Evidence for design

292 posts / 0 new
Last post
Someone's picture
@arakish

@arakish

Physicalism is just a theory, and to believe in a theory does not make someone a liar.

arakish's picture
Someone: Physicalism is just

Someone: Physicalism is just a theory, and to believe in a theory does not make someone a liar.

No it does not; however...

It is NOT a theory.

In the VERY FIRST sentence it says it is a "thesis" meaning it is hypothesis. Just an idea. And it shall remain a hypothesis because it is nothing more than word salad horse hoowhee. It has never been accepted by anyone, except you, that I could find. And shame on Stanford University for publishing such on their website. Utter nonsense.

After reading the first paragraph, I realized I had already read a paper very similar to this one titled something like, "The Physicality of Reality." It tried to pawn off the same bullshit lies as truths that should be accepted. Thus, the reason why I shut that Tab after reading the first paragraph. However, I may go back and read it, IF I have the free time, which I don't have any.

In over 50 years of dealing with Absolutists, I have yet to see any Absolutist speak any truth. Unless they are quoting a scientific fact. And that is only IF they quote it correctly instead of using beguiling dialectical semantics to distort and pervert it to fit their falsehoods and innuendos. The only "truth" the Absolutists have is the BIBLE, which just happens to be the biggest LIE ever created in ALL of human history.

AND first and foremost, you need to realize this "physicalism" is actually an ancient idea resurrected as a new-age religious idea hiding behind the term PHILOSOPHY.

rmfr

Someone's picture
@arakish

@arakish

I agree with you it is just a hypothesis, not a theory, and I should have stated as much, and should change the wording of my arguments to reflect that. Thank you for the correction.

Still to believe a hypothesis does not make someone a liar either.

Clearly I do not believe in physicalism.

Sheldon was claiming that a material universe was an objective fact, I assume you disagree with that.

arakish's picture
@Someone

@Someone

No I do not disagree. The universe is objective. It exists. I can measure its objective qualities.

7734, even you are objective. It would be silly for me to subjectively say you do not exist when clearly you do. Of course, this is an assumption on my part since the only evidence I have are your words displayed as text on my monitor screen. However, I am willing to go out on a limb, (gosh that is funny considering my avatar) and say you objectively exist. Until I am presented with evidence proving otherwise.

And in answer to your question.

No. Part of reality is not experiencing.

Yes, we experience reality.

However, you cannot experience experience which is ultimately what you are asking.

The only way we shall ever be able to experience experience is if we can do as in the movie "Brainstorm."

Which just happens to star one of the biggest crushes I have ever had and still have: Natalie Wood. 7734, I am even willing to admit that for me, Natalie Wood even trumps the Princess Leia Slave Girl thing. Alright, let me quit this. I'm starting to get that...

rmfr

Someone's picture
@Arakish

@Arakish

Actually I am reconsidering the post prior to you on this. As while when googling "theory vs hypothesis" there were stated differences, when I looked into it more, those stated differences don't appear in dictionary definitions, or in writings on the matter. In the wiki page on it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory it even states:
---
Sometimes two theories have exactly the same explanatory power because they make the same predictions. A pair of such theories is called indistinguishable or observationally equivalent, and the choice between them reduces to convenience or philosophical preference.
---

So you agree with Sheldon that a material/physical universe exists. I do not know what you mean by it is objective. I assume you mean it is an objective fact that it does. So what do you believe exists that is not material/physical?

Regarding the following argument which you seem to have a problem comprehending

If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing

Let me give you an analogous one to see if you comprehend it

If
(1) John is a part of reality
and
(2) John is hearing a sound
then
(3) At least part of reality is hearing a sound

Would you agree with that?

You keep using the term "experience reality". If you were in a Matrix type scenario then would you also be experiencing reality? The reason I ask is that you had previously written "... how can I know it is true reality and not a fabrication à la The Matrix?".

Sheldon's picture
Atheism and materialism are

Atheism and materialism are not the same thing. Someone is using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof again. A person can be an atheist without being a materialist, as they're not the same thing. He also misuses the word theory, disingenuously conflating the common meaning of the word with scientific theories, which are not the same.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Someone - With physicalist

Someone - With physicalist theories there is no reason to have favoured the expectation of any particular physical activity to have correlated with experience over any other physical activity, or to have favoured what the experience that correlated with physical activity would be like.

word salad

consider the phrases:

  • "favoured the expectation of any particular physical activity"
  • "correlated with experience over any other physical activity"
  • " favoured what the experience that correlated with physical activity would be like"

These statements are either gibberish, or so loaded with special definitions (that no but yourself seems to know) that they are indistinguishable from gibberish for the rest of us. You aren't going to convince anyone or get a interesting discussion with gibberish.

