On Double Standards

_{Barry Arrington

June 23, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

In the We Won thread someone who calls themselves rvb8 wrote: “We do not accept the supernatural because we can’t test for that.”

Well. Consider the following two statements:

Supernatural phenomena exist.

Natural phenomena are all that exist.

The two statements are mirror images are of one another. If one is true the other is necessarily false. They are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

And neither can be confirmed by test.

Notice the double standard here. rvb8 rejects statement 1 on the sole ground that it cannot be tested. But he affirms statement 2 (it is necessarily entailed by his statement) even though it cannot be tested either. The incoherence of scientism is obvious. Yet many cling to it in the teeth of its incoherence. Look, I am not even trying to prove the existence of God or the supernatural. That is a discussion for another day. My purpose is modest: Stop with the double standard already.

UPDATE: rvb8 doubles down

In comment 7 to the thread below this post, rvb8 responds with some doozies:

“And neither can be confirmed by test.” No Barry! One of these can be confirmed by testing, I’ll leave you and BA to figure out which.

Do tell. OK rvb8, I’ll bite. Please describe the test in which one would investigate every single phenomenon from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe to confirm that every one of those phenomena was natural.

“The two statements are miror images of one another.” No Barry! Something that does not exist cannot reflect an image because photons will not bounce off something that is not there.

Umm, the “mirror” was not an actual mirror. Go to your dictionary and look up the word “metaphor.”

Comments

I said:
I don’t hold this with certainty; the only thing I hold with relative certainty is the folly of denying that the supernatural may exist on the basis of an a priori commitment to naturalism.
That's incorrect - too much writer's license here for a venue frequented by antagonistic literalists. The only thing I hold with absolute certainty is "I experience"; there are a few things I am quite certain of (A=A, 1+1=2, cruelty is evil and love is good); many things I am relatively certain of out of necessity (an exterior objective world exists, my mind is sound, other people have minds) ... but most things I hold only as functional knowledge and conditional belief that are subject to change with additional information.William J Murray_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

If some form of Big Bang cosmology is true then the universe had a beginning. Furthermore, if we accept the standard model of the big bang, based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, not only did the universe have a beginning but so did space and time. Therefore, based on what we presently know there was no time (no before) the origin of the universe. So that empirically rules out any possibility of an infinite regress. In other words, there is no evidence that the universe always existed—yet logically something must have always existed. What is that something? Leibnitz argued that there are two kinds of being: (1) contingent being and (2) necessary, or self-existent, being. Contingent beings or things (rocks, trees, books, ink, paper, planets or people etc.) cannot exist without a cause. By contrast, a necessary being does not require a cause. Everything we observe in the universe, including the universe as a whole, appears to be contingent. However, it is logically possible that whatever it is that caused the universe exists necessarily or, in other words, is self-existent. An eternally existing (or self-existing) transcendent being, does not require any other explanation because it is the explanation. To prove this simply ask yourself the question, ‘what caused the always existing something to exist?’ The answer should be obvious to anyone who considers the question honestly. Obviously, since it has always existed, it wasn’t caused by anything else, therefore, doesn’t need to be explained by anything else. The evidence from the big bang itself suggests that whatever caused the universe transcends the universe. Furthermore, if it is the cause of the universe it must, in some sense, have always existed. It must be eternal. Transcendence and eternality are attributes of what theists call God. So big bang cosmology gives us two thirds of what we mean by God. Theists also believe that God is personal. He has a mind and intelligence, volition and the ability to communicate with other personal beings. I would argue that for God to be the ultimate explanation He must be personal. If the eternally existing, transcendent being is not personal then we are back at an infinite regress. Because whatever it was that caused the universe must have created it freely and intentionally. In other words, there wasn’t anything that caused God to create the universe. He created it simply because he wanted to. Does this argument prove that God exists? No it doesn’t. However it does offer a viable, logical and rational alternative to naturalism and materialism, as well as other world views, like pantheism. In his book, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology, R.C. Sproul, outlines the parameters of logic on this question– whether or not the idea of a necessarily existing being is logically valid– as follows:
“Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause. Logic does not require that if something exists, it must exist contingently or it must be an effect. Logic has no quarrel with the idea of self existent reality [an uncaused cause or necessary being]. It is possible for something to exist without an antecedent cause. It remains to be seen if it is logically necessary for something to exist without an antecedent cause. For now it is sufficient to see that self-existence is a logical possibility. The idea is rationally justified in the limited sense that it is not rationally falsified. Something is rationally falsified when it is shown to be formally or logically impossible.” (p172-173)
Again, I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists. My argument is really very modest. I am only arguing that (1) the concept of God is a logically valid and rational. And, (2) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. The philosophical arguments for God’s existence are not the only reason Christian theists believe in God. Indeed, many people become Christians without even knowing about them. But is it the best explanation? After his famous 1948 BBC debate with sceptic Bertrand Russell, Jesuit priest Fr. Frederick Copleston expressed some frustration. He said that he felt that Russell had come unwilling to really engage him in any of his arguments. However, during the debate the two men had this brief exchange:
“You say,” Copleston said to Russell, “I think that the universe — or my existence if you prefer, or any other existence — is unintelligible?” “I shouldn’t say unintelligible,” Russell replied, “I think it is without explanation.”
I would say that was a major concession on Russell’s part. It’s true. Non-theists don’t really have a good explanation for the existence of the universe, theists do. For example, scientists believe that the universe had a beginning about 13 billion years ago. Theists have a good explanation for that. What do non-theists have to offer? Again, Russell concedes that they don’t have an explanation. I would say that a viable, logical and rational explanation for our existence is better than no explanation and that is what we as theists have.john_a_designer_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

rvb8 said:
WJM very often takes the stance of being ‘surprised’, of being ‘baffled’, of being ‘perplexed’, ‘confounded’, ‘dumbfounded’,”mystifyed’, and downright throat chucklingly ’embarassed’, at the denseness of his opponents. Well, to be honest this attitude is fine within the echo-chamber that is ID. But unfrtunately as Seversky has stated time and time again, this certainty of what is right, this rock solid assurance of what the other side, as it were, cannot grasp is the kind of assurity that is anathema to science.
Like so many others on these pages, rvb8 simply pushes together terms and phrases to fit an emotion-laden, rhetorical narrative that has virtually nothing to do with what has actually been argued or said - or even with reality. I am sure of nothing outside of "I experience". Beyond that, I utilize logic and evidence to put together a view of self and world that is a best logical/experiential fit for the facts and I hold that view only conditionally. I've changed my views about many things over the past several years. I see the logical, experiential and evidence-based implication that something acausal/supernatural exists and is in operation in the world. I don't hold this with certainty; the only thing I hold with relative certainty is the folly of denying that the supernatural may exist on the basis of an a priori commitment to naturalism. And "certainty" is certainly no "anathema" to science; many if not most who have conducted science for the past several hundred years carried with them convictions of certainty. Much of science cannot even be conducted without the certainty underlined by hundreds of years of evidence. These are just words rvb8 pushes together to fit in his narrative of attacking those who disagree with him.
It is the scientists who are unsure, who question, who alter their views as new evidence comes to light, it is they who push forward human knowledge
Look how his narrative paints out scientists as if they are paragons of human virtue. Oh, certainly no scientists commit fraud, or are "certain" of their views, or would bastardize their profession for money or political power. Oh, it's not scientists who are responsible for any of the horrors of humanity! It's not like scientists proclaimed all non-white races inferior under evolutionary theory, or promoted euthanasia for the "unfit", or created weapons of mass destruction, etc. It seems rvb8 has traded one class of robed priesthood for another. It's just part of his narrative of science = naturalism = knowledge = advancement of mankind and religion = ant-science = blind faith = mankind's worst horrors. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't fit this narrative. It has been the religiously devout that have been at the center of the advancement of human rights and equality. It has been the religiously devout that has time and again put themselves in danger to feed and help the world's hungry and helpless.
It is WJM’s certainty which causes me to fear for humanity.
See, rvb8 hasn't established any sort of "certainty" on my part that has any relevance to anything, but that doesn't stop him from asserting it and then - as I pointed out above - inserting that into his narrative about what might happen to humanity. Yes, metaphysical certainty can definitely cause problems for humanity, but that doesn't make all such certainty bad. The certainty that all humans are created equal and have inherent value, and that all humans have unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is worth having, and uncertainty about those metaphysical qualities is when one should be concerned for humanity. When humans are simply considered animated meat and human rights considered nothing more than temporary licenses granted by those in power, then it is an appropriate time to fear for humanity.
What if he and his ilk actually did control the scientific endeavour, where would humanity be then, with a man who, “knows what is right!”?
See how rvb8 again attempts to paint a narrative that has little to do with the facts and is very ill-considered. Does rvb8 not know that intervening on the behalf of the weak and the innocent is right? Does he not know that love is right? Does he not know that kindness is right? I fear for humanity the more people that do not know these things with certainty. Not all certainty is equal, rvb8. Thankfully, most of the history of scientific progress has been under the care of theists that knew the difference between right and wrong, even if some mistakes were made along the way.
Oh that’s right, we would be in a time approxiametly several centuries in the past when men exactly like WJM did control science. The supernatural has had a good run, give it a rest.
rvb8 seems to be badly versed in history. It is only of late - the past 50 years or so - that the control of the institution of science (not particularly the rank and file) has come under the stewardship of atheists and metaphysical materialists/naturalists. This is something that goes on rather often on this site - naturalists/atheists/anti-IDists that simply put a bunch of ill-considered words and phrases together for rhetorical value.William J Murray_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

F/N: A remark that bears pondering:
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.[d] 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [ESV]
Much of the recent exchange seems to fit this all too well, those locked into a naturalistic, anti- supernaturalistic view are evidently unwilling to even accord meaningfulness and coherence to the view that sees beyond the worldview of physicalist evolutionary materialism . . . from hydrogen to humans by blind chance and/or equally blind mechanical necessity. But Leibniz long ago pointed out in Monadology:
17. It must be confessed, however, that perception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception. It is accordingly in the simple substance, and not in the compound nor in a machine that the perception is to be sought. Furthermore, there is nothing besides perceptions and their changes to be found in the simple substance. And it is in these alone that all the internal activities of the simple substance can consist.
In short, our experience of conscious, en-conscienced mindedness points to an order of reality that can ground these things adequately -- and it cannot rest on figures and motions of gears grinding against one another or the like. A capital case in point on the self-referential incoherence of a materialistic approach is found in Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
Seminal ID thinker, Philip Johnson has brought out the incoherence when he rightly replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: "I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Johnson then acidly but aptly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.] Further to this, Patricia Churchland's semi-famous remark points to the futility of trying to ground rational, knowing, truth-oriented mind on such evolutionary materialism:
Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in . . . feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is [ --> let's try, from Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b: "that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not" . . . ], definitely takes the hindmost. (Plantinga notes this from Darwin, who -- amazingly -- tried to restrain the devastatingself-referentiality to doubting his evolutionary conclusions: "the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?")
We could add many more, but the point is plain, we depend on faculties that simply have no evolutionary materialistic foundation. Hence, the further force of Reppert's remark that builds on C S Lewis and J B S Haldne:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Conscious, en-conscienced mindedness is the first fact and the means by which we access all other facts. It is intellectually irresponsible and futile to cast such further facts self-referentially against the very means we must use to access them. So, there is on the face of it an excellent case to consider a realm of reality beyond the physicalist, evolutionary materialist circle of naturalism, as it is often called. In accounting for mindedness, a useful point of departure would be Eng Derek Smith's two-tier controller cybernetic model, with the brain as an i/o front end and store unit for the mind. Perhaps, with informational and quantum state influences accounting for the interface. The bottomline is, absent responsible, rational, morally governed freedom, the whole life of rational thought self-eviscerates. So, our worldview must have room for such things as worldviews to exist. And, the very act of coming here to object as though we have duties of care to truth, warrant and the right speaks volumes of pretty direct confirmation of such responsible, rational freedom. So the very thesis that such is not subject to investigatory confirmation collapses in self-referential incoherence. There are patently more things in reality than are dreamed of in evolutionary materialist ideology. Even, the ability to dream speaks to this -- an altered state of consciousness even while unconscious to the waking world. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2016
June
06
Jun
25
25
2016
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

rvb8: The supernatural has had a good run, give it a rest. You're a fool if you think there is anything about "the natural" that is not supernatural. But we do get plenty of fools here.Mung_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

WJM very often takes the stance of being 'surprised', of being 'baffled', of being 'perplexed', 'confounded', 'dumbfounded',''mystifyed', and downright throat chucklingly 'embarassed', at the denseness of his opponents. Well, to be honest this attitude is fine within the echo-chamber that is ID. But unfrtunately as Seversky has stated time and time again, this certainty of what is right, this rock solid assurance of what the other side, as it were, cannot grasp is the kind of assurity that is anathema to science. It is the scientists who are unsure, who question, who alter their views as new evidence comes to light, it is they who push forward human knowledge. It is WJM's certainty which causes me to fear for humanity. What if he and his ilk actually did control the scientific endeavour, where would humanity be then, with a man who, "knows what is right!"? Oh that's right, we would be in a time approxiametly several centuries in the past when men exactly like WJM did control science. The supernatural has had a good run, give it a rest.rvb8_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio @ 26
It’s ironic that materialists think they are dethroning an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity, but when they misuse metaphysics in this way, they enthrone an idol — Science — and ascribe to it these very same qualities. In other words, if there is no God, we humans unfailingly will have to invent one. But we’re notoriously incompetent at doing that, and it never ends well.
Materialists are no more concerned with "dethroning" an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity" than they are with "dethroning" the Dark Lord Sauron or Darth Vader. Nor is science worshipped as some sort of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity. It is highly prized, however, as a remarkably successful enterprise for discovering how the world in which we find ourselves works. It has enabled us to find out things that no god, omniscient or otherwise, told us anything about. Which is what scares believers, of course.Seversky_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

NeilBJ @ 22- The Being who created everything created Time, also, so He exists outside of time. There is no past or future there.Davem_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Neil @22
As a layman, I find the creation of the universe and our existence impossible to understand. The laws of nature say that matter can neither be created or destroyed – only changed in form. Likewise, energy can neither be created or destroyed – only changed in form. Yet, those laws had to be violated for our universe to be created.
Neil, if there is a Creator of all things, do you think that Creator is subject to the laws of nature that He created or do you think He would be able to superimpose His will on nature? And, yes, if those laws existed from before the creation of the universe, then the Creator would have had to suspend them for a time to do His creative works. An alternative scenario would be that He set the laws in motion after the initial creation. If the Creator is subject to his own laws, He would not be all powerful. Once He created the universe, He set these laws in motion and He uses these laws to pretty much sustain the universe. However, He Himself, could not be subject to those laws unless it is by His choice.
Was the universe and all that exists created by a supernatural being? And out of nothing (whatever “nothing” is)?
We cannot prove that scientifically, but yes. That is what the Bible teaches. The creation of the original elements that became the building blocks for all things along with their design(characteristics/properties) would have been a miraculous creation out of nothing.
If so, how did that supernatural being come into existence. Or did that creator exist forever? Neither explanation makes sense to me.
The Bible teaches that the Creator is eternal – you know – the Uncaused First Cause of all things. I’m sure you have heard that before. I’m not sure what standards you are using when you say that an Eternal Creator does not make sense to you, but certainly you are free to believe whatever you want or disbelieve whatever you want. There are certain things that we do not and simply cannot know. We only know what the Creator has chosen to reveal to us. The rest is speculation based on that knowledge.tjguy_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

rvb8
Do tell. OK rvb8, I’ll bite. Please describe the test in which one would investigate every single phenomenon from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe to confirm that every one of those phenomena was natural.
After you show Barry this, I would be interested how you would demonstrate test results that man and chimps split from a common ancestor 6 million years ago. If these are too tough show any evolutionary transition where you can test the emergence of any de novo enzyme. Do you really think this theory has anything to do with real testable science?bill cole_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Well. Consider the following two statements: Supernatural phenomena exist. Natural phenomena are all that exist. The two statements are mirror images are of one another. If one is true the other is necessarily false. They are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.
As stated, no they are not. Supernatural phenomena could be a subset of natural phenomena.Seversky_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Magna Charta said:
Technically, there are plenty of colours that are invisible to humans.
You see, MC, this is the kind of response that I find baffling. There are no invisible colors, MC. Not "technically" or otherwise. From Merriam Webster:
a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects.
Electromagnetic radiation is only experienced as having color if it is within the spectrum that generates the sensation of visual color. Invisible color is an oxymoron. It is at times like this that I think that some people will simply say anything and argue any point into absurdity just to disagree with theists,William J Murray_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Sometimes I tire of saying it, but Barry is right again. I am still waiting for the scientific criteria for distinguishing the natural from the supernatural.Mung_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

ok, I just saw a pink unicorn in my mirror. Invisible particles exist. Invisible particles do not exist. Obviously, it is the second that is the scientific consensus.Mung_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Lamont:
Skram, pink is a color and there is no such thing as an invisible color.
Technically, there are plenty of colours that are invisible to humans.magna charta_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Skram, pink is a color and there is no such thing as an invisible color. Hence your first sentence is necessarily false and the second is redundant. There is no parallel or analogy to the OP here. Also, science is not based on statements that are necessarily true or false, so you seem to be a more than a little confused as to what science actual is.Lamont_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Consider the following two statements: 1. Invisible pink unicorns exist. 2. Invisible pink unicorns do not exist. The two statements are mirror images are of one another. If one is true the other is necessarily false. They are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. We do science under Assumption 2. A double standard? Discuss.skram_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

WJM@18 and 21: Excellent points.Truth Will Set You Free_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

WJM @18 +1mike1962_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

As a layman, I find the creation of the universe and our existence impossible to understand. The laws of nature say that matter can neither be created or destroyed - only changed in form. Likewise, energy can neither be created or destroyed - only changed in form. Yet, those laws had to be violated for our universe to be created. Was the universe and all that exists created by a supernatural being? And out of nothing (whatever "nothing" is)? If so, how did that supernatural being come into existence. Or did that creator exist forever? Neither explanation makes sense to me. Am I missing something in my layman's understanding of the mystery of our existence?NeilBJ_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Dean, It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the universal fine-tuning and cellular code/nanotechnology evidence, couple that scientific evidence with first cause and moral arguments, and realize that the case for at least a classical theism god is really good, and the problems with atheism/materialism/moral subjectivism are really profound and troubling. But, it's like they just don't care how bad their argument is or how significant the available evidence is; they don't care that their worldview refutes their capacity to claim knowledge or discern truth; they just shrug it off and keep on trotting out the same denialist tropes, unsupportable assertions and inane strings of words over and over as if they've meaningfully rebutted the opposition.William J Murray_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

One of the things I've noticed about many who come here to argue against the home team is that many appear to share the same inability to recognize and process certain kinds of abstract arguments. It really is as if they are biological automatons processing sequences of words and failing to comprehend the abstract concept those words are referring to. Additionally, they appear to be not at all interested in any kind of internal, reflective self-criticism about the nature of their worldview. Such points as are presented here were of keen interest to me when I first visited this site many years ago and I changed many of my views as a result. I'm always on the lookout for problems with my worldview so I can correct or abandon them. But, most of our interlocutors here seem only to care about defending their views, not actually examining them, which leads them to say self-contradictory or logically absurd things. They don't even care if their defense remains logically coherent in itself, or if they portray their views with any consistency at all. They appear often to have a single focus: deny theism, deny the supernatural at all costs and with any means necessary, even if it paints you into an irrational, hypocritical position full of obvious double-standards - such as sweeping denials of evidence and requiring "extraordinary" evidence where it suits them, and simply ignoring it when the logical contradictions of your defense are pointed out.William J Murray_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio, I try to keep my notes organized on Google documents.bornagain77_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

rvb8: "BA, your deep philosophising is too deep for me." Well, that explains a lot.Florabama_{June 24, 2016
June
06
Jun
24
24
2016
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

also of note:
Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater
bornagain77_{June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

rvb8, So the fact that 'you' really exist as a real person is, in fact, a 'supernatural assumption', and this fact is too hard for 'you' to follow? So 'you' instead choose to believe in the supposedly simpler argument that 'you' are really just an illusion since 'you' can't physically measure the person of 'you'? Thank the illusion of 'you' for clearing that up. :) And why should I believe what an illusion, by no will of its own, said? By the way, the 'physical' evidence for a 'supernatural you' is much stronger than 'you' have been misled to believe: 'Brain Plasticity', the ability to alter the structure of the brain from a person's focused intention, has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as among other researchers.
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, mind has been now also been shown to be able to reach all the way down and have pronounced, ‘epigenetic’ effects on the gene expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
The preceding is simply impossible on a materialistic framework Moreover, information itself, which is central to so many debates between Darwinists and IDists, also gives strong 'physical' evidence, by the nature of its being, of a transcendent soul
Scientific (physical) evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater
bornagain77_{June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

BA, your deep philosophising is too deep for me. I often get the impression when reading you and others here, that you have missed a calling. I can not follow your arguments and therefore choose (can I choose if I am an illusion?; according to you, no!) to follow a simpler argument: That which is measurable, testable, physical, that which my ('illusory'?) senses can determine, are those ('imaginary'?) things which I will respond to. Actually, you do too! As Luther said at Worms, "Here I stand."rvb8_{June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

rvb8, you keep referring to "I" as if you really exist as a real person. So as to avoid all confusion, please properly refer to yourself as. 'the illusion of "I"' who thinks such and such so as to accurately reflect your naturalistic worldview. :)
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. Per NY Times
bornagain77_{June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Rvb8 using intentional states to deny that they exist...... Rolls eyes..... Oki doki....Andre_{June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

I see Barry put 'supernatural' as his first assertion; telling. I'm glad you have BA77 blathering for you, he always raises a chuckle, and I think causes most of you to shuffle your feet, coyly holding your hands behind your back, and looking at the ground. "The two statements are miror images of one another." No Barry! Something that does not exist cannot reflect an image because photons will not bounce off something that is not there. "And neither can be confirmed by test." No Barry! One of these can be confirmed by testing, I'll leave you and BA to figure out which. Anything else?rvb8_{June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply