despite the apparent obviousness of the existence of other minds, drawing up a theory that can prove the existence of other minds is quite difficult. That may seem like a pointless venture". "Of course there are other minds! But consider the fact that you can observe your own thoughts, your own sensations from the sense of your body, your own emotions, and no one else can (presumably), and neither can your observe other peoples'. How do you know the other bodies around you actually have minds? How do you know it is not an illusion created by your own mind? How do you know they are not robots, or controlled by demons? How can you actually prove other minds exist, without direct access to their mental states? That remains a problem."
https://pairopatetics.blogspot.com/2013/09/plantinga-pwns-part-ii-god-and-other.html?m=1Truthfreedom_{April 2, 2020
April
04
Apr
2
02
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

JVL goes on to claim
JVL: Also are you saying Muslims and Buddhists and Janes and Hindus and Confucians and Zoroastrians could not have come up with science? Perhaps you meant “theists” instead of “Christians”?
'Christians' is exactly what I meant to say:
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017 Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,, Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,, In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.” He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593 IN HIS RECENT BOOK For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues “not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.”,,, Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook. There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered. https://spectator.org/47614_whats-big-deal-about-intelligent-design/ If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
JVL then offers his opinion,
JVL: I think the process of guessing how things work and then systematically checking different possible infuences is pretty natural.
There is nothing that is 'pretty natural' about science:
contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
JVL then offers another opinion
It’s just being careful when eliminating stuff that isn’t true.
Yet, ‘truth’ in general, and absolute truth in particular, are abstract immaterial entities that can never be grounded within the Darwinist’s materialistic worldview. In fact, as much as it may irk some atheists to know, “Truth” can only ever be properly grounded within the Mind of God:
The Argument from Truth 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2, Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
Thus, since JVL believes that we must be "careful when eliminating stuff that isn’t true" and his atheistic materialism cannot possibly ground truth, and therefore cannot possibly be 'true', then JVL should rightly 'eliminate' his atheistic materialism as being true. JVL then offers this opinion
I don’t think it means you assume there will be an answer that you can understand.
Again, only Theism in general, and Christianity in particular, presupposes that, since we are made in the image of God, that we can dare have any comprehension of the universe whatsoever. Again, Atheists presuppose a chaotic universe that cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. Einstein himself considered it a 'miracle' that we could comprehend the universe and chastised atheists in the process of claiming that such comprehension was a miracle:
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
JVL then finishes with this statement
JVL: Anyway, we’re not going to resolve this issue so if you choose not to respond I won’t mind.
First, Do not presuppose to talk for me. Secondly, since I consider you to be pretty much a dogmatic atheist who will never be honest to the evidence at hand, then I could care less what you personally 'mind' or don't 'mind' about me. In fact, since you deny the reality of your very own immaterial mind, (which is, by far, the most certain thing you can possibly know about reality, i.e. Descartes, 'I think therefore I am'), then I seriously consider it pretty much a self-admitted established fact on your part that you have 'lost your mind'
Matthew 22: 36-38 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.
bornagain77_{March 29, 2020
March
03
Mar
29
29
2020
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PST}

