Materialism

[altonhare]

Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot con- ceive Him?

And this is why nobody can unambiguously distinguish science from religion. This is exactly the distinction, physics demands visualization. The first step, the hypothesis, involves visualizing an object. Modern "physicists" refusal or inability to do so leaves them powerless against religion. In fact, it makes them worse than religion. At least I can visualize angels and 4-horse chariots. I cannot visualize 'a' probability density or 'a' 0D "particle" or 'a' space-time. "Physics" today is naught but lots of exciting engineering and wild supernatural or plain irrational claims. Entertainment sells well, real science doesn't.

As long as modern "physics" refuses to invoke the visualization criteria it will lose every battle to theists. Indeed, they themselves are theists and don't even know it. They're fighting themselves or a phantom, depending.

Until the Creationists et. al. can show me a hypothesis (a 3D model, presumably of the Designer) and a movie explaining how the Designer did whatever they claim It did, their "theory" is so much hot air. Just like quantum's ridiculous probability cloud and relativity's fantastical space-time.

[Plasmatic]

The materialist's only possible defense, as I see it, is the assertion that life along with its cells, proteins, and DNA, have eternally co-existed,

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Its the same as existence itself. There is no reason to conclude it had a "beginning" and to do so requires getting something from nothing.On the other hand if its always been theres no problem of "evolution"or "creation".

[webolife]

When you say, "no problem of evolution...", are you saying that everything has existed as it is with no gradual undirected mutation-based "upward" climb from slime to scientist? Or are you saying that undirected process usually referred to as macroevolution did in fact happen? And if you are saying this, are you further willing to document this "evolution" with an actual observation?

[Plasmatic]

Hi Web, Im saying that the problem of "evolving irreducibility" is no more an issue. Personally I don't favor evolution. I think mutation from massive exposure to radiation is a better fit.

[webolife]

Radiation exposure has never been observed to produce an increase in information to the DNA code, in fact only deleterious mutations have been observed... how is this a better fit? If you can answer that, explain how by such a mechanism all life forms, from slime to scientist in their utterly irreducibly complexity, could have been produced.

[altonhare]

Radiation exposure has never been observed to produce an increase in information to the DNA code, in fact only deleterious mutations have been observed... how is this a better fit? If you can answer that, explain how by such a mechanism all life forms, from slime to scientist in their utterly irreducibly complexity, could have been produced.

And if someone cannot, this very instant, show you how every single species ever formed in the most perfect detail, will you then insist that God of the Gap did it?

[webolife]

I don't believe in your God of the Gap. I believe in the great Designer, who wove intricately and irreducibly into every being every feature needed for its own survival and the survival of all creatures interdependent with it. Either you explain how that complexity came about by undirected mutation, by "materialistic" processes, or concede the argument... you have yet to take up my challenge on this point. Certainly the "gaps" spell doom for a theory that is dependent on a gradualistic process iof accumulation of minute changes over eons of time. But I don't base my faith on how evidence poor the theory of [macro]evolution is, but on the evidence I see before my eyes.

[altonhare]

I don't believe in your God of the Gap.

You certainly appeal to him often.

I believe in the great Designer, who wove intricately and irreducibly into every being every feature needed for its own survival and the survival of all creatures interdependent with it.

Men need nipples?
Red queen behavior was "intelligently designed"?
Autoimmune disease was "intelligently designed"?
Postpartem depression, resulting in the slaying of infants, was "intelligently designed"?

Diamonds and snowflakes are "highly ordered" and "complex" but were not designed.

Intelligent Design Advocate: "You're telling me that you would rather believe that all these complex structures in the universe arose from nothing, from no one?"

Rational Being: We have not observed a Creator nor a Designer. Why would He not make Himself apparent? In the meantime, the scientific stance is not to invoke unimaginable, undefinable, and/or unobservable entities.

Intellgient Design Advocate: "We don't claim to understand how God works, we are not meant to understand how God works, but his presense is evidenced by splendous creation.

Rational Being: "Then certainly, according to your own reasoning, this splendid and powerful God of yours must have a creator, since he is too awesome not to have been designed".

IDA : "But God always has been, and always will be."

RB : Isn't that a double standard? Why can't we say that the universe always has been and always will be?

IDA : *Loops back and repeats the first thing he said*

Either you explain how that complexity came about by undirected mutation, by "materialistic" processes, or concede the argument... you have yet to take up my challenge on this point.

Because I confess I don't know every detail about how every atom moved to produce life. It is an ongoing science called biology. There are at least theories and research in this area.

How about you explain/illustrate to me how God produced life. Then you will at least actually have a theory.