You should start over, again; and be more explicit/less cryptic.

Someone's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

You have just taken parts of a sentence out of context. The sentence uses no special definitions, and is quite clear.

Presumably you think there is a correlation between neural activity and experience.
Presumably you can understand that in physicalist theories, neural activity is considered to be a physical activity.
Presumably you can understand that neural activity is different from the activity occurring in the liver.
Presumably you can understand that physicalist theories offer no more reason to have expected the neural activity to have correlated with experience than activity in the liver, or in a single molecule, to have correlated with experience.
Presumably you can also understand that physicalist theories give no more reason to have expected the neural activity to have correlated with the experience it does than a flash of light each time a neuron fired.

If I have over-estimated you and you cannot understand one or more of those, perhaps point out which one you are having trouble with.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Someone - Presumably you

Someone - Presumably you think there is a correlation between neural activity and experience.

I have no idea what "experience" means in this context; I suspect you are using it as a weasel word.

Someone's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

A thought is an experience, though there can also be visual experiences, experiences of touch, taste, sound, smell. I assume you experience objects such as computers, trees, tables etc., and believe that these correlate to neural activity in the human form I assume you experience having.

So there could be a robot that passes the Turing Test, and it would make sense to consider whether it experiences, and if so what that experience would be like. Films like Terminator gave an indication of what it was being suggested it was like for the robot (what the robot experiences). In the film the Matrix there were scenes that were intended to indicate what the people were experiencing while plugged into machines. I assume the majority of people were able to comprehend those films.

I assume most atheists think they when they die that will be it, no more experience. If you can understand what they are imagining then anything other than that involves an experience. Slightly circular I admit, but it just relies on understanding what I assume the majority believe. (I realise that being an atheist does not imply that belief).

Alternatively, do you know what a philosophical zombie is supposed to be? If you do, then the difference between a human and a philosophical zombie is that a philosophical zombie doesn't experience (what it would be like to be that zombie would be the no different from how that group of atheists I mentioned imagine death to be like, thus the "living dead" type label).

Does that help at all, do you think you can safely guess at what I mean by experience? I assume most children get the idea that their toys don't experience even if they sometimes pretend that they do.

Nyarlathotep's picture
As I suspected, it is a

As I suspected, it is a weasel word.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I'll try to be a little more

I'll try to be a little more explict in my criticism:

Consider that same sentence again (specifically the bold part):

Someone - Presumably you think there is a correlation between neural activity and experience.

What would it even mean for there to be a correlation between these things? Are you suggesting there is a linear relationship between then; and if so what is that relationship? It might be easier if you replace the word "experience" with something a little more concrete (memory? information storage?; hard for me to say since I don't know what you are trying to say).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To put it another way. If I was taking a multiple choice test and I was presented with the 2 possible following answers:

  • There is a correlation between neural activity and experience.
  • There is NO correlation between neural activity and experience.

I would have no idea which one to select.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another way to look at it: how exactly would someone test the correlation you suggested?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another: While I don't know the dimensions of neural activity, it isn't hard to image such a thing could be defined (signals/time or something, just a guess). I am skeptical that this could be done for experience.

Sheldon's picture
I gave him enough rope there,

I gave him enough rope there, and wondered if he was talking about human consciousness, but he never varied from his vapid spiel. He seems to genuinely think this verbiage is compelling.

Someone's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

...the hard of comprehension. It is not about compelling anyone, it was simply answering what is meant by experiencing. Is it that you are claiming that you were not imaginative enough to, given the clues that I gave, imagine what I meant by the term experiencing?

Sheldon's picture
I plainly told Someone that

I plainly told Someone that our discourse was at an end, and why. I will not be provoked into directly addressing his relentless ad hominem fallacies. I will post for clarity only to address lies he posts about what I have said.

What others choose to do is their business. There's no benefit in challenging intransigent delusion farther than I already have.

arakish's picture
And I love how he responded

And I love how he responded to my answer of his question. Yes, I am now just noticing it because the first time I never even bothered following his "link" response.

I ain't going to copy and paste, you can read here using the R-Clk, Open in New Tab:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=6#comment-108640

Then he answers my answer with a link to a post that ONLY repeats the same damned question I had just answered.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4#comment-109100

What an IGNORANT dumb ass. Remember, I am pronouncing it ig•NOR•unt, meaning the active state of ignoring. But I guess you could also apply the other pronunciation of ig•NUR•unt, meaning lacking knowledge.

rmfr

Someone's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

I did not respond to that response because it was sooooo poor.