at post 83 JVL offers this supposed 'defense' of his Darwinian atheism. He starts off with this,,,
BA77: For instance, logic itself, which is necessary for any rational discourse that you may wish to make, is a Theistic presupposition. JVL: IF there is no deity then we must have done it all ourselves!!
JVL is basically saying that logic is just an invention of man, i.e. an illusion. And that logic does not objectively exist in reality. i.e. 'we did it ourselves'. Yet JVL's own sentence is blatantly self-defeating in that it presupposes objective existence of logic in order to try to argue that logic is just an invention of man, i.e. an illusion of man. Specifically, JVL presupposed the conditional logic of a "If-Then" statement, i.e. IF there is no deity THEN ; we must have done it (logic) all ourselves!! i.e. if p then q. I have my own if-then statement. IF you must use logic to argue against the objective existence of logic, THEN ; your argument collapses in on itself and proves the contrary. JVL's arguments do not get any better. JVL goes on to claim:
BA77: Exactly how are logic and reasoning, and therefore science itself, to be grounded in the atheist’s materialistic worldview that insists everything arose through chaos without any rhyme or reason behind it? JVL: Not entirely chaotic. In evolutionary theory, for example, only mutations are random.
There are a couple of problems with JVL's statement. First, JVL is trying to claim that Darwinian evolution is not entirely random chaos but that the random chaos within Darwinian evolution is constrained and/or directed by natural selection. Yet natural selection itself is vitally dependent of random chance and/or random chaos.
More on Randomness in Natural Selection and Evolution - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - April 7, 2016 Excerpt: Thus, chance events determine everything in evolution: form and function of all structures dominating natural selection in the struggle for life and hence the entire phylogeny of plants and animals. There is, of course, even according to neo-Darwinian theory, no selection without form and function of already existing and subsequently improved structures. Let me emphasize: all must be generated by random micro-mutations with “only slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype.” Hence, natural selection is in itself neither self-steering nor an ordering mechanism, etc. Instead it is the result of structures, features, forms, functions, and capabilities altogether produced by the chance events of accidental mutations alone, including the overproduction of descendants. It is the habitual method of many supporters of the modern synthesis to disconnect or decouple natural selection from chance events, but this is totally unjustified. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/more_on_randomn/
Moreover, Natural Selection is now found to be grossly inadequate in its ability to constrain and/or to direct random mutations in a certain direction or towards a certain goal:
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
Many Darwinists who are familiar with the failings of natural selection within the mathematics of population genetics now champion what is termed 'neutral theory'. Austin Hughes stated 'Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.'
Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory - Laurence A. Moran - June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html
Thus, with Natural selection being tossed to the side, by population genetics, as the supposed explanation for the 'wonderful design' we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but instead are now reduced to arguing that the 'wonderful design' we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all. Thus JVL's claim that natural selection can somehow overcome the chaos that he presupposes to be the foundation of the universe and of life itself, so as to produce our faculties of logic and reasoning is found to be a false claim. JVL goes on to claim
BA77: All of which explains, number one, why there were only Christians and no atheists at the founding of modern science. JVL: How do you know ‘they’ were all actually Christians? Sometimes people pay lip service because they don’t want to be ostracized.
Like, for instance, how many in academia currently 'pay lip service' to Darwinism since they don't want to be censored or expelled, i.e. ostracized, from academia?
Slaughter of the Dissidents https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0 The disturbing conclusion of this talk documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not allowed to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The presentation also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters can results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.
JVL is basically trying to claim that the Christians who founded modern science were basically lying since they did not want be persecuted for not being Christians and that they were really 'closet atheists'. Yet, that 'closet atheist' argument, besides being pathetic, is false,
Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not *really* Christians. That is, they really didn't *believe* in Christianity, but they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be persecuted. This is the "closet-atheist" hypothesis. But it doesn't square with the facts. Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in theology. If you read Pascal, this is obvious. Mendel was a monk. Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in science. Newton did end his Principles with: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God." As Charles Hummel notes, "Newton's religion was no mere appendage to his science; he would have been a theist no matter what his profession." Boyle set up Christian apologetics lectures. Babbage and Prout contributed to an apologetics series called the Bridgewater Treatises. Aggasiz, Cuvier, Fleming, Kelvin, and Linnaeus were what we now call 'creationists.' When I speak about Biblical beliefs that paved the way for science, I will use both Kepler and Pasteur to highlight two specific examples. Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
bornagain77_{March 29, 2020
March
03
Mar
29
29
2020
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PST}

@121JVL
Interestingly enough, the edit function seems to have returned! With a clock time of 24 hours! Wow! That’s a bit excessive.
It's all in your imagination.Truthfreedom_{March 29, 2020
March
03
Mar
29
29
2020
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PST}

@JVL
Wow. I must get out more often. Oh . . . wait . . . I’m not allowed now. Oh well.
It's all in your imagination.Truthfreedom_{March 29, 2020
March
03
Mar
29
29
2020
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PST}

JVL, it is clearly a different one. Likely, a new widget or extension to WP. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PST}

Interestingly enough, the edit function seems to have returned! With a clock time of 24 hours! Wow! That's a bit excessive.JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PST}

Truthfreedom: UD, Truthfreedom and this conversation are part of your imagination. Everything is in your imagination, you are having a conversation with the content of your own mind. Wow. I must get out more often. Oh . . . wait . . . I'm not allowed now. Oh well.JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PST}

@rhampton7 In the hours since you posted that, the number of US confirmed cases has gone up by 4000. And we’re still just testing a tiny fraction of people.Jim Thibodeau_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PST}

@JVL
Yes, I must learn to have a more interesting imagination. I keep hearing some really boring voice which keeps telling me I’m stupid. What’s wrong with me? Why am I telling myself such things? Since I’m clearly the centre of the universe I can have everything I want! I don’t have to put up with any dissension. So why do I keep hearing points of view I disagree with? Weird. It’s almost as if there’s some reality outside of myself that keeps infringing on my personal world. Very strange. I wish it would just stop so I could be completely happy in my . . . self-ness. But I keep hearing things which make sense and when I check them out they seem lock solid. Things that are true outside of myself no matter how I test and check; they’re independent of me. Some kind of knowledge outside of myself. Things that are always true. Very weird. I keep building up this bunch of always true things, stuff that seems pretty pointless to doubt anymore. What to call that stuff? Hmmmm . . .
UD, Truthfreedom and this conversation are part of your imagination. Everything is in your imagination, you are having a conversation with the content of your own mind.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PST}

