The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[TXnMA]

Hank Kerchief to betty boop: "Are you a physicalist, one of those who believes there is nothing but the physical?"

Thanks for the laugh, Hank! I needed that!!!

Perhaps you should RTFA. (Read The Fine Article with which betty boop established this thread...)

I happen to know that BB is in full agreement with the article's author.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Of course life forms on earth ...”

I didn’t say “life forms,” I said “life.” Individual organism have a beginning and end, but as they say after the funeral, “live goes on.”

By the way, what do you think the “constituent building blocks” of life would be. If you are thinking of the physical components, the complex proteins, for example, they are all still there in the corpse of the organism when the life ceases. the building blocks cannot produce life, but life can use them to maintain an organsim.

Hank

[xzins]

I assumed “life forms” to be kind. Hank, you don’t know what the constituent building blocks of an organism are?

If form B is built from A, then A precedes form B.

[Hank Kerchief]

But you are free to believe what you wish.

Well, of course, so are you. That does not mean I cannot be sorry for you and what you believe. Because I can do that too. That’s what being a free individual is.

Now you have taken to characterizing what I “believe,” though you do not have the slightest knowledge of all I believe. I have not done that to you. Why do you people think you can read people’s minds?

I know your view is an artificial construct made up out of so much credulity, feeling, and wishful thinking. Artificial constructs are just what you get when rationalism (as opposed to empiricism, which I’m not advocating) and ideas not based on evidence or reasoning from the evidence are the source of your ideas. When there is no evidence for your beliefs, how ever complex your “reasoning” it is ultimately, just made up—that’s what an artificial construct is.

Now I never would have said that, if you had not chosen characterize my beliefs based on your own preconceived views of what you “think” I believe.

For example, why would you say something like this:

“As I said before, the title ‘scientist’ does not confer on the bearer the property of infallibility.” What has that got to do with anything. I neither think anything like that, or ever said anything to imply it. Why do you inject thoughts into other peoples arguments? Your the one that likes to use Cosmology and quote scientist to back up your theological ideas.

You already know I am not a physicalist, that there is a lot more evidence than that which is directly available to perception. I cannot perceive my consciousness, yet I know I am conscious. I cannot perceive my ability to consciously choose (volition) or reason, but I do them, and that fact is evidence of more than the physical can explain, or any physical science will every explain.

Appreciate you comments.

Hank

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for involving me in your sidebar discussion on life and beginnings thereof!

Seems to me that Hank Kerchief is advocating the worldview that time, space and life are merely attributes. Or to put it another way, that such things are not objectively real, merely relative measurements and therefore beginnings are irrelevant.

He summed up his epistemology at 1207 by saying this:

I’ll explain only that nothing that cannot be derived from reasoning about that which we are conscious of can be knowledge, and that all knowledge is about that of which we are conscious. Anything else that makes a claim to knowledge is superstition.

In this worldview, the observer determines his own reality (that of which he is conscious.) Conversely, if something exists of which he is not conscious, it is not part of reality (to him.)

By extension, the limits of his awareness are the boundaries of his world. Testimony of knowledge outside those boundaries is superstition to him; the observer is his own 'god.'

Therefore, if the observer reasons that space, time and life are merely attributes, i.e. not objectively real, then any claims of knowledge concerning their realness including their beginnings are superstition (to him.)

The "we" in the above excerpt is a misrepresentation I seek to expose. That Hank Kerchief's reality can be described by him in that manner in no way speaks for me. I do not live in his world.

And as evidence, I aver that I have knowledge from God Himself and further that His knowledge is absolute and I am not, therefore there exists much knowledge which will always be beyond my grasp. Observers who do not have that awareness (do not have 'ears to hear') - or have chosen to ignore Him - cannot speak for me.

[Alamo-Girl]

Nice Caveat Emptor RAP..
Put to music it could be quite entertaining..

I've not seen anything like it since hearing the diddy "Your Molecular Structure" by Mose Allison.. You have real talent.. Written any hymns?..

LOLOL! (For those reading along, his comments apply to my post 1201.)

Truly though your testimony at post 1209 is much closer to the "Your Molecular Structure" lyrics than my own. Perhaps you should write some hymns, dear brother in Christ!

[Hank Kerchief]

I asked, “Out of curiosity, how do you know what your feelings mean, and how do you distinguish between those that are genuine and those that just have physical causes.”

“Since I am not an epiphenomenon of this physical body, I know the difference and can evaluate their meaning.”

Don’t mean to be picky, but you did not answer the question, just reasserted that you could, but I already knew you believed you could. The question was “HOW?”

Hank

[Alamo-Girl]

And it is a philosophy of systematic type (i.e., is fundamentally doctrinal in form). Just an observation. It is not the classical philosophy, which represents an open-ended quest to know the "Why?" of the universe. School philosophies purport to give the explanation without us having to do any work at all. Instead of saying, "Go look for yourself!" a la Plato, it says: I know the truth of reality, and here it is: This is the explanation!

I do not care for the systemic philosophies for that very reason.

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[TXnMA]

Old dog’s new trick: duplicate posts that are not duplicate... ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[betty boop]

If the discussion is about life forms on earth not having a beginning, then it strikes me that they had to suddenly appear out of nothing or they had to be eternal.

Given the "if," that seems like an eminently reasonable assessment to me, dear xzins! Even though one might say that the mere appearance of something out of nothing still gives evidence of some kind of a beginning.... But then, what kind of an entity would it BE? What principles can explain it, if it came out of "nothing?" (Science tries to avoid such problems.)

Yet the assertion that life forms on earth do not have a beginning is so problematical; for it flies in the face of everything we observe in our experience. Namely, that things have causes; the original cause is called the beginning (it may well be "extra-natural" itself in the sense that it does not reside in the domain it establishes — i.e., the physical universe); and that every existent thing we observe has a beginning and also an end. The timescales of particular entities may differ; but we humans do not know of a single observable natural object that didn't have a beginning, and that never ends (WRT living organisms, the latter is called "physical death"). These observations pertain to the observable natural realm.

To me, such observations fall into the category of what is called "common sense." Common sense can be thought of as a sort of "distillation" of human observation, experience, and insight as accumulated over the millennia of human history. In most cases, it seems to me that common sense is highly trustworthy — though the tendency nowadays is to depreciate it in favor of "expert opinion." IMHO, your observation at the top is a fine example of the successful application of "common sense" to "abstract problems."

A brief digression: We live in an age where a re-appreciation of common sense, with a corresponding depreciation of expert opinion, seems to be the sole promising path to move through the extraordinary difficulties we face as a nation today, in a Godly way.... E.O.D. JMHO FWIW....

We need to recall that causes by nature are hidden from direct observation/sensory experience. This does not necessarily make causes in any way "mystical." Indeed, if they manifest observable phenomena, then that seems to pull them into the phenomenal realm, where putatively they can be studied by "science." It just means that natural laws and principles are not directly apprehensible by sense perception. That is not "evidence" that they don't exist. Indeed, to me it is inconceivable that existence can be explained in any way without reference to such non-physical, non-sense-perceptible causal principles.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!

[Hank Kerchief]

“Seems to me that Hank Kerchief is advocating the worldview that time, space and life are merely attributes. Or to put it another way, that such things are not objectively real, merely relative measurements and therefore beginnings are irrelevant.”

No, my view is that all of reality exists independently of anyone’s awareness or knowledge of it, and that it’s nature is independent of anyone’s belief about. You again have completely mischaracterized both my views and what I said. It is very near slander, which I don’t think you intended, however.

So everything else you said is about a view I do not hold.

I’m not sure if this absurdity is because of a reading comprehension problem or lack of normal discernment.

All I said is, that we cannot have knowledge anything we cannot be conscious of. Now if you are never conscious of something, it does not mean it does not exist, it does not mean it is not true, it only means you are not conscious of it. Now if you cannot be conscious of it in any way whatsoever, you cannot possibly know it. If you cannot see it, or a pricture of it, or no one ever describes it to you, or you never read about, or God never reveals to you, YOU CANNOT KNOW IT. You cannot know anything that does not in some way come into your conscious mind.

I even warned you to be careful when you read what I wrote. You completely misunderstood it, but you obviously have your preconceived idea about what others must believe if they don’t agree with you. You took the bait.

Love to know how you think you can know something you have never been conscious of in any way whatsoever. Here’s a test. Try to name something you’ve never been conscious of it. See, if you name, your are conscious of it. (I said “conscious of”, not perceive.)

OH, yes, it is very discourteous to talk about someone in the third person when they are part of the conversation.

Hank

[betty boop]

I do not care for the systemic philosophies for that very reason.

For they are all "doctrines of men...."

[Alamo-Girl]

In the first place, I was very careful not to read your mind but rather to couch my statements as my own based upon what you have said and my own recollections of our past conversations.

In the second place, I restated that scientists are not infallible because you brought up Newton’s beliefs and those of scientists during the Wright brothers’ experiments.

And finally, your appraisal of my epistemology – though I appreciate your time to express it - is irrelevant to what I classify as knowledge (post 1201.)

You already know I am not a physicalist, that there is a lot more evidence than that which is directly available to perception. I cannot perceive my consciousness, yet I know I am conscious. I cannot perceive my ability to consciously choose (volition) or reason, but I do them, and that fact is evidence of more than the physical can explain, or any physical science will every explain.

I would never have called you a physicalist. Indeed, if I were to make an estimate of how you rank your sources of knowledge based on our past conservations, I’d put reason at the top of the list because you seem to value consciousness, volition, autonomy, etc.

”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – Hamlet

From your next post:

I asked, “Out of curiosity, how do you know what your feelings mean, and how do you distinguish between those that are genuine and those that just have physical causes.”

“Since I am not an epiphenomenon of this physical body, I know the difference and can evaluate their meaning.”

Don’t mean to be picky, but you did not answer the question, just reasserted that you could, but I already knew you believed you could. The question was “HOW?”

My brothers and sisters in Christ need no explanation of this. And those who are not my brothers and sisters in Christ would not believe it anyway.

But for the record, dear Hank Kerchief, I am dead and yet I am alive with Christ in God. (Col 3:3) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)

Or to put it another way, I am here and there, in time and in timelessness, more aware of the Spirit than of the flesh. (Romans 8)

Therefore, I know the difference between urgings of the flesh and of the spirit, or as a metaphor the mechanical noise of the radio/receiver versus the actual signal.

God’s Name is I AM.

[allmendream]

“non-sense-perceptible causal principles”

It certainly is nonsense from a scientific perspective.

There is no wonderland down that particular rabbit hole.

There is nothing of any scientific utility in it.

I am afraid it falls square into the realm of “Interesting if true, but of no use regardless.”

[Hank Kerchief]

I am surprised you did not use,

“The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the Children of God.”

or

“It is given to you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God,”

or

Well you know all the verse as well as I do. :Was quoting from memory ...]

The problem is, I’ve been there and was as convinced as you that these were true, until I realized everyone who believes they have mystic insight, or oneness with God, or the revelation of the Spirit is as certain of that knowledge as you—but you all believe different things, your borthers in Christ and you.

So how does one know which revealed truth is the really true truth? If there is not a way to discern the truth other than, well, I just feel it is true, and believe the feeling is from God, and not the five tacos I just ate, just anything might be believed.

Hank

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL!

Your protests are quite ineffective to me, dear Hank Kerchief.

Let me recall exactly what you said at post 1207 (emphasis mine:)

I’ll explain only that nothing that cannot be derived from reasoning about that which we are conscious of can be knowledge, and that all knowledge is about that of which we are conscious. Anything else that makes a claim to knowledge is superstition.

The first part of your testimony cannot now be divorced from the last sentence of it.

In my personal epistemology, the knowledge I consider most certain and of the highest value and priority is that which I receive directly from God, e.g. that Jesus Christ is God. That did not come from me. Now was I conscious of Him as God.

Jesus is in fact the wisdom of God, the power of God.

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. – I Cor 1:24

Moreover, the things of God cannot be received by the natural man. They must be Spiritually discerned:

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16

Spiritual Truths are received. They are not things that we become conscious of through perception or reasoning. They are awakened in us. Again and more fully:

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent...

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. – I Corinthians 1:19-25

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[Alamo-Girl]

The problem is, I’ve been there and was as convinced as you that these were true, until I realized everyone who believes they have mystic insight, or oneness with God, or the revelation of the Spirit is as certain of that knowledge as you—but you all believe different things, your borthers in Christ and you.

So how does one know which revealed truth is the really true truth? If there is not a way to discern the truth other than, well, I just feel it is true, and believe the feeling is from God, and not the five tacos I just ate, just anything might be believed.

Truth is not a system that it can be subjected to the rigors of mathematics or a thingly object that can be subjected to the scientific method.

Hermeneutics is a system of men, not God.

Truth is a Person. His Name is I AM, God, Jesus Christ.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

A thing is true because He says it. Period.

For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9

In my view, the disputes between my brothers and sisters in Christ are like people looking at the same seven faceted diamond but from different perspectives. It is still the same diamond (Scripture) and the same Light (God) even though they see things a bit differently.

God is like a master artist. The metaphor of the foundation gemstones of the New Jerusalem (Revelation) stands as a beautiful testimony of His artistry. Each layer is a different color and each is named for a different Apostle.

The Light going through an emerald looks green; sapphire, blue; ruby, red and so on. Likewise He has made a beautiful, colorful living masterpiece of all of us!

John was not like James who was not like Paul who was not like Peter who was not like doubting Thomas.

And Jesus chose each and every individual one of them!

A saint is like a diamond. The Light shining through him into the world is clear and unobstructed.

But so what if one of my brothers in Christ is red and another is blue? It is the same Light shining through each of us into the world.

[betty boop]

That’s what being a free individual is.

What does this "attribute" freedom entail? Freedom for or freedom from?

[Oh, and by the way, what's an individual, in which such a quality can inhere in the first place?]

I suspect that the answers that you and A-G would give to the question "What is freedom?" would be different. Thus, that difference would be the very thing that distinguishes the difference of fundamental worldview of each of you respectively, and which seems to put them so mutually at odds.

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true, dearest sister in Christ!