Neil Thomas’s next book will examine Darwinism as a modern creation myth

And to make matters even worse for atheists, it is now also shown that we have a moral intuition that transcends space and time. Specifically, the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 found that, when testing “arousing vs. neutral stimuli” that “if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes, (of ‘arousing’ stimuli), between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,”

Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can’t hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. “I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,'” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm update: Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis – 2018 Discussion This update of the Mossbridge et al. (2012) meta-analysis related to the so called predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) responses to future random stimuli, covers the period January 2008- July 2018. Overall, we found 19 new studies describing a total of 36 effect sizes. Differently from the statistical approach of Mossbridge et al., in this meta-analysis we used a frequentist and a Bayesian multilevel model which allows an analysis of all effect sizes reported within a single study instead of averaging them. Both the frequentist and the Bayesian analyses converged on similar results, making our findings quite robust. ,,, Conclusion This update confirms the main results reported in Mossbridge et al. (2012) original meta-analysis and gives further support to the hypothesis of predictive physiological anticipatory activity of future random events. This phenomenon may hence be considered among the more reliable within those covered under the umbrella term “psi” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/

Of related note, the preceding studies satisfy Kant's criteria for the moral argument for God to be considered valid.

“the objective reality of the Idea of God, as moral author of the world, cannot be established by physical purposes alone. But nevertheless, if the cognition of these (physical) purposes is combined with moral purposes, they are of great importance to the practical reality of the Idea (of God).” Antoine Suarez – God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum. – 8:03 minute mark https://youtu.be/EQOwMX4bCqk?t=483

In short, as Dr Suarez explained in the video, Kant’s requirement for the moral argument for God to be considered valid was that influences could somehow arise from outside space-time. Thus besides logical necessity, and the self-contradictory way that atheists themselves live their lives, the Christian Theist also has several lines of fairly powerful empirical evidence that he can also appeal to so as to establish the reality of objective morality.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

bornagain77

Es58, well if you are going to hold that evil really does not exist then you forsake moral realism altogether. You might not see that as a irresolvable dilemma for atheists, but I sure as heck do, As Michael Egnor states in the following article, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"

The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

Moreover, although atheists may claim they do not believe that evil actually exists, the way they live their lives directly contradicts what they claim to believe. In the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to actually live their lives as if atheistic materialism were actually true.

Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html

And as the following article succinctly states: "Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3

Even Richard Dawkins himself honestly admitted that it would be quote unquote 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true and as if there actually was no moral accountability for what people do,

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

As should be needless to say, this impossibility for Atheists to live their lives as if atheism were actually true, and as if objective morality does not actually exist, directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true. Specifically, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

Moreover, it is not just that the atheist's claim that objective morality does not actually exist is directly contradicted by the way atheists themselves live their lives, but many lines of empirical evidence also establish the reality of objective morality. For instance, although Darwinian atheists are at a complete loss to explain where even a single protein came from,,,

Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins

Although Darwinian atheists are at a complete loss to explain where even a single protein came from, we find that the expression of gene networks is humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic moral happiness and ‘noble’ moral happiness: The following paper states that there are hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian atheists, and to make matters all the worse for Darwinists, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality, (in direct contradiction to 'survival of the fittest' morality), must precede the existence of multicellular life in order for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place. Several notes backing up that claim can be found here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738586 bornagain77

Ba77@17 - literally the devil's advocate here, but: don't know if this has been addressed (if so please reference post#) but why isn't it sufficient in problem of evil to show "internal" inconsistency, as in, according to us, evil doesn't exist, but, according to *you*, who hold that evil does exist, the problem is a real problem? es58

Zweston @53, Yes, I noticed. Instead we get an irrelevant Shakespeare quote. I can play that silly game, too: "Methinks it is like a weasel." To the OP, yes, Darwinism has all the characteristics of a culturally convenient Victorian pseudo-scientific myth that justified European colonialism and racism. In its 150+ year life, it's rationalized brutal exploitation of "savages" as described in Darwin's Descent of Man, which has been quoted numerous times here, an justified racial genocide as also frequently noted. As a myth, it doesn't seem to matter to the Darwinist fundamentalists that it's been falsified and embarrassed numerous times over the decades without apparent effect, except perhaps to create numerous "heretics." But people who don't understand transpiration, for example, cannot conceive of questioning their faith in Darwin despite all the overwhelming evidence against it. I'd like to hear their thoughts on how humans are continuing to evolve in context of racial differences. Unless they think evolution has magically stopped for some unknown reason. But it's a target rich environment and we'll just waste our time. -Q Querius

Notice how completely not on subject we get to by the bottom of the thread due to being derailed by tangents... CD & Sev, have you ever doubted macroevolution? Why or why not? What arguments and findings are the strongest for the ID movement? Would it bother you if you were wrong about darwinism/materialism? Why or why not? zweston

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -Queen Gertrude (Hamlet) chuckdarwin

Regardless, there's still a problem with Chuckdarwin's evasions. He previously wrote

I merely pointed out that the term transpiration is commonly used by biologists to describe the entire process of absorption and elimination of water and nutrients in plants.

