Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

Just a quick comment.

It obviously an appeal to popularity, another logical fallacy.

I don't really think it's a fallacy. I believe it's an argument, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it is a very weak one.

Of course, if I'm wrong, let me know. I need to learn.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

...who said anything about magic...

More distraction. More deflection.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


But I want to know!

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

www.samharris.org...

This is an article by Sam Harris a neuroscientist who has some harsh words for those who know nothing about this field of science yet make their money off of selling books and presentations about NDE bull****. In my opinion those people are liars who only want your money.

edit on 30-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

I respect his critique although it seemed to me like he has some sort of personal issue with the man.

I don't believe neuroscience has adequately explained veridical NDE/OBE though. How does one experience full consciousness and see themselves from another location? Are we to just throw away and classify these cases as NDE bull****?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

I respect his critique although it seemed to me like he has some sort of personal issue with the man.

I don't believe neuroscience has adequately explained veridical NDE/OBE though. How does one experience full consciousness and see themselves from another location? Are we to just throw away and classify these cases as NDE bull****?

Hey PhotonEffect, I have read Dr Alexander's book as well, he has another in the works that is more technical relating to neuroscience, looking forward to it.

You'll notice that all these characters the materialistic atheists prop up are the same every time, the evangelical militant new atheists they are biased and have an agenda to impose their world view.

Oh, and guess what? They profit by selling books!

When confronted they run away. Sam Harris refuses to debate Eben Alexander.
www.skeptiko.com...

Run away brave sir Robin!

The vast amount of documented NDE's and hundreds of veridical cases support everything we have been discussing. Even children as young as 3 and 4 years old report the same thing. Dam kids and their ideological agendas!

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by squiz

 

“If near-death experience is an illusion, a trick of the mind-which it may well be-and I suspect it will turn out to be.”

Dr. Sam Parnia

He is an obvious charlatan that uses this topic as a money maker while he disguises his professional opinion to keep the money flowing from talks and books.

As I said Dr Parnia was a skeptic as your quote suggests, he was seriously looking for a brain based cause, he is very unbiased and realistic. If you look at his latest interviews he is clearly off the fence due to the weight of the evidence.

The excuse of a money making agenda is weak, the militant atheists do it as well. Hell if I were in a position working in this line of study I would do it as well and I am sure you would too.

Excuse after excuse.

There are several lines of evidence all pointing to the same thing, from cosmology, physics, biology and origin of life and studies in the nature of consciouness. All pointing to a trancendant reality beyond this physical realm.

reply to post by Barcs


Hi Barcs. You seem a bit upset.

Firstly I don't see too much substance in your responses. I will just address a few issues and your misinterpretation of my position. You are responding as if I were a religious creationists, that is certainly not the case. Your usual arguments don't work on me.

I accept the definition between theory and hypothesis as I already stated.

There are refutations to your Talk origins link online. Actually I would not agree with some of the refutations because as I said I do believe in evolution and accept conceptually the idea of a common ancestor. I don't take issue with much of it. None of it as far as I can see addresses testing the mechanisms in any rigorous way. Making observations and then forcing them into a story is not rigorous testing. I am talking about lab work. Talk Origins is biased and a graveyard of out-dated information. What the experiments have revealed is the limits of the Darwinian mechanism. I have provided examples to you before. I can post some more if you like. Actually I may do a thread on it in time.

I support James Shapiro's natural genetic engineering. He is not an ID theorists and is critical of some of it's claims but believes the critiques on neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis are valid. I believe Shapiro's immunology based theory will be the future in evolutionary biology.

The modern synthesis no longer holds due to the weight of the evidence, this will become clearer as time goes on. Even the materialists acknowledge this. See the video I posted on the revolution in evolutionary biology from Dennis Noble.

The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
...

The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is from a evolutionary materialists, Eugene Koonin. A man I respect very much for his unbiased approach and honesty. No friend of ID btw. And dare I say he understands evolutionary biology a little better than you.

The evidence for design is all around you, as Richard Dawkins says the appearance of design is overwhelming but an illusion that illusion has never been confirmed. If it walks like a duck as they say.

