Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
I’d hazard a guess that not too many people would argue that suicide bombers and other muslims who decapitate people are demon possessed as well.
I don’t believe that everything has only a spiritual explanation, nor do I believe that everything has an only *natural* (non-spiritual) explanation. They can have both, in whatever area of life we discuss.
And then you get Dawkins and his ilk......
Adaptation to environment can explain how things have changed over time, but inorganic matter becoming organic matter becoming self replicating is too complicated to have occurred by chance.
And that is really the crux of the matter. The amount of change that is believed to occur. Creationists don't argue against variation within species and natural selection to a point. It's that as much occurred as the evolutionists claim that's the problem.
And for that difference of opinion and interpretation of the fossil record, we're branded "cretards", and other pejoratives.
I agree.
There was a doctor who argued for 20 years that ulcers were caused by bacteria and should be treated with antibiotics. He was called a quack and worse. Now we find out he was right.
He had peer review to fight. That was the problem.
You don’t dare rock the boat and go against consensus. After all, they know better, dontcha see? It’s settled science and we all know that science is the final word on everything.
//Any honest scientist will agree that evolution does not explain the origin of the species//
The honest scientists in the field of evolutionary beliefs are far and few between. The ones who are honest acknowledge the weaknesses or reject it in its totality.
Why is the universe intelligible? I.e., how did it acquire that property? How did man acquire the property of intelligence, which is the key to knowledge of the intelligible order of the universe?
Do you believe that logic is a spontaneous production of matter?
“There was a doctor who argued for 20 years that ulcers were caused by bacteria and should be treated with antibiotics. He was called a quack and worse. Now we find out he was right.”
—More like 3 years. Marshall and Warren cultured the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and published a paper in 1983 - it was not widely accepted, and so Marshall famously gave himself gastritis by drinking a petri-dish of the bacteria in 1984 (he did not develop an ulcer, however, as it is commonly claimed). In 1985 this experiment was published in a journal and the link between ulcers and H. pylori was finally widely accepted.
Logic is a construction of the mind which is used to determine and order truth and information into knowledge and then to understanding and creative acts. The mind is a physical machine which supports the functions of sentience and rationality. W/o that physical machinery, there can be no instance of mind and thus no instance of logic.
It is notable that the universe itself is logical. That is, it is completely consistent, otherwise one could find and observe instances of A≠A in reality.
"Why is the universe intelligible?"
Intelligibility is a property of things which have properties that enable observability and which are logically consistent. All instances of any physical object has properties which allow those objects to interact with other physical objects. That interaction is a sensing process. The universe is intelligible, because all forms of energy that exist in it have properties which determine the nature of interaction(the sense/relationship process) and are logically consistent.
"how did it acquire that property?"
Fundamental physical objects do not aquire their properties, or essence. Their properties/essence is inherent in every instance of the object as long as the object is an instance of that particular form. ie. a photon does not aquire it's properties.
"How did man acquire the property of intelligence, which is the key to knowledge of the intelligible order of the universe? " The intelligible order of the universe exists independently whether any instance of an intellignet being exists, or not. It is as given above. The properties of the forms of energy that exist in this universe are what allow and provide for the evolutionary process that results in mind/man.
Again, there is Epicurus principle, which says keep every theory consistent with the facts. The properties of the stuff that provides for intelligibility, also provides for sentient rational mind that would arise from. That's deterministic. Epicurus principle and the instance of a sentient rational mind provides for freedom of choice.
How does an object acquire its particular form?
You aver much without providing much evidence. E.g., "The mind is a physical machine which supports the functions of sentience and rationality. W/o that physical machinery, there can be no instance of mind and thus no instance of logic."
What is your evidence for the statement "the mind is a physical machine?" How does something physical acquire a mind — what is the natural process for this? Is mind innate to a material particle?
Yours sounds like just another "just-so" story to me, spunkets.
The brain is a machine. The mind is something far different. What is the mind and where did it and intelligence come from if not from other intelligence?
If you are claiming that intelligence is a byproduct of certain natural forces which came together at random, you have nothing on which to base that.
Intelligibility is a property of things which have properties that enable observability and which are logically consistent. All instances of any physical object has properties which allow those objects to interact with other physical objects. That interaction is a sensing process. The universe is intelligible, because all forms of energy that exist in it have properties which determine the nature of interaction(the sense/relationship process) and are logically consistent.
What ARE you smoking?
INDEED.
###
There was a doctor who argued for 20 years that ulcers were caused by bacteria and should be treated with antibiotics. He was called a quack and worse. Now we find out he was right.
What is your evidence for the statement “the mind is a physical machine?” How does something physical acquire a mind — what is the natural process for this? Is mind innate to a material particle?
Yours sounds like just another “just-so” story to me, spunkets.
###
INDEED.
INDEED! INDEED!
Objects don't aquire form. Objects must transform according to the law of conservation of energy.
" You aver much without providing much evidence. E.g., "The mind is a physical machine which supports the functions of sentience and rationality. W/o that physical machinery, there can be no instance of mind and thus no instance of logic." What is your evidence for the statement "the mind is a physical machine?""
There's plenty of evidence in the neurology and psychiatric lit. I'm sure that if yours, or a loved one's starts having problems, you'll head of to mechanics, er,um... doc's office.
"How does something physical acquire a mind — what is the natural process for this?"
The mind's functions result from the assembled physical system, which is derived from the properties of the objects assembled. Mind is not something that's added to the brain, it arises out of and because of, the properties of the objects the assembly is composed of.
"Is mind innate to a material particle?"
No, as per above.
The mind results from the funtional abilities of the brain.
" What is the mind and where did it and intelligence come from if not from other intelligence?'
See 637.
Knowledge and understanding are not resultant from inhaling smoke.
See 629.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.