Truthfreedom: It is all in your imagination. You are talking to yourself. Yes, I must learn to have a more interesting imagination. I keep hearing some really boring voice which keeps telling me I'm stupid. What's wrong with me? Why am I telling myself such things? Since I'm clearly the centre of the universe I can have everything I want! I don't have to put up with any dissension. So why do I keep hearing points of view I disagree with? Weird. It's almost as if there's some reality outside of myself that keeps infringing on my personal world. Very strange. I wish it would just stop so I could be completely happy in my . . . self-ness. But I keep hearing things which make sense and when I check them out they seem lock solid. Things that are true outside of myself no matter how I test and check; they're independent of me. Some kind of knowledge outside of myself. Things that are always true. Very weird. I keep building up this bunch of always true things, stuff that seems pretty pointless to doubt anymore. What to call that stuff? Hmmmm . . .JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST}

kf, Craig's argument against presuppositionalism was not Craig's only major philosophical blunder in this area. Feser recently revealed that Craig's argument for God from math, (which certainly qualifies as a presuppositional argument), was severely flawed as well.
KEEP IT SIMPLE - Edward Feser - April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.,,, (William Lane) Craig aims to refute this revived Platonism and thereby to rebut its implicit challenge to divine aseity. A prominent academic philosopher and Protestant theologian, he has made a specialty of defending the claims of traditional Christian theology against modern objections, and he is especially qualified to do so. A thinker of unusual breadth and depth, Craig has mastered and engaged with vast areas of modern thought, including the most technical reaches of contemporary analytic philosophy, the physics of relativity and Big Bang cosmology, and New Testament scholarship. In fact, Craig’s work played a key role in my own return to Christianity after a decade as an atheist. Nonetheless, I have to disagree with him. Successfully answering the challenge that Platonism poses to divine aseity requires getting right the nature of God, the nature of mathematics, and the nature of the relationship between them. In my opinion, Craig’s position fails on all three counts.,,, read more here https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
bornagain77_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

@114 JVL
Great. I can start ignoring you then.
It is all in your imagination. You are talking to yourself.
What ? Did someone say something? I thought I heard something? It must have been the shadows of the memories that keep you always gentle on my mind. Or something.–
It is all in your imagination. You are talking to yourself.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PST}

Truthfreedom:It’s all in your imagination. I am a figment of your imagination. Your imagination created me and UD and this conversation. Great. I can start ignoring you then. And a lunatic talking to yourself. As if being right were something objectively good. To a person that is alone in the world, a world he has imagined in his head. What? Did someone say something? I thought I heard something? It must have been the shadows of the memories that keep you always gentle on my mind. Or something.--JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PST}

RH7, much of that rise is through testing, especially fast testing methods. I think we will only understand the true scope through sampling blood tests that give a population cross section. Notice, how someone suggests 1/2 the UK population has already had it, mostly invisibly due to preponderance of mild cases. In any case, depending on parameters, at some point saturation or curbing effects kick in and the surge of new cases will abate. But, once there was a breakout of lodgements, a quasi-exponential surge would follow. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PST}

JT, 84: This caught my eye:
“As commonly understood, presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question,”
Notice that? In fact, the matter is not so simply dismissed -- and BTW, we cannot but note your appeal to first principles and duties of reason. For one, consider a claim A. Why accept it? B. But why B? C, . . . So we find three alternatives: infinite regress [which we cannot traverse, much less doing so correctly], or finitely remote circularity that begs the question or else finitely remote first plausibles at some faith-point F. There are alternatives F1, F2 etc, and reasonable, responsible worldviews are evaluated at this level through comparative difficulties. That is, comparison on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [neither an ad hoc patchwork nor simplistic]. The net result is that as philosophy is the discipline of hard, fundamental questions, unreflective world-pictures usually require considerable revision, and serious, live option worldviews all bristle with difficulties. Hence, comparative difficulties as a key approach. Naive presuppositionalism may indeed beg questions, though significant advocates are much more sophisticated than they are given credit for being. Comparative difficulties analysis does not beg questions. And, analysis that uses plumb line self evident truths opens up powerful approaches. The principle of identity and tied considerations on logic of being illuminated by first principles and duties of responsible reason are particularly powerful. Though, no fairly comprehensive worldview can be built up from only self evident truths. More could be said but this is a start. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PST}