It was to do with an argument in the form:

If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing

You accepted that you were part of reality, and so accepted (1).

Then regarding (2) you questioned what you were experiencing. But what you are experiencing is irrelevant, and doesn't form part of the argument. Though you admitted you were experiencing when making the assertion that you were experiencing reality. I am not suggesting that the assertion was right, as I assume you meant that there were objects existing in reality corresponding to those you experienced. I don't care whether I have interpreted what you meant correctly or not, the point is what you stated implied that you were experiencing.

Regarding (3) you then went on a rant about reality not experiencing anything, but there was no suggestion that reality did experience, only that at least part of it does, and you have already admitted you were a part of it, so it only requires you to be experiencing. And as I mentioned, your assertion that you were experiencing reality in response to (2) implied you stating you were experiencing. And so your answers to (1) and (2) already implied (3).

Also responding to that argument, is not the same as answering the question:
What other evidence do you need other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing?

arakish's picture
Someone

Someone

@ arakish

I did not respond to that response because it was sooooo poor.

It was to do with an argument in the form:

If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing

You accepted that you were part of reality, and so accepted (1).

Then regarding (2) you questioned what you were experiencing. But what you are experiencing is irrelevant, and doesn't form part of the argument. Though you admitted you were experiencing when making the assertion that you were experiencing reality. I am not suggesting that the assertion was right, as I assume you meant that there were objects existing in reality corresponding to those you experienced. I don't care whether I have interpreted what you meant correctly or not, the point is what you stated implied that you were experiencing.

Regarding (3) you then went on a rant about reality not experiencing anything, but there was no suggestion that reality did experience, only that at least part of it does, and you have already admitted you were a part of it, so it only requires you to be experiencing. And as I mentioned, your assertion that you were experiencing reality in response to (2) implied you stating you were experiencing. And so your answers to (1) and (2) already implied (3).

Also responding to that argument, is not the same as answering the question:
What other evidence do you need other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing?

O! boy! You just won't let it go. I pointed out the fallacies in your argument, but you refuse to see them.

Here is the original layout you offered:

If
(1) You are part of reality
and
(2) You are experiencing
then
(3) At least part of reality is experiencing

==================================================

Now, again, the fallacies in your argument.
(1) You are part of reality
This is the only part you get correct. Yes. I am part of reality. I am part of the universe.

BTW: I cannot believe how you can NOT understand how the universe and reality ARE objective. They exist.
==================================================

(2) You are experiencing
This one is incomplete. I am experiencing WHAT?!?! WHAT am I experiencing? Until you can complete that part, it cannot be answered as is.

As I said, if you meant (2) You are experiencing reality, then yes, I do experiencing reality. That is what my five senses are for.
==================================================

(3) At least part of reality is experiencing
OK. This part sounds like it was worded by a 3yr old mental retard.

WHAT is reality experiencing? WHAT "part" of reality? Remember, I said reality experiences nothing. Reality just exists. It is just there.

Thus, you need to work on your argument. Otherwise, it is fallacious nonsense. Vapid vapors.

rmfr

Someone's picture
@arakish

@arakish

Regarding (2) it does not matter what you are experiencing. But, and this is perhaps controversial in your case, I guess you experience thoughts. If not, then perhaps smells, sights, sounds, tastes, touch.... If any one of those is correct then you are experiencing.

Regarding (3) the part of reality that would be experiencing would be you. Seriously I can't believe I am having to explain that. I realise atheists may not be the sharpest tools in the box, but you are taking it to the extreme.

arakish's picture
@Someone

@Someone

Regarding (2) it does not matter what you are experiencing. But, and this is perhaps controversial in your case, I guess you experience thoughts. If not, then perhaps smells, sights, sounds, tastes, touch.... If any one of those is correct then you are experiencing.

And you are correct. I was just referring to the Big 5 senses everyone learns in Kindergarten. There are actually ten or eleven senses. Aron Ra covers these in one of his videos. I'll have to find it again.

If not, then perhaps smells, sights, sounds, tastes, touch.... If any one of those is correct then you are experiencing.

And you still fail to see how you are NOT completing your statement. It should be thusly: If any one of those is correct then you are experiencing a sensation. You cannot be experiencing an experience. You can re-experience a memory, but you cannot be experiencing an experience. Well, actually, you can, but using "experience" is an incorrect analogy. You experience sensations. And those sensations are a part of "experiencing reality."