The sources I checked indicate that some nutrients are indeed transported by the xylem--I stand corrected on that point--but that's not the impression one gets from reading the description that I quoted above about the operation of the xylem. However, he still refuses to address his previous statements on transpiration, which is actually how water exits a plant, typically through the undersides of their leaves. To insist that "transpiration" is the term "commonly used by biologists" to describe the passage of water through a plant is as misleading as claiming that "evaporation" is the term used by meteorologists to describe the water cycle. In contrast, I have no problem admitting it when I'm in error and I learn something as a result. -Q Querius

You folks are truly incorrigible. Querius misrepresents my prior posts and then has the cheek to call me dishonest. From the Biology Library, Section 25.4B: Vascular Tissue: Xylem and Phloem:

Xylem and phloem form the vascular system of plants to transport water and other substances throughout the plant... Key Points -Xylem transports and stores water and water-soluble nutrients in vascular plants. -Phloem is responsible for transporting sugars, proteins, and other organic molecules in plants. -Vascular plants are able to grow higher than other plants due to the rigidity of xylem cells, which support the plant. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/25%3A_Seedless_Plants/25.4%3A_Seedless_Vascular_Plants/25.4B%3A_Vascular_Tissue%3A_Xylem_and_Phloem (my emphasis)

chuckdarwin

Jerry @47,

Duck and run at its best.

Yes, exactly. This illustrates the type of evasion, misinformation, and trolling that we often see here. I'm not complaining about honest disagreement on certain points, which is fine and usually represents different levels of knowledge, values, or presumptions. Honest discussions are valuable for clarifying one's own thoughts as well a appreciating the information and insights of others. But this sort of evasion is dishonest. So, do you think we'll see a retraction by Chuckdarwin about his implication that the xylem transports both water and nutrients? I doubt it. And that's my point. -Q Querius

seversky:

The theory of evolution does not prescribe how human beings should behave towards one another

There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. However, if you tell people that they are the result of blind and mindless processes you are going to get people who act like other animals. Don't blame us because you are too stupid to understand that your lies have consequences. ET

The point, Querius, is that you blatantly misrepresented what I posted.

Duck and run at its best. jerry

The point, Querius, is that you blatantly misrepresented what I posted. chuckdarwin

Chuckdarwin @40,

I believe that I merely pointed out that the term transpiration is commonly used by biologists to describe the entire process of absorption and elimination of water and nutrients in plants.

And that makes as much sense as calling "evaporation" the entire water cycle process of phase-changes (evaporation, condensation, freezing, melting, absorption, sublimation, and precipitation) in the atmosphere, bodies of water, and on the ground, not to mention orographic lifting and a variety of interactions of warm and cold fronts. You might want to brush up on how osmosis works with root hairs, capillary action in the xylem (caused by molecular cohesion and adhesion), and transpiration through stomata and removed by evaporation. My point is that if you're inflexible with respect to a terminology issue in biology, which may not be your forte, how much less likely are you to being reasonable regarding Darwinism, morality, and philosophical issues? And by the way, transpiration doesn't involve nutrients, which are transported through the phloem, not the xylem. Do you see my point? -Q Querius

I’m done–Ciao

What happened? Did you sense you could make additional comments and not have to respond?

definitions of good and evil

Be the first to define good and evil in the history of mankind. No one else has done it here. Usually attempts come down to stuff I like and stuff I don’t like. Interesting that ChuckDarwin now wants to contribute to the morality discussion when no accepted definition of morality exists here. My guess is that we will witness more duck and run. jerry

PS Moral relativism is not the opposite of objective morality. It is the opposite of absolute morality ……. chuckdarwin

#32 EDTA #36 Seversky

If objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on something, then if they agree to change their minds, that must also give rise to objective morality. So this type of morality can change any time people change their minds to the same alternative. But that is relativism almost by definition; nothing objective about it.

