Vanderzyden

You have partly answered your own question. The problem is found in many disciplines, but is particularly bad with the Darwinists. Much shouting and ridicule is often found to be a substitute for a lack of convincing evidence. Too much is read into the evidence that does exist, and any contradictory evidence is jettisoned immediately. The metaphysical/methodological blinders prevent any serious consideration of special creation, despite the probability.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Sure, you are right, you can't know that you have control of your own mind. But you act like you do, and that is highly justifiable proof. For you to act like you have a mind is no less demonstrable than for you to know that you are touching your fingers to the keyboard! It makes all the difference to ACT as though you are in control of your mind. If you really believed otherwise, then you wouldn't do what you do.

God is non-empirical, just as your mind. You accept your mind, but you don't accept God. Instead you compare him with pixies. Well, perhaps you can see that you are comparing your mind to pixies.

You've never experienced God because you declare how he is to be found. Your demand is that you be able to see him. It isn't enough to see his effects. Instead, it would appear that you insist on special privileges.

You know, I find it somewhat boring also. But it is useful. Here we are, having this conversation. You have a mind, I have a mind. They are both "non-empirical". But you and I have sufficient experience in this life to know that our minds are really there. Presently, they are the cause behind the words in this thread, which contain meanings that you and I both intuitively understand. And yet, you are claiming that these understandings (protocol) are of no use to you.

Please be patient. I look forward to your response, both here and in BC & A.

Thanks!

Vanderzyden

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Starboy

Are you protesting the evidence or the interpretation of the evidence?

Starboy

Blinn

Sorry, but I tend not to mince words (and I know I've bitched about this thread being in this forum, but I'm going to reply anyway...)

Vanderzyden, why the hell should I read the above sentences and even give them a grain of salt? You apparently didn't even understand meiosis, yet I'm supposed to believe you have some authority to critique the science of biology? Go back under your bridge or else explain to us why scientists are lying when they describe chromosome fusions.

Zetek

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

My comment about gravity is in relation to our understanding of the mechanism for gravity. Here's a better explanation from <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/closing.html" target="_blank">talk origins</a>:
My point is that we have more understanding of how evolution works than how gravity works (and thus more evidence on the mechanism of one than the other.) That's my point I guess, hope that clears up the confusion.

As to your points about Einstein's theory - start another thread in Science and Scepticism please if you wish to discuss that issue further.

I only used that particular theory to illustrate the evolution-denier's case. They are anti-evolutionists for reasons other than data, that's my point.

scigirl

monkenstick

just for vanderzyden, some basic evolutionary equations;

<a href="http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/Heins/Evolution/mutation-nonranmating_sp2000.html" target="_blank">http://www.tulane.edu/</a>

also, are you planning on adressing the evidence for common ancestry in this thread anytime soon?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001356" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/</a>

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

scigirl

Here's an interesting tidbit I came across when searching talkorigins for the word "gravity":

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/intro.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/intro.html</a>

Hmmm, when will evolution denyers be added to this list and seen just as silly as these guys who denied gravity because it was so "materialistic" and took away explanations from the Church/God? ? ? ?

scigirl

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, roughly the same reaction ensued. Lighting was seen as God's punishment and lightning rods were designed, it was said, to abate holy wrath.

One wonders what sort of omnipotence was ascribed to the deity, if a simple steel rod and thick copper wire buried in the earth can negate it, or, in the case of those who preached that AIDS was holy judgement against homosexuality, that a fifty-cent condom could also abate said omnipotent wrath.

Newton himself despised the "materialism" of his theory as it mechanized the solar system and left no need for divine intervention, except perhaps for the occasional nudge to keep the orbits stable. But he was a scientist, so he accepted the universe for what he found it to truly be, instead of what he wanted it to be.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Skeptical

"Proof" is a very strong word. At most I would say it is reasonable for each of us to believe we are in control of our own minds and reasonable for us to think that others have their own minds. It is in no way proof and it may be an especially weak hypothesis if we start postulating invisible, powerful entities that cannot be detected through any empirical means who have unknown agendas.

I never said I didn't believe I have control of my mind, I said it was theoretically possible. Quite a difference. I do, in fact, think I have control of my mind but my opinion might change if I truly believed there were all sorts of non-empirical entities with strange powers and unknown agendas hovering over us. As I said before, it's a matter of pragmatics.

I have _experienced_ my mind, I have not _experienced_ God or Satan or aliens or any other hypothetical non-empirical entities. This is a clear difference. I have not experienced other minds, but I see what can reasonably be assumed to be the actions of other minds. As I have stated several times now, even if I grant you only 2 non-empirical entities, God and Satan, you cannot choose _even between these 2_ which of them might be the cause of particular data. That is a serious problem for anyone who wants to take the idea of non-empirical entities as causes of empirical data seriously.

One, single, clear, unambiguous effect would be acceptable. It would, however, have to be an effect for which not only do we currently not have a natural explanation, but for which no natural explanation is possible. Even under such circumstances we would still have the God vs Satan question I keep alluding to.


Actually, that is _not_ my claim. I think you are reading into what I'm saying what you want to see. The words and exchange are all perfectly empirical, they are of use. Whether or not you have a mind is irrelevant and unknowable by me and therefore _that_ topic is of no use to me. I don't care _what_ the cause of your messages are, nor my own. It doesn't matter. Only your external actions matter, that's what I can deal with.

I'm patient, just didn't want my point about God vs Satan to be forgotten. I'll check the BC&A.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Philosoft

There are so many problems associated with this argument. How would one act if one honestly believed one wasn't in control of one's mind? Wouldn't that "realization" necessarily entail that the entity allegedly controlling one's mind is also allegedly responsible for the belief that one is not in control of one's mind? How does an otherwise-controlled mind develop the ability to believe it is not an otherwise-controlled mind in the first place?

<strong> The mind may not yet be understandable by reductionism, but it can be demonstrably affected. Selective brain damage can affect a significant number of the features often credited to the 'mind.' Just what do you think is the purpose of the brain anyway, if this mind is so capable of operating independently?

<strong> God may very well be detectable solely through some "feeling of knowing" but God has conveniently made those feelings often indistinguishable from self-generated delusions or imaginations. Andrea Yates claims she had "feelings of knowing" about God, yet Christians deny the validity of her stories. Clearly, it is judged possible to have false or incorrect "feelings of knowing" about God. Yet, apparently the only way to judge true feelings about God is by personal testimony, which, as we have seen, is not an airtight arbiter of truth, no matter how vehemently the testifier testifies.

<strong> You keep repeating this, as if saying the mind is non-mathematical, or doesn't produce numerical data as output is the same as saying it is non-physical. It isn't.