I realize you Absolutists are only educated into the English language using that ancient, obsolete, and antiquated religious text known as The Holy Bible (and I differ on the Holy bullshit), but you really should considering attending a local... local... what the hell are those 2yr schools called?... one of those, and furthering your English education.

Regarding (3) the part of reality that would be experiencing would be you. Seriously I can't believe I am having to explain that. I realise atheists may not be the sharpest tools in the box, but you are taking it to the extreme.

Actually, it is just that we are so sharp, our wit slices and dices anything an Absolutists can think of before we even begin the analysis process. Then we have to piece it back together, analyzed it as a whole, and since it is already sliced and diced, we then go back and re-analyze the pieces. And it is this extreme sharpness you Absolutists cannot comprehend; thus, it seems to be a "dullness" in the lack of comprehension.

Regarding (3) the part of reality that would be experiencing would be you. Again, you are simply saying this:

(3) that part of reality is experiencing reality itself.

I realise Absolutists may not be the sharpest tools in the box, but you are taking it to the extreme.

See, the obverse can also be stated. Even if it is not true...

rmfr

Edit to add:
The eleven senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, balance, temperature, kinesthetic, pain, time, direction.

Sheldon's picture
I said I wouldn't waste any

I said I wouldn't waste any more time on Someone's nonsense, However I note he is again trying to misrepresent what I have said with a lie . So for clarification the claim that " I could not state what other evidence other than personal experience was required to validate the belief that at least part of reality exists." is entirely false, it's entirely his own claim, and I made no such claim.

I shall leave it to others to decide for themselves if he is lying about using logical fallacies such as argumentum ad ignorantiam, and begging the question fallacy, he still doesn't even seem to know what the latter is even after it has been explained? I only posted to clarify the truth as he is lying about what I claimed. I have no interest in another spin on his dishonest merry go round. Especially as he now seems to have abandoned all pretence of debate, preferring endless ad hominem fallacies.

Someone's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

I agree that you did not claim that you could not state what other evidence other than personal experience was required to validate the belief that at least part of reality exists, you just repeatedly failed to do so. I agree that your failure to do so does not make the claim true. Though you stating some evidence (if there were any) would indicate it was false.. Surprise surprise you aren't able to because the claim is true. What you did end up considering "for the sake of argument" was that if you couldn't it would not prove my point. (I pointed out that it was a question about your assertion but for those that are interested look it up...)

But that is not why I was calling you a liar and you know that. For the reader's that weren't aware that Sheldon is a liar and a frequent intentional deceiver; why I was calling Sheldon a liar is that in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... Sheldon provided 5 bullet points labelled 1-5 (first 2 quoted below) and labelled 5 points that were supposed to be against what I had stated as 1-5. It could cause confusion if I didn't go out of my way to point it out. Regarding bullet points 1-2 Sheldon wrote:
---
As I keep pointing out and will keep pointing out there are some objective facts we cab(sic) start with.

1. We experience reality as you put it, because we are conscious beings.
2. The physical material universe exists.
...
---

So Sheldon explicitly stated in bullet point (2) that it was an objective fact that the material universe exists.
[
INCIDENTLY:
I mentioned in my reply http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... to point 2 (not bullet point 2 but the argument point 2);
---
Firstly I do not ever recall using the term "experiencing reality", I do not even know what you mean by the term. Could you quote the post where I used that term? I thought the atheists first started using terms like that in this thread. I had presumed they were trying to sneak in the idea that the objects they were experiencing had an ontological existence.
---

In response when Sheldon failed to get away with other atheists introducing this term, Sheldon skipped over it and never pointed out where I had ever used that term.
]

Sheldon also wrote in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...
---
Is there any objective evidence we live in "The Matrix"?

Until there is I don't believe the claim, same with deities. Agnosticism, the belief that nothing is know or can be known about something, applies to all unfalsifiable claims. It goes without saying I don't believe claims when nothing is or can known about them, otherwise you could believe literally anything."
---

Indicating that Sheldon would not claim as an objective fact anything Sheldon was not aware of the objective evidence for.

So the issue is the following argument

1) There is no objective evidence that Sheldon knows of that the physical material universe exists.
2) Sheldon makes no claims to know that for which there is no objective evidence that Sheldon knows of.

Therefore

3) Sheldon does not claim to know that the physical material universe exists.

The problem being is that Sheldon does! Sheldon states it is a fact. Therefore either (1) or (2) would need to be false. If it were (1) then Sheldon could state the evidence that Sheldon knew. But Sheldon can't because it is (2) that is false even though Sheldon claims (2) to be true. That is because Sheldon is a liar.

More evidence is that Sheldon had written in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...
---
It wouldn't be an objective fact without objective evidence.
---

A simple point, which if the readers fail to get, I can link to again and again (presumably).

And regarding whether I am using arguments from ignorance or begging the question, let me just restate:
---
1) The fine tuning of the experience.

With physicalist theories there is no reason to have favoured the expectation of any particular physical activity to have correlated with experience over any other physical activity, or to have favoured what the experience that correlated with physical activity would be like.

Whereas theist theorists can explain why the experience that correlates to certain physical activity is like it is rather than being a flash of light every time a neuron fires for example. The latter wouldn't have been fit for purpose (making moral judgements based on it).

So it is a fine tuning argument, but the fine tuning of the experience, rather than the fine tuning of the physics constants, or the fine tuning of the planet's proximity to the sun, which could be explained by a multiverse, or the number of planets respectively. The fine tuning of the experience seems to me to be taken for granted and thus ignored, yet it part of the most telling arguments for design.

2) Our ability to respond to the experience.

A theist theorist can explain it without it being explicitly observed (quantum randomness, and fluctuations of kinetic energy, and a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made (explainable by chaos theory) and the means to make them). Whereas with physicalist theories there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). The theist theorists can therefore explain how it is that my form can express that the person experiencing having it is infallible when it comes to the statement that "reality is not one in which none experience", for example.

Explanation:

Both arguments (the first, and the reworded second) are about comparing theories. Theist theories and physicalist theories. The theist theories are obviously theories involving the existence of deities, whereas the physicalist ones aren't. It is not assumed that the theist theories are correct, so there is no question begging that they are. The first argument uses a fine tuning argument to argue that the evidence favours the theist theories. The second argument examines the compatibility of the theist theories and physicalist theories with the evidence, and points out that none of the physicalist theories are compatible. So the favouring of the theist theories is done by argument. There is no assuming the conclusion, and as mentioned no question begging. Also neither argument concludes that it is not possible that physicalism could be correct, as neither perform an argument from ignorance such as arguing that because we lack physicalist theories which would change the evaluation, that physicalism *must* be false. They are just evaluations of where the evidence currently points to with respect to theist and physicalist theories.
---

Someone's picture
On a Likert scale of 1 to 7

On a Likert scale of 1 to 7 how well do the atheist members of Atheist Republic feel that Sheldon (as an atheist) has done in this debate?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
On a Likert scale of 1 to 7

On a Likert scale of 1 to 7 how well do ALL members of Atheist Republic feel that Someone (as a theist supporting 'intelligent Design") has done in this debate?

Someone's picture
@ Old man shouts ....

@ Old man shouts ....

Why don't you paraphrase the arguments and point out the flaws in them? You saw them right? You aren't like one of those guys in the Emporer's New Clothes story right, because how sad would that be! If you were that sad, then may I say, it is good that you realised it, and on the plus side, it is better to realise it than not ! :) Because by realising it, and not continuing to be like that, you aren't that sad! :) You can chuckle at how you were !:)

Moral dilemma: Is it bad to chuckle at atheists?

Personally I think it is bad to chuckle at their predicament but perhaps not their reasoning

arakish's picture
Answering both questions...

Answering both questions...

Sheldon has done a 7

Someone has done a 0

rmfr

Someone's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

Ok... so in your opinion as an atheist you "Strongly agree" that Sheldon has done a good job n coping with the theist considerations.

If I have misunderstood, let me know...

Someone's picture
@arakish

@arakish

Arakish gives Sheldon a 7 despite Sheldon lying?

Arakish did you think Sheldon lied?

arakish's picture
Never. Even in your copy and

Never. Even in your copy and pasting of what you ASSUMED to be him lying is actually not.

Just remember what ASSUME does: Makes an ASS of U and ME.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
I wouldn't call it a debate

I wouldn't call it a debate to be honest. Someone made the same grandiose claims for evidence we've seen theists do time and time again. Needless to say and as is always the case, all he had were arguments based on informal logical fallacies that he simply repeated ad nauseam whilst ignoring or dismissing all objections.

Once he's denied the universe existed and that it was an illusion that only existed "in the mind of a deity" it wasn't necessary to carry on.

Even now he's using an appeal to ignorance fallacy as if atheism or materialism has to refute theistic claims, Hitchens's razor of course applies.

The old adage a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, was never more apropos than when watching him endlessly flog these fallacious arguments he's plagiarized from someone.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.