Coronavirus cases in the U.S. are up 15,950 so far today to 120,076, up from just over 24,000 a week earlier and a mere 75 on March 1. Covid-19 deaths are at 1,993, up 297. Coronavirus cases have increased rapidly in the industrial Midwest, with Michigan adding 993 cases to 4,650. Ohio, though, has far fewer cases than similar-sized Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Ohio was early to shut down schools and a "stay-at-home" order, has just over 1,400. Meanwhile, Covid-19 infections are swelling in Louisiana and much of the South. Even worse, caseloads are increasing despite relatively low coroanvirus testing. Virus cases are growing rapidly in much of the world. Finally, Hong Kong and Singapore are tightening restrictions, showing that even countries that took strong preemptive action must remain vigilant indefinitely.rhampton7_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PST}

Great ! I’m always right then. Brilliant!!
And a lunatic talking to yourself. As if being right were something objectively good. To a person that is alone in the world, a world he has imagined in his head.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST}

Fantastic! I won’t loose any sleep then when you go limping off. Thanks!! When you’re willing we can meet up and test all this. I’ve got a nice chunk of concrete all ready.
It's all in your imagination. I am a figment of your imagination. Your imagination created me and UD and this conversation.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PST}

JVL wants to move on from trying to ground reasoning within his atheistic worldview (which is impossible to do) to go ahead and try to argue, via his reasoning, for the non-existence of God. How quaint. Shallow evasive argumentation on his part, but quaint none-the-less! Aside from Lewis's 'argument from reason', and aside from Plantinga and Hoffman's work, another simpler way to show that atheism and/or Darwinian materialism cannot possibly ground reasoning is via their denial of free will. Can anyone, aside from Coyne himself, NOT see the logical fallacy in Coyne's following quote:
THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
LOL :) As J. Budziszewski would say,
"Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit.” - J. Budziszewski
As Coyne quote itself makes clear, the denial of free will by materialists is simply insane since their ability to make logical, instead of purely physiological, choices is denied.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
Of course atheists completely ignore the fact that they have no foundation in which to ground reasoning in their worldview the first place, (since to do so then they would no longer be atheists), but their refusal to be reasonable still does not detract one iota from the fact that atheistic materialism, and methodological naturalism in particular, winds up in catastrophic, and irredeemable, epistemological failure. Moreover, it is not just their denial of free will that drives atheists into catastrophic, and irredeemable, epistemological failure. At every turn, their atheistic worldview betrays them by denying reality itself. Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PST}

Truthfreedom: You are talking to yourself. It is all in your head. Including that silly ‘theory of evolution’ and that inbreeder barnacle collector and UD and this post. You are imagining me. Fabulous! I won't loose any sleep then when you go limping off. Thanks!! When you're willing we can meet up and test all this. I've got a nice chunk of concrete all ready. The one that is inside your head. Great! I'm always right then. Brilliant!!JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

@JVL your Socratic method reveals when poor thinking is occurring.Jim Thibodeau_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PST}

The darwinian 'tree of life' is p*op. And those computer simulations. https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/et-si-darwin-s-etait-trompe-12-12-2011-1406407_2.php Google translator will do it. The one that is inside your head.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PST}

@103 JVL
Geat ! Then I won’t having any problems breaking every bone in your foot! Thanks for taking part in our reality experiment. You can get your cast fitted just down at the end of the corridor. Sorry, we haven’t got any virtual nurses to help you along; you’re just going to have to figure things out on your own. See what works. And . . . good luck!!
You are talking to yourself. It is all in your head. Including that silly 'theory of evolution' and that inbreeder barnacle collector and UD and this post. You are imagining me.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST}

Truthfreedom: Concrete and me and my foot are part of your imagination. Great! Then I won't having any problems breaking every bone in your foot! Thanks for taking part in our reality experiment. You can get your cast fitted just down at the end of the corridor. Sorry, we haven't got any virtual nurses to help you along; you're just going to have to figure things out on your own. See what works. And . . . good luck!!JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PST}

JvL
Come stand next to me and let me drop a block of concrete on your foot.
Concrete and me and my foot are part of your imagination. And this post.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PST}

@JVL Nobody thrown into a tiger cage believes that reality is all in their mind.Jim Thibodeau_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PST}

Truthfreedom: Common ancestry and the discredited tree of life are managed via computer simulations. Thanks for showing they are *po*p. Not in the first instance. The idea did not come from computer simulations. The simulations were created to handle the data in a specified way NOT dictated by the machines. Dictated by the humans who programmed the machines. That doesn't falsify the idea behind the simulation. Prove it. Come stand next to me and let me drop a block of concrete on your foot.JVL_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST}

@97 JVL
I do think there is a ‘world outside’ that we interact with.
Prove it.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PST}

@JVL
Oh well, it must be right then!! ???? Seriously, computer simulations are always just pale models of reality so are you seriously going to use that argument?
Common ancestry and the discredited tree of life are managed via computer simulations. Thanks for showing they are *po*p.Truthfreedom_{March 28, 2020
March
03
Mar
28
28
2020
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply