Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?

_{Barry Arrington
March 2, 2011

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Theist: You say there is no God.

Evolutionary Materialist [EM]: Yes.

Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists.

EM: I cannot deny that.

Theist: How do you explain that?

EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.

Theist: But you say religious belief is false.

EM: That’s correct.

Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characterizes: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it.

EM [looking a little pale now, because he’s just figured out where this is going]: Correct.

Theist: You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.

EM: Of course.

Theist: How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?

EM: ___________________

Our materialist friends are invited to fill in the blank.

Comments

Bornagain, "Bruce I know hell is a very horrid thought, and I completely understand why you would so disparately want to find some kind of the loop hole, but, from the best evidence I can gather, that is just wishful thinking on your part.,,," You really don't appear to understand what I have been saying over and over. It's not that I want to find some kind of loophole. It's that the notion of Hell contradicts God's loving nature. It's really that simple--it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an unconditionally loving God to create a Hell. All the evidence in the world cannot make something true that is logically impossible.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST}

@Bruce: Ah... Then I see the dilema we're having. Thank you for clarifying. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PST}

Sonfaro: You said, "I submit then that we’re all arguing/discussing semantics. What we call ‘moral law’ is ‘essential nature’ to you. It doesn’t really change what the thing is. To-MAY-to to-MAH-to." With all due respect, I think there is a huge difference. If it's moral law, then it is imposed from outside, and when we violate it, the appropriate response is punishment. If it's our essential nature, then when we act in ways that are in conflict with it, the appropriate response is to remind us that we forgot who we really are.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST}

Bruce David right now we live in a temporal reality and when we die we enter (are fully born into) a eternal (timeless) reality; 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences The 'eternal' reality is corroborated by the science of Special relativity; "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world 'folds and collapses' into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ As well, it can be forcefully argued, with much corroborating evidence, that we are, in reality, higher dimensional 'spiritual' beings inhabiting physical 3-Dimensional bodies; “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/#comment-369806 etc.. etc.. The point being Bruce David, is that the Christian worldview, of our decisions in this temporal reality having consequences for our eternal destiny, finds compelling plausibility in reality itself. Whereas your position is born primarily from your dislike of the possibility of eternal damnation (eternal separation from God) Thus I hope you can see how reality itself testifies to the gravity of the situation that rests on our decisions in this world! The exception that you would so love to make of nobody going to hell is not born out. The one NDE case I know of that offers even a glimpse to your 'God will not separate anyone from himself' position is this one; Howard Storm (Part 1 of 5) former atheist - near death experience (NDE) conversion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_GmifF8Fkc but even in Howard Storm's case Bruce, it was only the faith that Howard had put in Christ as a child that ultimately saved him from hell!!! Bruce I know hell is a very horrid thought, and I completely understand why you would so disparately want to find some kind of the loop hole, but, from the best evidence I can gather, that is just wishful thinking on your part.,,, fn; The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfgbornagain77_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST}

@Bruce, "The only comment I have regarding your last post on the nature of Hell (#69) is that there seems to be an underlying assumption, which I disagree with, that in this life we seal our fate, so to speak, that this is our one and only chance to “get it right”, and if we fail, we are doomed for all eternity. I submit that such a set-up would also contradict an unconditionally loving God." Again, I can see why one would think this, but I'm not sure it's as solid as you believe it to be. One can love unconditionally and still allow a person to choose their own fate. As I said, it's my belief that: A.) God only medles with your free will when he absolutely must. B.) Hell is simply a true existence without God, which is what those who would be going desire in this life anyway. The fire & brimstone is just special effects. -_-' Personally, while it's possible that we get more chances through each cycle, the only one we know for sure that's garunteed is this one right now. So from a Christian point of view (at least mine), it becomes crucial to try to alter the lives of all that we can before the timer is up. Because "tomorrow isn't ever promised." Also, you write to StephenB: -"1. I do not think what you call “natural moral law” is arrived at through reason. Philosophers through the ages have tried to derive moral law through reason and in my opinion have always failed. I believe that it is simply part of our being created in His image and likeness that each of us has certain standards of behavior built into us, which we sometimes allow our wants and needs to override. So I would not call it moral law at all, but rather our essential nature." I submit then that we're all arguing/discussing semantics. What we call 'moral law' is 'essential nature' to you. It doesn't really change what the thing is. To-MAY-to to-MAH-to. Could be wrong though. Also: -"In my view, there is nothing that human beings naturally feel is immoral about sexual activity UNLESS THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO THINK SO, which they almost always are." Err... gotta say dude, I can name some things I'd HOPE we'd all be naturally uncomfortable with. :-( - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PST}

Bornagain: "Bruce David, do you still deny the existence of evil and still claim that ‘everything is part of God’? If so you cannot maintain an absolute standard for even the minimalist concession you made to ‘essential nature’." I don't maintain that there is an absolute standard at all. I maintain that we each of us have built into us by God an essential nature which includes love and a high regard for truth. I believe that when we are tuned to that essential nature instead of our more surface wants and needs, we will act in accordance with it. When we do, it may appear to some that we are acting according to some absolute standard, but in fact we are merely paying attention to our true natures which are in the image and likeness of God.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PST}

Sonfaro, See my last post to StephenB (#72) for my views on "natural moral law". The only comment I have regarding your last post on the nature of Hell (#69) is that there seems to be an underlying assumption, which I disagree with, that in this life we seal our fate, so to speak, that this is our one and only chance to "get it right", and if we fail, we are doomed for all eternity. I submit that such a set-up would also contradict an unconditionally loving God. I believe first that this life is just one of many, and second, that our spiritual development continues unabated (although in somewhat different form) during the time we spend between lives. I believe that God loves us enough that there is ALWAYS another chance. And another. And another. Forever. World without end, amen.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST}

Bruce David, do you still deny the existence of evil and still claim that 'everything is part of God'? If so you cannot maintain an absolute standard for even the minimalist concession you made to 'essential nature'.bornagain77_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST}

StephenB: Ok, if you limit the scope of "natural moral law" to lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and committing murder then I won't argue with you too much, although I do have two comments to make about it. 1. I do not think what you call "natural moral law" is arrived at through reason. Philosophers through the ages have tried to derive moral law through reason and in my opinion have always failed. I believe that it is simply part of our being created in His image and likeness that each of us has certain standards of behavior built into us, which we sometimes allow our wants and needs to override. So I would not call it moral law at all, but rather our essential nature. Further, I believe that all such standards of behavior are based on just two aspects of our natures--1) love, and 2) a high regard for truth. To my way of thinking, the way to determine the appropriate action in any given circumstances in which one might find oneself is simply to answer the question, "What would love do now?" 2. Notice that there is nothing about sex in your list. This is one area (and it includes such diverse topics, as homosexuality, promiscuity, and contraception) where Christians (and most other religions too) have strong opinions. In my view, there is nothing that human beings naturally feel is immoral about sexual activity UNLESS THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO THINK SO, which they almost always are.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PST}

---Bruce: "Ok, I’ll spell it out for you. If there really were a “natural moral law”, every sect of every religion would not have its own version." The natural moral law, at its most basic, is obvious to all rational people, just as the law of non-contradiction is obvious to all rational people. Everyone who has reached the age of reason, whose mind is in tact, and who is not burdened with some kind of emotional problem, knows that humans should not lie, cheat, steal, torture, or commit murder. There are many, however, who will not acknowledge the point because they would prefer not to. ---"For example, for many Christian sects 100 years ago, natural moral law held that a woman should love, honor, and obey her husband. There are only a few which today would hold that obedience to her husband is included within a woman’s duties." You are thinking varying interpretions of Scripture, which is not the same thing. Your comment suggests that you did not Google "Illustrations of the Tao," which provides a good description of the natural moral law. Clearly, that description was not sectarian. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I simply stated the obvious and you confirmed the point. Immanentists [of which you are one] and Darwinsits [of which mark is one] and Islamists, for that matter, will typically question or disavow the existence of natural moral law. True to form, you disavowed the natural moral law. Hearkening back to the original context, I was simply answering a question from another blogger who asked why so many people embrace religious concepts with little or no evidence to support their choice. For the most part, they embrace what they embrace for reasons of preference or convenience. The number of people who come to their world view by studying reasoned arguments and analyzing evidence is, sorry to say, quite low.StephenB_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PST}

Ack! Slightly incorrect I think. -"Jesus, a guy who eventually went, described it simply as a place of great shame. No fire and brimstone was mentioned. Only “Weeping and gnashing of teeth”." There are indeed spots where Jesus mentioned fire when describing hell, but this gets back to the whole Gehenna/translation issue. Still, as far as I know, it's a place of great shame. (Could be wrong though). - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PST}

@Bruce -"Sonfaro: I really, really appreciate the truly respectful way you offer alternatives. It’s quite refreshing." It's what havin' a great family will do for ya'. ;-) - "In answer to your question, first, I don’t believe that anyone rejects God after leaving their physical bodies (what we know as dying)." Nor do I. However, how we live in life right now will affect what happens in the hereafter. Atleast as far as I know. -"But even if they did, God could easily have created a place for them that did not entail eternal fiery torment, and He could easily have set it up for them to continue to have the opportunity to change their minds about their rejection." Thing about this though, is that some would never change their minds if they had anything to say about it (guys like Dawkins for example). They'd happily go on being disrespectful, and change wouldn't likely come without a divine hand, which is something God doesn't do often (if I were a betting man, I'd say because he doesn't enjoy interfering with our free will). Also, if I remember correctly, the fire and brimstone were conjectures from Paul (and maybe John during his revelation). Two guys who'd never been. I think it's likely they got this from beliefs of the day - Greek/Roman Hades. Jesus, a guy who eventually went, described it simply as a place of great shame. No fire and brimstone was mentioned. Only "Weeping and gnashing of teeth". Which I believe was the Jewish expression of shame. Having lived your whole life against God, to wind up realizing that he's been there and now he'd moved on. Not because he wanted it. But because you (the sinner) did. -"A truly unconditionally loving God would not have any stake in whether anyone rejected Him or not." Not sure about that. I'd say my mother will love me unconditionally, but if I showed her disrespect, contempt, and utter hatred she wouldn't automatically let me in her house. Not unless I'd changed - truely changed. It's not because she no longer loves me, but the idea of her son hating her would drive her to despair. Now I don't know if God can feel despair. But I'm sure he wouldn't want someone who hated him to the last to show up at his door and change their mind at the last second. We all have a time. For me, God's love is unconditional, but his mercy is. God is (again, as far as I know) at the end of the day a God of right and wrong. A just God. And if rules have been unapologetically broken then the punishment is delivered. - "He would simply continue to love and support them, and help them to return to Him, whenever they chose." Because we have a set limit to our lives here, we don't have long to do the chosing. Once our physical lives are shot that's it, unless he's got a suprise waiting for us when we get there. -"The Christian view of Hell, as I understand it and which has been described to me by others in these threads, is a place of punishment, not just a place for people to go who choose not to be with God. And it is a very, very severe punishment, way beyond any reasonable idea of justice, since it is infinite, whereas no sin committed during a finite lifetime could possibly be infinite." There are actually several differing Christian views on Hell, as there are several differing views of Christianity. There's the one I outlined above, and there's the one's you've heard. There are also some where "Hell is empty", and that it it mearly a warning God gives to motivate people to do the right thing. And likely others. Again, it is my opinion, and the opinion of my household, that what we do in this life echo endlessly throughout the realms currently unaccessible to us. Again, my two cents on the matter. Hope that helps. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST}

Sonfaro: I really, really appreciate the truly respectful way you offer alternatives. It's quite refreshing. In answer to your question, first, I don't believe that anyone rejects God after leaving their physical bodies (what we know as dying). But even if they did, God could easily have created a place for them that did not entail eternal fiery torment, and He could easily have set it up for them to continue to have the opportunity to change their minds about their rejection. A truly unconditionally loving God would not have any stake in whether anyone rejected Him or not. He would simply continue to love and support them, and help them to return to Him, whenever they chose. The Christian view of Hell, as I understand it and which has been described to me by others in these threads, is a place of punishment, not just a place for people to go who choose not to be with God. And it is a very, very severe punishment, way beyond any reasonable idea of justice, since it is infinite, whereas no sin committed during a finite lifetime could possibly be infinite.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

@ Bruce, Not sure if the example you gave would be a 'natural' moral law. For my money, when I think moral laws that are self evident, I'd suggest something along the lines of the laws posted in the Ten Commandmants. Don't murder, stealings bad, respect your parents, etc. The laws that govern marriage, while important, aren't necessarily 'natural' moral laws. At least, I don't think so. Could somebody correct me if I'm wrong? - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PST}

StephenB: "Is it your contention that that you are refuting my point by confirming my point?" Ok, I'll spell it out for you. If there really were a "natural moral law", every sect of every religion would not have its own version. Not only is there no agreement between sects about what the moral law actually is, but what is regarded as moral changes over time even for the same sect. For example, for many Christian sects 100 years ago, natural moral law held that a woman should love, honor, and obey her husband. There are only a few which today would hold that obedience to her husband is included within a woman's duties. In other words, my contention is that there really is no such thing as "natural moral law." It is an illusion, another demonstration of the fact that reason by itself is powerless to arrive at truth.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST}

Hey Bruce, Gotta say man, this is a head-scratcher. You say: -"Anyone who believes in a God who would create a Hell believes in a God who doesn’t love." As far as I know, at least the way I was taught, Hell isn't really a place God crafted together, it exists in contrast to Paradise/peace. It's not like God built Hell, so much as it's the natrual opposite of the creation of Heaven. What I mean is, when God created light, then instantly darkness existed. So too when he created a place for his children to go, a realm where those who rejected him was created simulntaneously. It isn't Gods desire for people to go there. Does that make sense? As an example (and maybe this doesn't work so well but): My parents build a clay shelter by digging mud from the ground - forming a pit. Then they tell me not to jump into the pit and come inside the shelter. If I jump, I can't blame my parents for telling me not to jump. Nor can I blame them for the end of my journey. They gave me fair warning. Does that make sense dude? Again, I can sorta see your argument, but I don't think it's as compelling as you think it is. My opinion though. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PST}

---Bruce David: "And just which natural moral law are you referring to?" Begin by Googling "Illustrations of the Tao." As I said, “Immanent, new-age style religions and Darwinism appeal to some people because it provides them with an excuse to ignore the natural moral law..." As an immanent-style pantheist, you confirmed the point by investing three paragraphs to question the existence of a natural moral law. Is it your contention that that you are refuting my point by confirming my point?StephenB_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST}

StephenB: "Immanent, new-age style religions and Darwinism appeal to some people because it provides them with an excuse to ignore the natural moral law, become a law unto oneself, and live a libertine lifestyle." And just which natural moral law are you referring to? The Catholic one, which holds that divorce or having sex with a contraceptive is a sin and that you can sin in your thoughts without actually doing anything? Or a fundamentalist Christian one, which holds that dancing and listening to non-liturgical music are sins? Or perhaps a more liberal Christian view that it's ok to participate in a gay relationship as long as it's permanent and loving? Or maybe its the one you get from a literal reading of the old testament, where a woman who grabs the genitals of a man attacking her husband "shall be taken to the city wall and stoned"? Just where do you get this "natural moral law" that you so indignantly suppose applies to all of us? Just for the record, my reason for believing in what you would undoubtedly characterize as a "new-age style religion" is because I prefer to believe in a God who actually loves me. Anyone who believes in a God who would create a Hell believes in a God who doesn't love. I know many of you Christians cling to the idea that somehow a loving God could actually create a Hell and put people in it, but nothing any of you have said comes close to demonstrating that a God who is unconditionally loving yet who imposes eternal, horrible punishment is a logically consistent being.Bruce David_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PST}

---markf: "And as Collin says quite rightly in #32 most Christians have not evaluated the evidence for their religion and yet it dominates their lives. This is an extraordinary fact of human psychology which merits some explanation. It is quite different in nature from a scientific belief which may or may not be justified or wrong. Many people used to believe the world was flat because they misinterpreted the evidence – but it was a standard reaction to evidence or to people who purported to have evaluated the evidence." Most people believe what they believe for reasons that have little to do with any kind of rational justification. Sometimes it's the environment. When Ghandi was asked why he was a Hindu, he responded, "Because I was born in India, of course." Quite often, it is just a case of personal preference. Immanent, new-age style religions and Darwinism appeal to some people because it provides them with an excuse to ignore the natural moral law, become a law unto oneself, and live a libertine lifestyle. This, of course, leads to slavery, which, in turn, leads to a search for justifying the slavish lifestyle. Either a man shapes his behavior in accord with a philosophy of life or he will find a philosophy of life that justifies his behavior. The problem with the latter group is that they want everyone else to share in their misery. Having become a slave to their passions, they embrace an ongoing revolutionary spirit and seek to disrupt the rational and social order. Then again, there is a small percentage of people who simply want to know the truth whatever the cost. We can define the current culture war as a battle between those who seek truth, embrace reason, and follow evidence where it leads, and those who hate truth, militate against reason, and twist evidence to fit their biases and prejudices.StephenB_{March 6, 2011
March
03
Mar
6
06
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST}

This may be interesting with regard to what the human brain is capable of: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/03/03/neil-tyson-on-the-paradox-of-our-brains-self-deluding-and-capable-of-science/myname_{March 5, 2011
March
03
Mar
5
05
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PST}

Bruce David re markf; And what observation will confirm the truth of the conclusion that the world is entirely material, pray tell? Please do pray tell markf! The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Shoot markf; pushing entanglement even further, researchers were able to teleport not only photons but an entire atom, thus conclusively proving, by the 'repeatable observation' you pay such great lip service to, that 'material reality' reduces to a 'transcendent information' basis, just as predicted 2000 years ago by Christian Theism! John 1:1 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdfbornagain77_{March 5, 2011
March
03
Mar
5
05
2011
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PST}

Markf: You said, "However, the method of verification is simply to observe whether the conclusion is true." Your brain concludes that this will bring you some kind of truth about reality. But, given that your brain's internal processing may be flawed, you have no way of knowing whether this is correct or not. And what observation will confirm the truth of the conclusion that the world is entirely material, pray tell?Bruce David_{March 5, 2011
March
03
Mar
5
05
2011
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PST}

#35 Bruce David
No. You don’t get it. You (according to your own metaphysics) are a machine, like a computer. You form conclusions about the nature of reality through the operation of the machine. NO conclusion you reach can be trusted, because it is the result of the internal logic of the machine, which you, the machine, have no way of determining whether or not is flawed. If you deny this, please reveal to us a method THAT DOES NOT UTILIZE THE OUTPUT OF YOUR BRAIN by which you can verify the validity of any conclusion you come to.
I don’t understand what you are asking for. Obviously I belief that a conclusion is the output of my brain – so to that extent any act of verification will use an output of my brain because that is what I am verifying. However, the method of verification is simply to observe whether the conclusion is true.
Here’s what I believe is true about this: your refusal to see the truth of what I have said is the result of a deep knowing on your part that you actually are NOT a machine, that the conclusions you come to are not just the output of a machine called your brain, but have a validity that is senior to any mechanical view of reality. In other words, in your heart of hearts, you actually deny the materialism you espouse on the surface of your thinking (but you won’t admit it to yourself, much less to me).
And I believe that your obscure and theoretical arguments are a smokescreen to hide your deep knowledge that materialism is true but you find the reality too frightening to face. So we are at a bit of an impasse here aren’t we?markf_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PST}

Stephenb and others
—”You probably think there is strong evidence for Christianity, but the majority of people do not believe in Christianity.” Clearly, that statement suggests that the strength of the arguments in favor of Christianity should be assessed, at least in part, by taking into account the number of people who happen to believe in Christianity.
I was not intending to suggest that at all. To repeat – my sole point was that the majority of religious people have beliefs that are not based on strong evidence. Elsewhere you and Collin point out that all religious people believe in some kind of deity, and the Abrahamic religions share a considerable amount of beliefs and evidence. Clearly I disagree about the quality of this evidence, but we do agree that there is no strong evidence for some of the particulars of Islam, Buddhism, etc. Yet these billions of people believe these particulars and this is not trivial – in many cases it dominates their lives – these particulars determine how they worship, what they believe to be right and wrong, who they marry what they eat, it is the cause of wars and terrorism. In almost any human society – even one which has had no contact with the rest of humanity for thousands of years – something similar happens. Even among Christians there are different beliefs about particulars with similar effects. And as Collin says quite rightly in #32 most Christians have not evaluated the evidence for their religion and yet it dominates their lives. This is an extraordinary fact of human psychology which merits some explanation. It is quite different in nature from a scientific belief which may or may not be justified or wrong. Many people used to believe the world was flat because they misinterpreted the evidence – but it was a standard reaction to evidence or to people who purported to have evaluated the evidence.markf_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PST}

I actually do believe that Jesus performed miracles. However, I do not believe that he was unique in that regard. In Autobiography of a Yogi, for example, Yogananda records a number of miracles performed by many different saints and sages in India while he was there, some of them quite spectacular. My favorite was a yogi who had the habit of not wearing any clothes. The police would periodically arrest him for indecent exposure and lock him in a cell. Every time they did this, however, he would disappear from his cell and reappear on the roof of the police station, still naked, walking back and forth. They eventually gave up and left him alone. The man who was my spiritual teacher, Reshad Feild, even performed one that I know of (although admittedly not of Jesus' level). He told one of his students who was taking photos of him to note the number of the next frame, and when the pictures were developed, the frame in question showed only a blur of light where Reshad would have been in the photo, although the rest of it was normal, as were the rest of the pictures on the roll. Just so you know, I accept that Jesus was a being of pretty much the highest level of spiritual attainment that ever walked this earth. The difference between me and most of you is that I do not think that he was essentially unique. I believe that there have been others of equal or nearly equal attainment, for example Gautama Buddha. And more to the point, as I have said before, I believe that he came to show us by his example who and what we are ("These things and greater shall ye do..." and "Have I not said ye are gods." and "You are made in His image and likeness.") It's the whole "only begotten son of God who died for our sins" interpretation of his life that I reject.Bruce David_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PST}

@StephenB & BA77: Thanks guys. I mean, I believe in the miracles Jesus performed and all. So when I said this: -"Maybe not the miracles, but the teachings and life he lived, and the example he gave to the rest of humanity." I wasn't saying they were dubious or whatever. Just that what evidence we do have for Jesus' miracles isn't enough to convince some people. (Like Bruce I guess... or our guests markf or Portishead). I'm not sure how many outside-the-bible sources there are that mention Christs' miracles, which is why I added that admission. To be clear though, I believe completely that Jesus was & is who he said he was, and that he did all the things he was written to have done. Solid? - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PST}

Sonfaro, I would add to a point made by bornagain77. The strongest evidence for Jesus' miracles in the New Testament comes not from Christians who reported them but rather from their enemies who, try as they might, could find no way to deny them. Picture the Pharisees as they try to explain away miraculous healings by attributing them to the forces of hell. Consider their duplicity as they bribe Roman guards to explain away Christ's risen body with the ridiculous story that the apostles stole it while they were asleep--as if sleeping guards would know.StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST}

corrected link; Former Atheist Howard Storm’s Hellish NDE – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_GmifF8Fkcbornagain77_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PST}