Following on from Seversky's excellent comments, you are confusing "objective" morality with "absolute" morality. This problem results from different and inconsistent uses of the term "objective." Religion advocates for "absolute" morality, morality which, in principle, derives from a god, which is applicable to everyone, contains no exceptions or mitigations, is non-negotiable and unchanging. It is what, in fact, Christian apologists have mis-labeled "objective" morality. It's important to go back to the original context. Bornagain suggests that Epicurus' argument from evil in rejecting a personal God, fails because in order to say evil exists, we need to appeal to this mis-labeled "objective" morality. I don't agree with this for a number of reasons, but pertinent to his objection is the notion that without "objective" morality (i.e., God-given) there is no basis to conclude that evil exits. My argument is simply that objective morality (i.e., definitions of good and evil) clearly exists, without the necessity of appealing to any divine source, such that Epicurus' argument is derivable solely by reference to man-made or objective morality. Consensus is not the only way objective morality can arise, but that is another topic and way beyond the scope of Epicurus' original argument. Finally, an interesting aside is that most competent Christian philosophers understand this distinction and rarely attack Epicurus' second premise (that evil exists) as invalid without appealing to a God-given morality. chuckdarwin

. Chuck is forced to pretend not to know how a cell specifies the amino acids in a protein. (A process discovered and described more than half a century ago). He will have no regrets. Upright BiPed

#28 & 34 Upright Bipedal Your question would probably be better directed to a geneticist. I’m not an expert on transfer RNA. Querius I don’t believe that I argued “against” transpiration as the evaporation of water from the leaf stomata. Although I don’t have perfect recall, I believe that I merely pointed out that the term transpiration is commonly used by biologists to describe the entire process of absorption and elimination of water and nutrients in plants. chuckdarwin

Sev, somehow you miss the implications of the darwinistic/materialistic worldview. Materialism hinges on darwinism. If you are materialist, you can't judge anyones morality because you have no standard to judge it on. I'm not saying you cannot be moral (relative to others) it is that you have no actual foundation or "why".... what Is good? Define it? I said the materialist foundation of morality is bankrupt. And I noticed conveniently you dismissed my request to provide a robust rebuttal/summary of the arguments against darwinism to communicate that you indeed have interacted with the data, understand it, and still reject it. You don't want to be pinned down, so you pick on one comment, and then try to get everyone chasing rabbits. You are a slippery one, indeed. I notice you also didn't interact about the complete lack of genuine purpose or meaning attached to naturalism either zweston

Zweston/29

If you aren’t just trolling, then grant you are bankrupt on a moral foundation and purpose and demonstrate you have a full grasp of what Darwinist skeptics know and state as their strongest counter claims. Show us you understand our position fully and still reject it. That would be refreshing.

The theory of evolution does not prescribe how human beings should behave towards one another. That was never its purpose. Just as the Bible is not a scientific account of humanity's early years, That was never its purpose either. If secular humanists are skeptical about Christian claims for the supremacy of their moral beliefs it's because humanists see those claims as incoherent and even contradictory. You are in no position to allege the moral bankruptcy of others when the foundations of your own beliefs are so shaky. Seversky

So which was the objective morality, the before or after?

Or the yet to come? Joe Schooner

EDTA/32

If objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on something, then if they agree to change their minds, that must also give rise to objective morality. So this type of morality can change any time people change their minds to the same alternative. But that is relativism almost by definition; nothing objective about it.

Yet don't we observe morality changing over time? We no longer consider it acceptable to sacrifice human beings to propitiate whatever god we believed needed to be propitiated. We no longer believe that human beings can be the wholly-owned property of other human beings which is why we did away with slavery (eventually). We no longer believe women are chattel that husbands or families can dispose of as they choose. They have - relatively recently - achieved (nominal) equality to and independence from men (in some cultures, at least). So which was the objective morality, the before or after? Seversky

If a morality conceived in the mind of an individual is purely subjective because it disappears when that mind does then the same is presumably true of moralities conceived in the minds of any number of individuals. If those many individual moralities are found to be in agreement on certain moral principles does that make those shared principles objective or simply consensual? How are the moral prescriptions dispensed by the Christian God anything other than subjective concepts in the mind of another individual being, albeit one immeasurably more knowledgeable and powerful than you or I? Is the Christian claiming here that might makes right? Seversky

Upright Biped @28,

… and Chuck, why don’t you go ahead and take the opportunity to answer the question I’ve asked you time and time again? When the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from quiescent memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place?

Same experience here. Since he recently argued against the idea that "transpiration" is the loss of water from the leaves of plants, I can guess why he's never answered your questions. -Q Querius

Bornagain77 @22, Thank you--great segue into the most important stone that God moved! -Q Querius

If objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on something, then if they agree to change their minds, that must also give rise to objective morality. So this type of morality can change any time people change their minds to the same alternative. But that is relativism almost by definition; nothing objective about it. EDTA

Further to CD's claim, "Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation." To remind CD, on the premises of his atheistic materialism, people don't actually exist as real 'persons' but only as neuronal illusions,

The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness

,,, and neither do humans with a specific human nature actually exist, only only a collection of somewhat similar individuals which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

Moreover, these people who are having illusions of being persons, who are having an illusion that they have a human nature, don't even have the capacity, via their own volition, to agree on anything, morality or otherwise, since, again on the premises of your atheistic materialism, free will is also held to be an illusion.

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/

Thus CD, your claim that "Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation" can't even get out of the starting gate before it crashes and burns into catastrophic epistemological failure.. As I noted earlier, your atheistic materialism is 'putridly indefensible'. bornagain77

Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation.

No! Objective morality flows from the nature of humans not created by humans. What is good/ethical/moral is what leads to the fulfillment of these objectives. The main objective of humans is survival. So good/ethical/moral actions are what leads to survival. This is universal across all human groups and are not usually culturally specific. There are other objectives which can usually be placed under the broad concept of thriving/flourishing. So good/ethical/moral actions are what leads to these objectives. These are often culturally specific so can vary over various groups. But all humans want these types of objectives.

I’m done–Ciao

Translation. I cannot support most of what I say so don’t expect me to answer questions. jerry

Can CD and Sev change their names to "Devil's advocate" and "Black Knight of the Holy Grail".... If I were running the site, I'd have to have someone like them to keep stimulating conversation.... If you aren't just trolling, then grant you are bankrupt on a moral foundation and purpose and demonstrate you have a full grasp of what Darwinist skeptics know and state as their strongest counter claims. Show us you understand our position fully and still reject it. That would be refreshing. zweston

. … and Chuck, why don’t you go ahead and take the opportunity to answer the question I’ve asked you time and time again? When the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from quiescent memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place? Upright BiPed

. Chuck, just a couple of quick things… 1. I am certainly no expert on Lucretius, but I know he asked some penetrating questions at a time in history where mankind did not have the means to fully answer them. For instance, he asked (paraphrasing) if it is true that all atoms interact with one another in pure invariant physical determinism — never “swerving” to create a new path and new possibilities — then from what comes all the endless variation found in living things? For Lucretius, the most obvious example of endless variation was in the observation of free will, so he framed the question in those terms, but the question stands nonetheless. He was basically asking how this is all possible. And although his generation did not have the technical capacity to answer that question, modern man has answered it. It is made physically possible by control hierarchy (via non-holonomic constraints and symbols). But you ignore that answer, thereby stripping his question of all its value. 2. You cite Darwin himself, suggesting that Darwinian evolution is not (and never was) expected to provide any answers to the OoL. But that is simply not true in the real world. There is a big distinction between what materialist ideologues say when they are making speeches and defending their ideology, and what they say when they are speculating about the origin of life. Darwinian evolution occurs when changes are made to quiescent genetic memory, leading to differential success. Yet virtually all OoL researchers promote the idea that once a self-replicating RNA has appeared on earth, then minute changes to that RNA will naturally occur, setting off Darwinian evolution, and then poof there it is. This supposed pattern of events appears in virtually every paper and lecture on the subject I’ve ever seen, and it is the central materialist story fed to the public at every turn. Yet, there is no quiescent genetic memory in a self-replicating RNA. The (as yet unknown and unseen) self-replication RNA is a purely dynamic player — and thus, Darwinian evolution does not even exist in such a thing. As with so many other examples, Darwinian evolution is tossed on the table as an explanation to fill the gap (i.e. Darwin of the Gaps), even when its doesn’t actually exist. Personally, I have faint interest in arguing over Darwinian evolution, but it can surely be pointed out that (when promoting and defending their origin myth) materialists like to talk about about RNA being able to serve both as a carrier of information, like mRNA, as well as having an enzymatic activity. They quickly ignore the fact that in order to “carry information” like mRNA, it requires a complete set of complementary molecules that are coordinated with one another. This is the fundamental requirement of both life and evolution. They then want to turn around and explain the rise of those molecules via Darwinian evolution, while simultaneously telling us that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. This is a fact they needn’t tell us; they instead need to remember it themselves. Upright BiPed

CD: "Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation." ^^^ So you hold that objective morality is decided simply by a majority of people being in agreement about it??? By your subjective standard of a 'majority' makes morality, i.e. 'might makes right', you are left completely unable to say anything about the Nazis slaughtering millions of Jews. bornagain77

Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the "rules of the road." It is a human creation. We find objective standards of morality in every society, i.e. norms, rules, regulations, statutes, etc. to help us organize and police ourselves. For example at law, the objective standard for behavior (morality) is the "reasonable person" as determined by a jury acting as the conscience of the community. This creation of Anglo-American law was developed precisely to avoid subjectively arbitrary treatment and to create an objective means of judging those accused of violating "the rules of the road." Where Christian apologists err is in equating the notion of a divinely imposed absolute morality with "objective" morality. They are not the same thing and to suggest that without God objective morality is impossible is not just a huge misnomer, it is egregious sophistry. I'm done--Ciao chuckdarwin

How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It is only if life originated via blind and mindless processes would we infer evolution also proceeded via blind and mindless processes. However an Intelligently Designed origins of life means that organisms were so designed with the information and ability to adapt and evolve. Why? Because an intelligent designer wouldn't take the time to Intelligently Design a universe, solar system and planet just to leave everything else to chance. ET

Darwin's "The Origins of Species" doesn't even discuss the origins of species! ET

Querius at 19:,,, "My favorite example comes from the old saw, “Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?”,,, My answer to this foolish argument is to ask, “Can God be not God?”, Good answer, Indeed, after listening to this following song the other day,,, a song where it asks and states, "since when has impossible Ever stopped You(?),, "Just ask the stone that was rolled At the tomb in the garden What happens when God says to move,",,,

Saturday was silent Surely it was through But since when has impossible Ever stopped You Friday's disappointment Is Sunday's empty tomb Since when has impossible Ever stopped You,,, Just ask the stone that was rolled At the tomb in the garden What happens when God says to move,,, RATTLE! | Official Lyric Video | Elevation Worship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAdbH28gIg

,,, after listening to that song the other day, a few thoughts occurred to me. Number one, God Himself is already the 'infinite rock' that can't be moved,

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

Number two, God is the already the 'necessary' infinite rock upon which an infinitude of other 'contingent' things, and/or 'rocks', already depend for their movement. (i.e. the prime mover argument).

“It’s impossible for something to put itself into motion. Therefore, anything in motion is put into motion by something else. There isn’t an infinite regress of movers in motion. Therefore, there is a prime mover, something that moves without itself being in motion, God.” - summation of Thomas Aquinas’ first mover argument "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment."? Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html

And number three, the only truly 'infinite rock' that I am really concerned with God moving is "the stone that was rolled at the tomb in the garden",,,

Mark 16:2-3 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ,,,"A rolling stone (placed at the entrance of a tomb) would usually weigh more than two tons",,, https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/the-garden-tomb

,, The reason that is the only 'infinite rock' that I am truly concerned with God moving is since "the stone that was rolled at the tomb in the garden" represents precisely the 'infinite rock' between life and death that needed to be moved in order to bridge the infinite gap between finite, sinful, man and the infinitely holy, and just, living God.

John 20 6 Simon Peter arrived just after him. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The cloth that had been around Jesus’ head was rolled up, lying separate from the linen cloths. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in. And he saw and believed. Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault - November 08, 2019 https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html RATTLE! | Official Lyric Video | Elevation Worship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAdbH28gIg

bornagain77

@ChuckDarwin @12. ‘‘The Origin of Speciesdoes not speak to either the origin of the cosmos (universe) or the origin of life (human or non-human).” In fact, it doesn’t even speak to the origin of species. “ Finally, I have no misconceptions about Epicurus’ deism. But that is not relevant to my post” That’s right, and your post wasn’t relevant to the issue of Darwinism. You were infuriated by Thomas dismissing Epicurus by comparing his efforts with the likes of Plato and Aristotle. Epicurus was not Thomas’ target. Belfast

Lieutenant Commander Data @15, Yes, why be a dog that can't help but chase all the squirrels in a forest? -Q Querius

Bornagain77 @17, Thank you for the description. It's also an example of what I'd call arguing from extremes. My favorite example comes from the old saw, "Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?" If He can't, then God is not all powerful, right? But if He could, then He still isn't all powerful because He can't lift it. It's like claiming that mathematics doesn't exist because one cannot divide by zero. My answer to this foolish argument is to ask, "Can God be not God?" There are indeed things that God cannot do. The scriptures tell us that God cannot lie, God cannot be unholy, and God cannot be unloving. The problem then isn't with God, it's with the extremes/superlatives that we try to reason with. -Q Querius

CD, Interesting that Bradley ends his essay with an argument that uses a human principle/law as one of its premises. Bradley seems oblivious to the irony of indirectly assuming his conclusion. His so-called "Down-Under Disproof," sounds like a DUD to me. But tell us, what do you think of our world from your perspective, with all its evil? With no god, and all this evil rarely judged or addressed--what is the point? To what end do you do anything that you do? Why do you bother? To make a "better" world? Better by a merely relative standard of your own choosing? I'd like to understand how you stay motivated in life, when daily facing the fact of the existence of so much evil. EDTA

To demonstrate how all atheists' arguments are, in the end, self refuting nonsense, I will take Epicurus’ argument from evil. which ChuckyD fancies to be a rock solid argument against God, and show how it collapses in on itself with just minimal scrutiny.

Logical problem of evil The earliest statement of the problem of evil is attributed to Epicurus, but this is uncertain. See note–34. Possibly originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[36] Hume summarizes Epicurus's version of the problem as follows: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"[37] The logical argument from evil is as follows: P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not. P2. There is evil in the world. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Logical_problem_of_evil

In the preceding argument from evil, in premise 2, it is held that evil exists. But this is self defeating position for atheists to be in. As David Wood puts it, "By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil."

Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

Which is to say, for evil to even exist there must, of necessity, be some objective standard of moral perfection, i.e. God, that has been departed from. As C.S. Lewis, (an ex-atheist turned Christian), put the irresolvable dilemma that atheists face in their argument from evil. "“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,"

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Thus atheists, by declaring that evil exists in their argument from evil, and apparently unbeknownst to themselves, have presupposed the very existence of God in their argument. As Peter Kreeft succinctly put it, "If Good and Evil Exist, God (necessarily) Exists"

If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

In short, their argument from evil is, like all other arguments atheists use, a self-refuting argument. Here are a few more notes:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276 The Moral Argument for the Existence of God by Jonathan McLatchie - July 17, 2012 Conclusion ,,, Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation. http://crossexamined.org/312/ Oct. 2021 - In short, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality must precede the existence of multicellular life for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738586 Oct 2021 Thus in conclusion, the moral argument for God does now indeed have some fairly impressive empirical evidence behind it that satisfies Kant’s criteria of a beyond space and time influence. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738672 update to preceding post Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis – 2018 Discussion This update of the Mossbridge et al. (2012) meta-analysis related to the so called predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) responses to future random stimuli, covers the period January 2008- July 2018. Overall, we found 19 new studies describing a total of 36 effect sizes. Differently from the statistical approach of Mossbridge et al., in this meta-analysis we used a frequentist and a Bayesian multilevel model which allows an analysis of all effect sizes reported within a single study instead of averaging them. Both the frequentist and the Bayesian analyses converged on similar results, making our findings quite robust. ,,, Conclusion This update confirms the main results reported in Mossbridge et al. (2012) original meta-analysis and gives further support to the hypothesis of predictive physiological anticipatory activity of future random events. This phenomenon may hence be considered among the more reliable within those covered under the umbrella term “psi” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/

Verse:

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

bornagain77

#12 Belfast Thomas' trashing of Epicurus and Lucretius is not a side issue, it goes to the heart of materialism vs. supernaturalism. Darwinism, or formally, natural selection operating on random variation, both inter- and intra-specifically, is not a creation myth, (or what Thomas incorrectly calls a "cosmogenic myth") because, it has nothing to do with creation of the world or life. Every biologist, and, in fact, most philosophers, know this. This is where Thomas' biological ignorance betrays him. However, ignorance is no excuse for you or Thomas, because the scope of Darwinism is defined in the very title of the book. Darwin's The Origin of Speciesdoes not speak to either the origin of the cosmos (universe) or the origin of life (human or non-human). Finally, I have no misconceptions about Epicurus' deism. But that is not relevant to my post which referenced Epicurus' argument from evil vis a vis the personal God of Judaism, and, ultimately Christianity. chuckdarwin

Querius As a result, chatbots/trollbots succeed in wasting everyone’s time

Not the trollbots waste somobody's time it's somebody that falls into the trap of "teaching" the trollbots . Lieutenant Commander Data

Belfast @13, Yes, exactly. Thanks for the background on Epicurus. Sounds like the gods he envisioned would then be "spaced" between the universes in the Multiverse. Multiverse, of course, is the name of a giant cosmic turtle that lays eggs, which become universes. (wink) -Q Querius

Bornagain 77 @11, Chesterton makes a brilliant observation as usual. Chatbots/trollbots can pull text from a library of inflammatory comments in response to certain keywords in the message they're responding to. That's why they repeatedly bring up the same falsified assertions. Also, when you dig a little deeper in the subject area, their knowledge seems shallow or flawed as we saw, for example, in a previous conversation about transpiration in plants. Also, trollbots don't do their own research or bring anything new or interesting to a subject, they just scoff or assign "homework" to people rather looking up the references themselves. As a result, chatbots/trollbots succeed in wasting everyone's time, except that the interchange might be helpful for people unfamiliar with a subject. -Q Querius

Once again trolls, like ChuckyD, introduce a side issue, the issue here is that Darwinism is a creation myth as myths are classified. To correct a misconception he seems have about Epicurus; Epicurus actually espoused the existence of gods whom he placed in the intervals between infinite worlds, where they passed an undisturbed life and enjoyed happiness. The first part of his Principles specifically begins with his advice to have a right understanding of gods. Back to the point, CD, set out why Darwinism is not a creation myth. Belfast

"I’m not confident that none of the people posting vacuous trolls here aren’t actually A.I. illusions of individuals after all." Ha Ha Ha :) https://giphy.com/explore/haha Of semi-related philosophical note:

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

bornagain77

Bornagain77 @8, Great response! Let me suggest one clarification to your question:

And again, why should “I”, i.e. a real person, even care what ‘you’, an illusion of a person, have to say about reality?

"And again, why should “I”, i.e. a real person, even care what ‘you’, who considers himself an illusion of a person, have to say about reality?" If a premise someone is working from is false, then their conclusions are most likely false. However, I admit that chatbots/trollbots are getting better and better, so I'm not confident that none of the people posting vacuous trolls here aren't actually A.I. illusions of individuals after all. -Q Querius

Bornagain

Thus ‘I’, by all rights, a real person, should ignore everything ‘you’, an illusion of a person, say, and/or write.....

That's the best idea you've had since I've started following this website. And you managed to say it in 25 words or less...... chuckdarwin

ChuckyD, asks "If I don’t exist, why do you keep responding to my posts?" But alas, it is not I, but your own insane philosophy of atheistic materialism, that denies you exist as a real person. Of course I, as a Christian, believe you are a real person, i.e. a real 'soul'.

“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892

You complain about my repeated use of WLC's refutation of Atheist Alex Rosenberg's book "The Atheist's Guide to Reality". Okie Dokie, here are other leading atheistic materialists who make the same insane claim that they do not really exist as real persons

"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker - Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ “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.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

And again, why should “I”, i.e. a real person, even care what ‘you’, an illusion of a person, have to say about reality? ‘You’, by your own philosophical presupposition of atheistic materialism, are nothing but an illusion. And Illusions, by definition, only distort our perception of reality. Thus ‘I’, by all rights, a real person, should ignore everything ‘you’, an illusion of a person, say, and/or write, since it will, by definition, only distort my perception of reality!

The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

bornagain77

Bornagain-- If I don't exist, why do you keep responding to my posts? Also, this is about the fourth or fifth time you've responded to my posts with WLC's silly little syllogisms. I get it, you think WLC is the bees knees. I beg you, please get some fresh material.... chuckdarwin

ChuckyD still pretends as if the putridly indefensible atheistic materialism of Epicurus is even semi-coherent. Yet, if the atheistic materialism of Epicurus is actually true, then neither ChuckyD nor Epicurus, actually exists, and/or existed, as real persons, much less can any of their sentences ever mean anything. Which pretty much, (granting for the sake of argument that they exist, and/or existed, as real persons ), renders any arguments they may have, or had, for atheistic materialism null and void. You don't have to take my word for it. Atheist Alex Rosenberg, professor of philosophy at Duke University, spells out the implications of atheistic materialism in his book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions”.

The following is Dr. Craig’s refutation of atheist Professor Alex Rosenberg’s book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions” 1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.

I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of the 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheistic materialist's) position actually is.

Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

And here is Alex Rosenberg, in his own words, denying that he actually exists as a real person:

"There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again." - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

Now ChuckyD, 'you' may personally think that embracing a philosophy that denies that 'you' even exist as a real person is a coherent position for 'you' to take, but why should "I", i.e. a real person, even care what 'you', an illusion of a person, have to say about reality? 'You', by your own philosophical presupposition of atheistic materialism, are nothing but an illusion. And Illusions, by definition, only distort our perception of reality. Thus 'I', by all rights, a real person, should ignore everything 'you', an illusion of a person, say, and/or write, since it will, by definition, only distort my perception of reality!

The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

bornagain77

The reason that Epicurus so infuriates Christian apologists (e.g.. "putridly indefensible") is his iron-clad argument from evil against existence of the personal God of monotheism as first envisioned by Judaism and then adopted by Christianity. Despite extravagant and self-laudatory claims, the most famous by Alvin Plantinga (The Nature of Necessity, Chapter IX, Sec. 8, “The Free Will Defense Triumphant”), that they have defeated or asserted a successful theodicy negating Epicurus' argument, Christian philosophers have never been able to make a dent in the argument. See Bradley, R., "The Free Will Defense Refuted and God’s Existence Disproved," 2007 (https://infidels.org/library/modern/raymond-bradley-fwd-refuted/) chuckdarwin

Epicurus was a materialist. Materialism is a failed philosophy. ET

Since ChuckyD has now seen fit to defend the putridly indefensible philosophy of Epicurus and Lucretius, it is worth quoting Thomas in full past what News quoted,

"It was the would-be rehabilitation of those ancient materialist thinkers (Epicurus and Lucretius) by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, in the late 18th century, coupled with the later Victorian crisis of faith and the sudden irruption into this already volatile mix of Charles Darwin which was to result in the particularly strange irrationalism which has stubbornly persisted right up to the present day. This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity." - Neil Thomas

It is also worth pointing out that David Hume himself, (who supposedly rehabilitated Epicurus and Lucretius), is, by all rights, to be considered nothing but a two-bit 'philosophical thief' who stole the 'miraculous' laws of nature away from the Christian founders of modern science who, via their belief in God, discovered them in the first place. i.e. Hume declared that the laws of nature, apparently by his own personal decree, to be completely 'natural' with no need of God to explain their existence. Specifically David Hume stated, “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;”

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be.” – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

After self-servingly presupposing that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence, David Hume, in the same passage, goes on to argue that, basically, since a man rising from the dead would violate the laws of nature, then Jesus resurrection from the dead is a violation of the laws of nature and is therefore impossible.

“Nothing is counted as a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet often been observed to happen. But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country.” – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

Yet, David Hume, as an atheist, simply had no right whatsoever to presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence. In 2007 Paul Davies stated, ",,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,”

Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

And as C.S. Lewis stated, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”

When things just don’t fit: Science and the Easter faith – John Lennox – 13 April 2012 Excerpt: Alfred North Whitehead’s view, as summarised by C.S. Lewis, was that: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” It is no accident that Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Clerk-Maxwell were believers in God. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/when-things-just-dont-fit-science-and-the-easter-faith/10100632

Again. atheists, especially with their a-priori metaphysical assumption that the ‘the universe is a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed, (Paul Davies; 1995)’ simply have no right whatsoever to presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural. Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:

“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes – UD blogger

Einstein himself stated, “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”,,,

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

Likewise, Eugene Wigner also stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,”

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Thus for David Hume, again an atheistic philosopher, to self-servingly presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence wass a severely disingenuous and dishonest thing for him to do. All of modern science was born out of the Christian presupposition that God ‘miraculously’ upholds this universe via His laws of nature. For modern examples, there is Faraday and Maxwell and even Max Planck himself,,,

The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell – Ian H. Hutchinson – 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

So again, I hold that David Hume, an atheist, was basically a two-bit ‘philosophical thief’ who stole the ‘miraculous’ laws of nature away from the Christian founders of modern science who first discovered them. bornagain77

Looks like the Discovery Institute has found a new BFF in Prof. Thomas. Thomas is certainly entitled to his opinions, but one should be leery of getting one's science from retired humanities professors. One thing about the quoted passage is troubling. Thomas characterizes Epicurus and Lucretius as "'out there' philosophic fantasists." In reality, Epicurus was, and remains, one of the most influential philosophers in western thought. Unlike the elitist Plato, whom Epicurus rejected, Epicurus openly welcomed women and slaves to participate in his school. I suspect that Thomas' revulsion with Epicurus is that he is considered to be one of the first and most influential of the empiricists, contra Plato. Likewise with Lucretius who also was, and is, deeply influential and rightfully can be characterized as the forbearer of the theory of evolution. For a DI fellow traveler like Thomas to characterize Epicurus and Lucretius as " out there fantasists" is, as the English say, pretty "cheeky." chuckdarwin

"The best way to understand Darwinism is as the creation myth of naturalism: Nothing Randomly Produced Things That Don’t Matter. And Thinking About It Is an Illusion. So Trust the Science." I love this. So well put! Of course we are not disparaging real science - science that uses the scientific method to verify/falsify hypotheses, but when it comes to origins, science has real limitations. Science is good at helping us understand how things WORK, but it is not very good at helping us understand how things CAME TO BE. tjguy