The positive case for design lies in semiosis, code and functional prescriptive information, in other words plans.

The only KNOWN cause for this is intelligence. The idea that blind unguided churning can create semiosis is absurd, paramount to rocks being able to talk to each other.

You have clearly made up your mind, it is too late for you. I have been able to convince people on the fence but I have never known anyone to change once their ideologies are set in stone no matter how strong the evidence.

But here is an excellent presentation on these issues I mention and the scientific case for design.


All the critiques are well highlighted in the book, "Signature of Controversy" that can be freely downloaded.

Atheist philosopher Tom Nagel has praised "Signature in the Cell". The best book of the year as he called it and it prompted him to write his book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".

Yes high praise from a free thinking atheist!

You don't have to be religious to be critical of the status quo.

The logic of the materialist .

Mutations accumulate gradually filtered by natural selection, oh except for punctuated equilibrium when species appear suddenly in the fossil record. Easy fix.

Cambrian explosion? No it's a slow fuse you see, never mind the complete absence of transitionals for any of the novel body plans in more phyla than even exist today.

Modification with descent, oh, except for HGT, endosymbiosis and all the other mechanism discovered. We'll just tack those on. The mechanisms that drive evolution themselves evolved... some how.

Biological functional designs arise blindly, oh except for convergent evolution when the same designs appear in different lineages. No contradiction there, move along.

Evolution means change over time, oh except when it doesn't then it is conserved.

Biogeography proves blind evolution, pregnant monkeys often float on logs over vast distances don't you know?

Proteins arise blindly, except for the fact that... ? Well time can accomplish anything don't you know? Even though there was not enough time for chance and necessity to produce even one protein.

Homology proves blind evolution, oh except for orphan genes and singletons pretty much in every species, then it's... well lets just ignore that and continue to play the gene evolution game.

Thermo dynamics? don't be silly, the sun you see can increase order in biological systems while entropy seems to destroy pretty much everything else including the entire universe eventually. It all came from nothing anyway.

And of course Junk DNA proves blind evolution, oh except for the genomes that have very little then it's... "insert story here" Never mind the functions that have been found already.

Molecular machines that out perform our engineers? yeah well they all just evolved, just chance and necessity you see, don't worry about evidence.

Life requires no special explanation. Origins? but evolution does not address that, it is a different subject don't you know? Move along. Geez that's an easy one. But we are pretty sure how it happened, should not be long now... even though we are no closer than when Darwin first proposed his theory.

Emergence of digital code? Oh, it just evolved as well from chemical reactions probably. Geez give scientism a chance. After all Stephen Hawking says we are on the verge of a theory of everything. Philosophy is dead and scientism reigns surpreme.

Fine tuning in the genetic code? Oh, it evolved towards error protection, never mind that blind evolution has no goals.

Non physical information? Huh? What are you talking about? Everything is physical. Never mind what is clearly self evident or quantum mechanics for that matter, lets just separate it to the micro and leave it there.

Universal Fine Tuning? Multiverse theory can explain that. Or what fine tuning? Move along. Parallel universes are aceptable as is the big bang you see but spirit is not allowed.

Consciousness? yeah that's just a result of a mechanistic process or it's just an illusion as well. Let's get rid of it so we don't have to explain it.

NDE's and psi? pffft.. just a patchwork of brain chemistry and false memories and psi is just woo.

Blind evolution is a fact, supported by mountains of evidence, apparently, this looks like that and a story for every ocassion, controversey? What controversey?

Design is overwhelming but it is just an illusion you see.

See how it works? Should not even qualify as science. It is a metaphysical position, just another creation story. A very weak one at that.

The typical response, oh the invisible spaghetti monster did it then? You are nothing but a bible bashing creationist. Intellectually bankrupt or what?

reply to post by squiz

Dear squiz,

I could have sent this by U2U, but it didn't seem right.

I stand awestruck. I am stunned. Over your last four posts you performed the equivalent of a Napalm bombing run, massed artillery bombardment, missile strikes, attack helicopter flights, massed heavy armor, all followed up by some seriously enraged infantry units. On a duplex in Cleveland.