and yet Bruce; Hell is a REAL place! In the New Testament, there are three Greek terms that are translated “hell.” The word hades, which appears eleven times in the Greek New Testament, is commonly seen to be compatible to the Hebrew term sheol. Minnick identifies two characteristics of the term as “the fiery destination of only the immaterial… rather than the material… portion of unredeemed men” and that which “confines the soul for only the intermediate time between physical death and final judgment… Hades holds the dead until it delivers them up to be reunited with their resurrected bodies for the Great White Throne Judgment following the Millenium.” The second term is gehenna is used twelve times in the New Testament and refers to unending punishment and the “final destiny of the lost.” The final Greek word is tartaros which is found in II Peter 2:4. The term is similar to gehenna. Minnick writes that tartaros “is the intermediate destination for some of the fallen angels between the time of their first sin and the time of their final judgment.” The usage of the word gehenna always refers to the everlasting torment of the lost. “The term gehenna is derived from the Valley of Hinnom, traditionally considered by the Jews the place of the final punishment of the ungodly. (The Valley) located just south of Jerusalem… was used as a burial place for criminals and for burning garbage… Its usage in the New Testament is clearly a reference to the everlasting state of the wicked.” Minnick declares that gehenna is a place where the unsaved go in their bodies. Many writers indicate that the “lake of fire” is a synonym for gehenna because both point to an eternal place of torment and suffering. The words of Scripture prove the suffering of the unredeemed will endure forever: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.” “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.” “These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever… And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. The representations given in Scripture leave no room to doubt that there is a place for the finally impenitent, where pain shall forever urge them.” As God’s people, rather than doubting His truth of eternal punishment, we must press on to tell the Good News to the lost who are perishing. And of course there are Near Death Testimonies; Hell - A Warning! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476/ I like this quote from the following video around the 2:30 min. mark: ‘God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces His love on people, nor a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love Him, rather God, the very personification of love, grants us choice. So people who have lived a whole lifetime voluntarily distancing themselves from God are not in the end involuntarily dragged into His presence for all eternity, if they were heaven would not be heaven, heaven in fact would be hell. Studying Near Death Experiences – 4 / 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdE6fAGR3Ok Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Excerpt: The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of `going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. (Murphy 99) http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near-Death Experiences in Thailand: Discussion of case histories By Todd Murphy, 1999: Excerpt: We would suggest that the near-constant comparisons with the most frequently reported types of NDEs tends to blind researchers to the features of NDEs which are absent in these NDEs. Tunnels are rare, if not absent. The panoramic Life Review appears to be absent. Instead, our collection shows people reviewing just a few karmically-significant incidents. Perhaps they symbolize behavioral tendencies, the results of which are then experienced as determinative of their rebirths. These incidents are read out to them from a book. There is no Being of Light in these Thai NDEs, although The Buddha does appear in a symbolic form, in case #6. Yama is present during this truncated Life Review, as is the Being of Light during Western life reviews, but Yama is anything but a being of light. In popular Thai depictions, he is shown as a wrathful being, and is most often remembered in Thai culture for his power to condemn one to hell. Some of the functions of Angels and guides are also filled by Yamatoots. They guide, lead tours of hell, and are even seen to grant requests made by the experient. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm A Comparative view of Tibetan and Western Near-Death Experiences by Lawrence Epstein University of Washington: Excerpt: Episode 5: The OBE systematically stresses the 'das-log's discomfiture, pain, disappointment, anger and disillusionment with others and with the moral worth of the world at large. The acquisition of a yid-lus and the ability to travel instantaneously are also found here. Episode 6: The 'das-log, usually accompanied by a supernatural guide, tours bar-do, where he witnesses painful scenes and meets others known to him. They give him messages to take back. Episode 7: The 'das-log witnesses trials in and tours hell. The crimes and punishments of others are explained to him. Tortured souls also ask him to take back messages to the living. (of note; the last part of this paper contains the full paper) http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/neardeath.html?nw_view=1281960224&amp Greyson and Bush (1996) classified 50 Western reports of distressing NDEs into three types: * The most common type included the same features as the pleasurable type such as an out-of-body experience and rapid movement through a tunnel or void toward a light but the NDEr, usually because of feeling out of control of what was happening, experienced the features as frightening. * The second, less common type included an acute awareness of nonexistence or of being completely alone forever in an absolute void. Sometimes the person received a totally convincing message that the real world including themselves never really existed. (note* according to one preliminary study, a similar type of this NDE may be very common among the Buddhist culture of China) * The third and rarest type included hellish imagery such as an ugly or foreboding landscape; demonic beings; loud, annoying noises; frightening animals; and other beings in extreme distress. Only rarely have such NDErs themselves felt personally tormented. 23 Minutes In Hell - Full Length - High Quality - Bill Wiese - video http://www.vimeo.com/16641462 Former Atheist Howard Storm's Hellish NDE - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF7AzxplsMEbornagain77_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PST}

@Bruce: -"I have no problem whatsoever with your using Jesus life as a model for yourself. I support you fully in that, and if you find that your Christian faith helps you to be more of the person you want to be, then by all means, go for it." Oh no, I figured that! I think I just went on a general tangent towards the end there. Thanks for clarifying your position though. I can see where you're coming from (I don't necessarily agree with you, but I understand the split we have). - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply