Materialism is Self-Refuting

[JDaniel]

Thoughts and feelings are results of the senses, therefore decisions can be theoretically predictable.

If you would rather have me use the word manipulate than I can, but “Evolution creates” by natural selection, and everything is bound to some type of evolution.

Lemon:

That is an erroneous definition of “create.” Evolution does not create. Evolution utilizes chance as a cause. A cause requires the existence of one or more prior exigencies wherein, whereon, or within which Form is commingled. Moreover, such prior exigency must have had an appetite for that Form. It cannot be absurdly arbitrary. So, yes, I would prefer the word, “manipulate.”

Creation is the bringing about of something where there was nothing before. It is causal only allegorically. Unless you want to re-define the word.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

Creation is the bringing about of something where there was nothing before. It is causal only allegorically. Unless you want to re-define the word.

And if our minds are productions of evolution, how is that not creation? Or should I say, Evolution manipulated ancestors of human beings into having a mind that exists today?

 

[JDaniel]

And if our minds are productions of evolution, how is that not creation? Or should I say, Evolution manipulated ancestors of human beings into having a mind that exists today?

Well? That seems to be the theory science believes, although can’t definitively prove. Nowhere does science ever say that the human mind was created by evolution.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

Well? That seems to be the theory science believes, although can’t definitively prove. Nowhere does science ever say that the human mind was created by evolution.

I look at it as physical mindless matter created its own consciousness

thanks for the insight, it will be absorbed by me today.

 

[JDaniel]

I look at it as physical mindless matter created its own consciousness

You see, Lemon, that is harder for me to believe, and conceive, than is the idea of an intentional creator.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

You see, Lemon, that is harder for me to believe, and conceive, than is the idea of an intentional creator.

Why? Perhaps the intentional creator created everything via the Big Bang, and just let everything play out, knowing at least one cognitive rational being would develop a language and then search for the answers to the universe. To discover the intentional creator

That makes more sense to me than a personal God interfering with his creations, which would conflict with his promised free will.

 

[AntiTheist]

You see, Lemon, that is harder for me to believe, and conceive, than is the idea of an intentional creator.

It’s misleading to say that “physical mindless matter created its own consciousness.” Matter doesn’t create anything.

This is how it works: when living things – even tiny collections of molecules or single-celled entities – reproduce, the process is not perfect. Little copying errors occur called “mutations.”

The vast majority of these mutations do nothing, but some of them accord the creature a small survival advantage. Over a long time, an advantageous mutation can spread through a population. Very slowly, over time, little changes add up, and a process called “speciation” occurs by which family trees diverge from one another.

In our species, very gradually, more complicated brain structures – and with them, higher cognitive functions – developed through this method.

All of what I’ve said is verifiable fact. Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project (and a Christian), has said that even if we had no fossils, the evidence of DNA by itself is sufficient to confirm that evolution is true.

 

[Spock]

That’s what reductive analysis is. Its a causal chain which moves from the effect to the lowest level of cause. We trace the formation of charcoal and diamonds from the atomic level where they are the same. Then, the causal chain moves to the application of different physical forces of energy and heat, which cause the atoms to bind or not. Thus, we understand the process that creates the diamond.

Correct. In other words, the different properties of charcoal and diamond are NOT reduced to the constituent carbon atoms. Taking the formation process into account (and the different arrangement of the atoms) we can explain the differences.

This is exactly what materialist reductionism is. Scientism is built on that.

But it is not reductionism.

With your analogy here you prove it. Materialism claims that everything is essentially the same as charcoal and diamonds. Physical pressures and laws are applied to atoms and then everything in the entire universe results.

Much more complicated than that. Physics, chemistry, biology, medical science, etc… are built into a hierarchical structure, and each level has its own set of regularities. Chemical processes cannot be reduced to the atomic particles. The viscosity of water cannot be reduced to the properties on the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Scientism means that we can arrive at the truest explanation of everything through science, and that is proven in this example you provide.

With the proper application of science, which transcends simple “physics”. Now, whether such an endeavor will take place, is not certain, nor is it relevant. Maybe we could develop a branch of neuro-science which can explain why does Joe prefer tall, blond women, and Jack prefers short, chubby brunettes. Maybe so, but no one cares. The theoretical possibility of developing such a detailed analysis yields no practical results. So chances are that such questions will never be presented for scientific scrutiny. Not because it is “impossible”, but because no one cares.

 

[JDaniel]

Why? Perhaps the intentional creator created everything via the Big Bang, and just let everything play out, knowing at least one cognitive rational being would develop a language and then search for the answers to the universe. To discover the intentional creator

That makes more sense to me than a personal God interfering with his creations, which would conflict with his promised free will.

You see, I don’t think of God “interfering with his creations.” God did not create His creations in Time. We are undergoing an ongoing creative expression. As an Infinite, Eternal Being, God’s creative aspect never had a beginning and will never have an end. For Him, it is ongoing in an Eternal Now.

Think about it: How else could an Infinite Being operate? Logical.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

You see, I don’t think of God “interfering with his creations.” God did not create His creations in Time. We are undergoing an ongoing creative expression. As an Infinite, Eternal Being, God’s creative aspect never had a beginning and will never have an end. For Him, it is ongoing in an Eternal Now.

Think about it: How else could an Infinite Being operate? Logical.

So my physical body was not created in Time? Our experiences in Time build up and effect/make us the people we are today. It is how we act on those experiences that molds the “I” in everyone of us. They make us who we are.

Answer to it: by just merely existing

 

[JDaniel]

It’s misleading to say that “physical mindless matter created its own consciousness.” Matter doesn’t create anything.

I agree.

This is how it works: when living things – even tiny collections of molecules or single-celled entities – reproduce, the process is not perfect. Little copying errors occur called “mutations.”

Interesting. Can the “errors” have copying errors?

The vast majority of these mutations do nothing, but some of them accord the creature a small survival advantage. Over a long time, an advantageous mutation can spread through a population. Very slowly, over time, little changes add up, and a process called “speciation” occurs by which family trees diverge from one another.

With chance, wouldn’t you say that there would be at least a 50% chance that each and every such “mutation” could further mutate, and either become, so to speak, something else, or, be gone.

In our species, very gradually, more complicated brain structures – and with them, higher cognitive functions – developed through this method.

Or not.

All of what I’ve said is verifiable fact.

Really? Have I not just refuted these assertions with Truth?

Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project (and a Christian), has said that even if we had no fossils, the evidence of DNA by itself is sufficient to confirm that evolution is true.

I can’t comment on that. I am unfamiliar with Francis. I may even disagree with him.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So my physical body was not created in Time? Our experiences in Time build up and effect/make us the people we are today. It is how we act on those experiences that molds the “I” in everyone of us. They make us who we are.

Answer to it: by just merely existing

We are in time. God is not. We are finite. When we crawl through a tunnel, our head parts enter first and our leg parts enter last. Thus, before and after. But, an Infinite Being has no head parts and leg parts. An Infinite Being has no parts. Thus, no before and no after.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Correct. In other words, the different properties of charcoal and diamond are NOT reduced to the constituent carbon atoms. Taking the formation process into account (and the different arrangement of the atoms) we can explain the differences.

But it is not reductionism.

Much more complicated than that. Physics, chemistry, biology, medical science, etc… are built into a hierarchical structure, and each level has its own set of regularities. Chemical processes cannot be reduced to the atomic particles. The viscosity of water cannot be reduced to the properties on the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

With the proper application of science, which transcends simple “physics”. Now, whether such an endeavor will take place, is not certain, nor is it relevant. Maybe we could develop a branch of neuro-science which can explain why does Joe prefer tall, blond women, and Jack prefers short, chubby brunettes. Maybe so, but no one cares. The theoretical possibility of developing such a detailed analysis yields no practical results. So chances are that such questions will never be presented for scientific scrutiny. Not because it is “impossible”, but because no one cares.

Spockmeister! Where on earth have you been? I missed you. Glad you’re back and healthy, as I assume you to be!

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

We are in time. God is not. We are finite. When we crawl through a tunnel, our head parts enter first and our leg parts enter last. Thus, before and after. But, an Infinite Being has no head parts and leg parts. An Infinite Being has no parts. Thus, no before and no after.

Now that is erroneous, because an Infinite Being is the head, the leg, and the tunnel. He is. Everything makes up this Infinite Being, before and after, always in the Now.

 

[JDaniel]

With the proper application of science, which transcends simple “physics”. Now, whether such an endeavor will take place, is not certain, nor is it relevant. Maybe we could develop a branch of neuro-science which can explain why does Joe prefer tall, blond women, and Jack prefers short, chubby brunettes. Maybe so, but no one cares. The theoretical possibility of developing such a detailed analysis yields no practical results. So chances are that such questions will never be presented for scientific scrutiny. Not because it is “impossible”, but because no one cares.

I should think that a lot of women might.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Now that is erroneous, because an Infinite Being is the head, the leg, and the tunnel. He is. Everything makes up this Infinite Being

But, it occupies everything at once. Can’t you see that?

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

But, it occupies everything at once. Can’t you see that?

God bless,
jd

Yes because He is everything at once

 

[AntiTheist]

Interesting. Can the “errors” have copying errors?

I don’t think you understand what a mutation is.

With chance, wouldn’t you say that there would be at least a 50% chance that each and every such “mutation” could further mutate

Now I know you don’t understand what a mutation is. Mutations don’t “further mutate.” You need to actually read a book on this subject and learn something about it before you say things like this in public.

Really? Have I not just refuted these assertions with Truth?

No.

I can’t comment on that.

Of course you can’t. You’re not only unfamiliar with Collins – you’re unfamiliar with the subject in general, as your statements indicate. That this doesn’t prevent you from having strong opinions on it is kind of disappointing, to be honest with you.

 

[Spock]

Spockmeister! Where on earth have you been? I missed you. Glad you’re back and healthy, as I assume you to be!

God bless,
jd

Most kind of you Yes, I am healthy, in good spirits, and consuming a good spirit right now (vodka + lime), raising my glass to your health! The truth is that I am engaged in some good internet game, but I can find time to have some good conversation with wonderful people like you! Cheers, my friend!

 

[tonyrey]

Thoughts and feelings are results of the senses, therefore decisions can be theoretically predictable.

Do you mean you cannot choose what to think or have no control over your feelings? If all our activity is caused by our senses we are just biological machines…

If we didn’t have a mind we wouldn’t know sub-atomic particles exist. Mindless objects are not aware of anything. Our starting point is not things but thoughts. We are all in what has been called the egocentric predicament. You believe things existed prior to thoughts but it is more reasonable to believe thoughts existed prior to things. Intangible realities like truth, justice, freedom and love are indestructible.

Get rid of the human mind and our societies, what is justice and freedom? These were created by our minds, along with truth and love.

You are assuming that our minds are the only minds that exist. How would you justify that?
If we create truth then we can change it to suit us! If we create freedom we just imagine that we are free… If we create love it is like a work of fiction, i.e. it doesn’t exist…