There is nothing left, not even recognizable dust particles. I can't recall seeing anything like it. You have set a standard which I will never even hope to approach. If we still believed in Muses, I would readily believe that you were taken over by one who wanted to flex some really serious muscle.

Wow.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I stand awestruck. I am stunned. Over your last four posts you performed the equivalent of a Napalm bombing run, massed artillery bombardment, missile strikes, attack helicopter flights, massed heavy armor, all followed up by some seriously enraged infantry units. On a duplex in Cleveland.

That's pretty awe-inspiring stuff in its own right.

Oddly enough though, the duplex in Cleveland – that is to say the fact that the necessity of an intelligent first cause cannot be proved (or disproved) – remains standing.

reply to post by squiz


Yes evolution is a proven fact. In genesis chapter one it also states that God said: Let earth bring forth all living things. I guess it covers evolution right.

The big question is: Who or what set in motion the very first cause? What formed finite matter?

Just remember, it's just an illusion. Isn't everything?

Originally posted by squiz
Just remember, it's just an illusion. Isn't everything?

It feels quite real to me. I dont know how intelligent people can think that everything around us is a illusion. Looks like science can make people who arent capable of selfthinking delusional.

Originally posted by squiz

When confronted they run away. Sam Harris refuses to debate Eben Alexander.
www.skeptiko.com...

Run away brave sir Robin!

The vast amount of documented NDE's and hundreds of veridical cases support everything we have been discussing

Hi Squiz. I haven't read the book, only seen quotes and reviews, good and bad. I sense that Harris feels the good Dr. would need a serious boost in credibility, to reach the level of Depak Chopra (whom, if memory serves, he considers to be a genuine pseudo scientist). I can understand why he didn't bother. You don't see an element of sensationalism, or probability of genuine fantasy in his account?

Would you agree with the bolded part of the review below? Is it accurate? If so, I find it hard to disagree with Harris. This could simply be a dream/ hallucination. A shame, as I think there are possibilities, or at least it is a field worthy of genuine study IMO. Whether we find there is more to consciousness, or simply gain better understanding of neural processes.

The claim that his neocortex was totally kaput during his coma is the principal — in fact only — scientific hook on which he hangs “Proof of Heaven”: “During my coma my brain wasn’t working improperly — it wasn’t working at all.” If his brain was not functioning, the consciousness that rode the “butterfly through paradise” existed outside the body, and the door to immortality is wide open. So far, so logical.Only Dr. Alexander has already changed position on this issue. We probably have Sam Harris to thank for that. Harris, author of “The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation,” responded to Dr. Alexander’s Newsweek piece by seeking the opinion of neuroscientist Mark Cohen, whose reply was unequivocal.According to Cohen, the neocortical inactivity described by Dr. Alexander is “brain death, a 100 percent lethal condition.” By the time I met Dr. Alexander and mentioned his inactive neocortex, his line had changed.He told me, “Well, the thing is I would not say completely inactive.” Only, he did. It is in his book.

Intensity has been the core of the book’s argument from the start. The scientific terminology and Dr. Alexander’s years of medical school are about as relevant to his case as his customary bow tie. He is asking us to trust him and believe.

www.salon.com...

Does everyone report similar to this.....butterflies and the like?

Not trying to be negative here, I appreciate opinions about this subject that come from a genuine wish to know (rather than thought stopping religious delusion) even if I don't always agree. I see Harris's ideas on mysticism/spirituality as very enlightened, far from the norm for atheists. From what I hear of him he seems to be saying that if it's possible to be a "genius of compassion" a "spiritual genius" etc., or if we can experience the sublime/transcendent (possibly even have relationship with it), let's do it! He just doesn't believe in the rest of the woo that comes with it.

The logic of the materialist .

The typical response, oh the invisible spaghetti monster did it then? You are nothing but a bible bashing creationist. Intellectually bankrupt or what?

What are you trying to say here. It doesn't seem like you "do believe in" evolutionary theory here?

There also seems to be a lack of specifics about exactly what god is and how he does his stuff. Any direct explanations (apart from believing it must have been created because it looks that way to some people)?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

Hi Barcs. You seem a bit upset.