[webolife]

I take your reply to mean:
I can't fit God into my "material" box, therefore s/he doesn't exist.
I have no problem with:
Scientists are limited in their research to the stuff in the "material" box, but this doesn't mean that things exist that are outside of that box. Further I have no problem with the possibility that that things outside of the box "occasionally" interact with the things inside the box.

[Plasmatic]

Autoimmune disease was "intelligently designed"?
Postpartem depression, resulting in the slaying of infants, was "intelligently designed"?

Come now Alton you damn well that the "Devil " did it!

[mague]

Autoimmune disease was "intelligently designed"?
Postpartem depression, resulting in the slaying of infants, was "intelligently designed"?

Come now Alton you damn well that the "Devil " did it!

Trees try to grow into the sky. At some point the suction breaks down and the icy wind in winter is destroying the tips of the twigs. Is this destructive force and roadblocker of the tress freedom the devil or part of a design/logic ?
Every force has its anti-force and at a certain threshold one of them is prevailing. I think this is looking like a design. Its about borders and balance. A rocket is able to leave the atmosphere with a balanced amout of propulsion. With to much/less propulsion its going nowhere. No devil. just a designed force that is activating an antifoce once it breaks a certain border. Not a gap god, but a god with design and anti-design

Alton: Birth and happyness is a design. Isnt the question about what is lacking to make a person depressive ? And isnt autoimune disease the "shadow" force of autoimune health ? If we dont trust in our natural abilities to be healthy and use preventive vaccines for all and anything while sterilizing our environment completely, then we admit that we dont need our imune system. Our medics are using to much propulsion to reach a ploanet called immortability. As sad as sickness and death might be, it has a "plan" and most of it is scientifically observable.

[altonhare]

I take your reply to mean:
I can't fit God into my "material" box, therefore s/he doesn't exist.

We have not observed God.

We can imagine that which we haven't observed and assume it exists. For instance "let's assume a rope exists...". However "God", as its typically been presented to me, is unimaginable.

We have no evidence that intelligence can produce the animate from the inanimate.


I'm just trying to be objective and scientific.

I have no problem with:
Scientists are limited in their research to the stuff in the "material" box, but this doesn't mean that things exist that are outside of that box. Further I have no problem with the possibility that that things outside of the box "occasionally" interact with the things inside the box.

Are you saying C&ID do not formally belong in science?

[altonhare]

Autoimmune disease was "intelligently designed"?
Postpartem depression, resulting in the slaying of infants, was "intelligently designed"?

Come now Alton you damn well that the "Devil " did it!

Trees try to grow into the sky. At some point the suction breaks down and the icy wind in winter is destroying the tips of the twigs. Is this destructive force and roadblocker of the tress freedom the devil or part of a design/logic ?

I have no problem with balance, order, etc. I have a problem when "majesty" and "beauty" and all those great things about my life are invoked as evidence for Design, but equally/oppositely awful things in the world are not taken as evidence against Design. It's blatant cherry-picking.

Every force has its anti-force and at a certain threshold one of them is prevailing. I think this is looking like a design.

It's looking a lot like Identity, and everything acting in accordance with its identity. There is no need of an extrinsic agent to bring order to that which is intrinsically ordered (reality).

Its about borders and balance. A rocket is able to leave the atmosphere with a balanced amout of propulsion. With to much/less propulsion its going nowhere. No devil. just a designed force that is activating an antifoce once it breaks a certain border. Not a gap god, but a god with design and anti-design

Let me get this straight. Because sometimes something goes far and sometimes not is evidence that an extrinsic intelligent agent is directing the whole show?

Alton: Birth and happyness is a design. Isnt the question about what is lacking to make a person depressive ?

The question is, why would an omniscient and omnipotent Designer allow for mothers to drown their newborns in the lake.

Or why recently in Baltimore a man picked up his kids for visitation and drowned them, one after the other, in the tub. He did it to get revenge on his wife, because he knew that the children were all she had anymore.

Some see this and say it's just the way God works, we're just mere mortals. i.e. they're appealing to the inconceivable, which can defend ANY stance on ANY issue.

And isnt autoimune disease the "shadow" force of autoimune health ?

There are some particulars of immune system biology that I would have done differently if I were designing such a system. Yes it works pretty well, but to my mind a designed system does not possess some of the blatant weaknesses and flaws I see.

If we dont trust in our natural abilities to be healthy and use preventive vaccines for all and anything while sterilizing our environment completely, then we admit that we dont need our imune system. Our medics are using to much propulsion to reach a ploanet called immortability. As sad as sickness and death might be, it has a "plan" and most of it is scientifically observable.

I agree that there is a such thing as "too clean" and "overmedicated". I agree that we are going overboard in some ways in these arenas. This has nothing to do with an argument from Design but is simply a reasoned rational conclusion of mine.

[webolife]

I'm getting stuff in two threads confused... ain't that a metaphor

I said:
webolife wrote:
I have no problem with:
Scientists are limited in their research to the stuff in the "material" box, but this doesn't mean that things exist that are outside of that box. Further I have no problem with the possibility that that things outside of the box "occasionally" interact with the things inside the box.

To which Alton asked:
Are you saying C&ID do not formally belong in science?

First let me correct my mis-statement to read,"this doesn't mean that things don't exist that are outside of the box", which is what I meant...

Not sure what you are implying in the use of the word "formally" here, but I would say this:
If one paradigm, replete with its assumptions, is allowed to monopolize scientific study and discussion, as in public schools where I teach, for example, then it is reasonable and much more scientific to include multiple paradigms to increase the critical thinking skills of students, giving practical application for the priority of evidence in the formulation of conclusions.
Hey I'm thinking we both agree on this point, is it possible? So I would be content to allow the baseless philosophy of macroevolution to be presented, as long as alternate explanations are also presented for comparison. In my view, ID comes out a winner in any side by side comparison of evidence. Now there is a point I know we don't agree on.

Paradigms move the research and conclusions, even draw funds, for scientific study for decades on end... the exclusion of alternate paradigms is just dishonest.

Isn't this fun?

[altonhare]

I'm getting stuff in two threads confused... ain't that a metaphor

I said:
webolife wrote:
I have no problem with:
Scientists are limited in their research to the stuff in the "material" box, but this doesn't mean that things exist that are outside of that box. Further I have no problem with the possibility that that things outside of the box "occasionally" interact with the things inside the box.

To which Alton asked:
Are you saying C&ID do not formally belong in science?

First let me correct my mis-statement to read,"this doesn't mean that things don't exist that are outside of the box", which is what I meant...

Define "material"?

Material: Shape
Exist: Shape and location and relationships between shapes with location

Non-material existence is a contradiction in terms. You (or someone) will undoubtedly accuse me of "word-mongering" or something, but the onus is on you to make what you are saying clear and unambiguous.

Consistency is an *objective* criterion (scientific). It has nothing to do with anyone's personal preference.

Not sure what you are implying in the use of the word "formally" here, but I would say this:
If one paradigm, replete with its assumptions, is allowed to monopolize scientific study and discussion, as in public schools where I teach, for example, then it is reasonable and much more scientific to include multiple paradigms to increase the critical thinking skills of students, giving practical application for the priority of evidence in the formulation of conclusions.

Students are rarely taught how to think critically or independently. They're taught to memorize and recall. Any problem-solving or critical analysis they are taught is purely mathematical. This wouldn't be so bad except the math is not firmly connected to reality. This leads to a dualism between incredibly sophisticated and accurate mathematical models and a gross dearth of understanding of reality and, by extension, physics.

Of course students are not born accepting this situation. Young bright ones frequently express various levels of discontent inside and outside the classroom. That is why we need "scientific" celebrities to back up the current state of things. People who are touted and perceived as "too brilliant to be wrong". The young, bright, critical, and inquisitive mind is quieted down. "You are too young to understand yet, just wait until you're older." "Many brilliant people have come before you." The trouble is that by the time you're "old enough" you've learned the doctrine so well by rote you don't even remember why you had objections when you were younger. In fact you probably write them off as the silly naive objections of a child.

Hey I'm thinking we both agree on this point, is it possible? So I would be content to allow the baseless philosophy of macroevolution to be presented, as long as alternate explanations are also presented for comparison. In my view, ID comes out a winner in any side by side comparison of evidence. Now there is a point I know we don't agree on.

Paradigms move the research and conclusions, even draw funds, for scientific study for decades on end... the exclusion of alternate paradigms is just dishonest.

Isn't this fun?

Public schools, being publicly funded (through the gov't), can teach whatever the public (or gov't) wants. The gov't has typically passed off technology as science so that it can prepare young people to build bombs, vaccines, and etc. If the public has a problem with what is taught then they express this through their voting power, rallies, protests, etc. They can also just teach their own children since public school is not compulsory. None of this is science. Science is not a public or government institution. Science recognizes no endorsement, vote, censor, or funding. Science is just a collection of rational explanations.

I'll wager this, what will be taught in public school is what the gov't perceives is most likely to prepare young people to advance national defense, security, and health. Science is not interested in these, science will only be taught by accident or coincidence.