Firstly I don't see too much substance in your responses. I will just address a few issues and your misinterpretation of my position. You are responding as if I were a religious creationists, that is certainly not the case. Your usual arguments don't work on me.

You got anger out of those posts? I apologize for being so blunt, but it seems to be the only effective way to explain science, while getting directly to the point. I could have posted 5 separate responses in detail, but I prefer to first address things directly, and then if my opponent has a discrepancy with anything I have said, we can break it down further. I didn't mention religion or creationism once in any of my 3 last posts, so I'm not sure where that is coming from. I defended my points, which were:

1. ID lacks objective evidence.

2. Evolution has objective evidence in support of it.

I am not arguing for natural emergence of the universe or anything else that is unknown at the time.

There are refutations to your Talk origins link online. Actually I would not agree with some of the refutations because as I said I do believe in evolution and accept conceptually the idea of a common ancestor. I don't take issue with much of it. None of it as far as I can see addresses testing the mechanisms in any rigorous way. Making observations and then forcing them into a story is not rigorous testing. I am talking about lab work. Talk Origins is biased and a graveyard of out-dated information. What the experiments have revealed is the limits of the Darwinian mechanism. I have provided examples to you before. I can post some more if you like. Actually I may do a thread on it in time.

I've seen the online "debunks" of talk origins, and they were terrible and didn't address the actual evidence. Your point here, confuses me, however. At the beginning you say you agree with evolution and common ancestor, then at the end you claim that enough testing has not been done in the field. Which is it? I'm not going to break down anything else about evolution, since you agree with it. I'll just drop this list of experiments and research papers that have been done with human mutation rates alone since 2009.

scholar.google.com...,31

So I guess that doesn't qualify as rigorous to you, but you're welcome to that opinion.

I support James Shapiro's natural genetic engineering. He is not an ID theorists and is critical of some of it's claims but believes the critiques on neo Darwinism or the modern synthesis are valid. I believe Shapiro's immunology based theory will be the future in evolutionary biology.

You believe it. Good for you. Now if only we could get some objective evidence.

The modern synthesis no longer holds due to the weight of the evidence, this will become clearer as time goes on. Even the materialists acknowledge this. See the video I posted on the revolution in evolutionary biology from Dennis Noble.

Another youtube video? No thanks. Please post the objective evidence. Modern synthesis no longer holds due to the weight of the evidence? WHAT evidence? You said in your post above that you believed evolution, but statements like this make that very difficult to believe.

The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.

The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.

They are comparing the ORIGINAL theory proposed by Darwin to how incredibly complicated each part of it has become. The evolution of evolution, so to speak. You forget that Darwin didn't know anything about micro biology or genetics. He didn't understand genetic mutation. That has become the explanation for the changes. Once again, you are drawing a conclusion from a paper based on 2 tiny lines without reading the entire thing in context. All they are saying is that it's much more complicated now because we know so much more about it. I'm not sure why evolution attackers/deniers/partial accepters/whatevers can never focus on the theory as it is today, instead they focus on Darwin.

I will separate this post from the next, because this one isn't really related to ID. It was really just to clarify some things about evolution

reply to post by squiz

The evidence for design is all around you, as Richard Dawkins says the appearance of design is overwhelming but an illusion that illusion has never been confirmed. If it walks like a duck as they say

Not objective evidence, personal opinion.

The positive case for design lies in semiosis, code and functional prescriptive information, in other words plans.

The only KNOWN cause for this is intelligence. The idea that blind unguided churning can create semiosis is absurd, paramount to rocks being able to talk to each other.

An appeal to the unknown... AGAIN. An appeal to complexity, AGAIN. Plus personal opinion, not objective evidence of a creation process or creator.

You have clearly made up your mind, it is too late for you. I have been able to convince people on the fence but I have never known anyone to change once their ideologies are set in stone no matter how strong the evidence.

Irrelevant non sequitar.

But here is an excellent presentation on these issues I mention and the scientific case for design.

Ug, Another Stephen Meyer video. I'm currently 7 minutes in and he hasn't made a single objective point yet. Sorry but I'm not going through 1 hour 22 minutes of this. This is why I deal with scientific papers and not youtube videos. If I'm looking for something specific I can search for it. This is just some guy promoting his book. Please give me the science behind his claims that are not appeals to the unknown or to complexity.

Atheist philosopher Tom Nagel has praised "Signature in the Cell". The best book of the year as he called it and it prompted him to write his book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".

Yes high praise from a free thinking atheist!

You don't have to be religious to be critical of the status quo.

Irrelevant non sequitar.

Wow Barcs. That is some bag of excuses you have their. Don't give me your citation bluffs.Want to be specific ? I am sure you don't know what you are talking about to be honest. It also has nothing to do with my claim for positive evidence.

The claim I have presented is not the cosmological argument. But I will outline it later better. Or I may do a thread. It is also an empirical argument.

But for now.

My claim is that mind is required in producing a semiotic system.
Your claim is that it isn't. I'm sure you don't know what I am talking about though.

We know mind can do it. This is my claim, it is not appealing to the unknown.
Your claim that it isn't, is appealing to the unknown.
This claim is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence as the skeptoids say.
It is also not an argument from complexity either, as I will show in time, if we want to.

I submit that my claim will never be falsified.
And your claim will never be substantiated.

That is all I will have to say to you at this point. I would very much like to talk about some rigorous testing though, you set the precedent. I'm saying let us look at the actual science behind your version of evolution. It will of course stray away from the cosmological argument. Do we want to do that?

You have only give your opinions and cliché mantra like excuses deflections and evasions. Sorry for being harsh. But really, Just pulling out god of the gaps, argument from ignorance, argument from complexity etc.. which are all patently false, mixed in with a lot of denial is not a discussion. At least one I don't want to have and why I don't post here very much.

We can have the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They are not the same thing. Technology evolves, languages evolve. The problem I see here is that people have trouble distinguishing.

Originally posted by squiz
Mutations accumulate gradually filtered by natural selection, oh except for punctuated equilibrium when species appear suddenly in the fossil record. Easy fix.

Punctuated equilibrium is not species suddenly appearing in the fossil record. It is a hypothesis that suggests that most organisms do not experience substantial change during their history. Again, it's a hypothesis, a work still in progress. It hasn't been confirmed or debunked yet.

Cambrian explosion? No it's a slow fuse you see, never mind the complete absence of transitionals for any of the novel body plans in more phyla than even exist today.

The Cambrian explosion was a 20 million + year process.

Modification with descent, oh, except for HGT, endosymbiosis and all the other mechanism discovered. We'll just tack those on. The mechanisms that drive evolution themselves evolved... some how.

Please explain how horizontal gene transfer goes against common descent.
Please explain how endosymbiosis goes against common descent.
You keep dropping terms, but you aren't explaining anything. I haven't seen any studies that suggest either of those pose an obstacle. You claimed a few posts up you believed evolution and common descent, so what are you arguing here???

Biological functional designs arise blindly, oh except for convergent evolution when the same designs appear in different lineages. No contradiction there, move along.

They arise blindly? What does that even mean? Making generalizations about evolution is not helping your case.

Biogeography proves blind evolution, pregnant monkeys often float on logs over vast distances don't you know?

The question is, will you ever present objective evidence to support whatever you are saying? You drop scientific terminology and draw conclusions from it by grasping at straws.

Proteins arise blindly, except for the fact that... ? Well time can accomplish anything don't you know? Even though there was not enough time for chance and necessity to produce even one protein.

And I'm sure you've got the evidence to back this one up. You are delving back into hypothesis.

Homology proves blind evolution, oh except for orphan genes and singletons pretty much in every species, then it's... well lets just ignore that and continue to play the gene evolution game.

Do you understand what a straw man is? How does any of that go against common ancestry?

I'm stopping here. Your claims are ludicrous and assertions are silly. You are just dropping terms and aren't even explaining how it goes against common descent or shows ID.

reply to post by Barcs

The Cambrian explosion was a 20 million + year process.

Cosmologically, it's the blink of an eye.
Why would they call it an explosion if it was relatively slow?