Have you ever had a religious or supernatural experience?

[John Dule]

Also, am I crazy or are these two comments completely contradictory? Like WTF does this even mean

The odds are decidedly not in your favor. Craig Keener’s estimate of 100 million miracles in the last hundred years is such a large number that the odds of all of them being false or naturally explainable is roughly equivalent to the odds that George Washington was not a historical person.

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.

One is a philosophical point that requires a theological rebuttal. For example, I think the best rebuttal to ID is theological in nature, not scientific or philosophical.

Could you possibly be more specific? It sounds to me as though your opinions on this subject are themselves in a superposition right now.

[John Dule]

Wesley has several fascinating miracles. Beyond his raising a dead man to life, he also alleges that a mob broke into a house to murder him, and when he ran past them “but they were blinded and could not see me escape, though I could see them on the other side of the room.” (Or something of that sort.) Truth actually alleged that she got her name in a vision from God. “And He appeared to me in a dream and gave me the name Sojourner because I was to travel up and down the land, showing the people their sins, and being a sign unto them. But I asked for a second name, cause everybody else had two names; and the Lord gave me Truth, because I was to declare the truth to His rebellious people."

I won't address the specific veracity of these "miracles." I'll just say this: The odds that all of these tales of miraculous occurrences are false or embellished is far greater than any Christian would like to admit.

An example: I am an imaginative person; I like writing stories and coming up with fictional locations and characters. One time I had a fairly serious surgery on my back that required the doctors to put me to sleep with gas while they operated. During this period, I had very vivid visions of one of the locations I'd come up with. I felt that I was walking around in it and interacting with the characters I'd created. Now, if I were a Christian (and had spent all my time thinking about Jesus instead of my own fictional creations), I'd probably have seen something religious during that experience. Someone who is preconditioned to think about things in a certain way is more likely to see that mode of thought reflected in the world around them. When you have a lot of people who are all members of a group delusion (which, let's not mince words, is what Christianity is), they serve to reinforce one another's beliefs and make it more likely for people to claim that they've experienced the divine.

If I had come out of my surgery saying I went to an alien planet that I made up, I'd have been laughed at. If I'd woken up saying I met Jesus, I would've been hailed as a hero by certain people.

The observer effect clearly demonstrates that, in order for anything to actually happen, there must be an observer. As things actually happened prior to our existence, who was this observer? In other words, quantum physics is dependent upon there being no mind-independent reality. This is one reason why H. L. Mencken, for example, considered physicists to be modern day witch doctors.

How do you know that things actually happened prior to our existence? If you really want to go down the solipsistic route that only the observer creates reality, then why not argue that there was nothing before there was man? It sounds as though you are trying to blend quantum mechanics and your own subjective Christian faith into a single entity, in a Deepak Chopra-esque new-age philosophy. And in any case, as Disco pointed out, the problem with observing photons is not that "nothing happens without our observation," it's that the act of observing alters the result of the experiment.

Hoffman sort of reminds me of William James here. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, James argues that the truth claims of a religion are an improper measurement - instead, they should be measured by their utility. On this note, he places Christianity and Buddhism as the best religions in the world. Advocates of this religious utilitarianism today include Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, and Brian Greene.

Hoffman’s actual point is that we are designed for fitness, not truth, and as such we are not seeing things accurately. All living things - or at least most living animals - are conscious agents, and humans are conscious agents all the way down. He explains it in contrast to physicalism in this video at 42:00-43:30.

It's interesting to me that Hoffman says at the beginning of his video that "fitness" and "truth" are separate things, and then immediately launches into an explanation of how that beetle nearly went extinct because it was insufficiently evolved to distinguish between its fellow beetles and glass bottles. That sounds to me like a direct refutation of his point; truth and fitness are the same thing, and if the beetle had more accurately perceived reality, it would not have had this problem. We see this all the time in the human world with cultists who have extreme beliefs-- refusing to engage directly with reality almost inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass. If you drink some Kool-Aid because you want to travel to a higher plane of existence, you die. If you storm the US Capitol under the pretense of some internet conspiracy theory, you find yourself friendless and in jail.

Now, it's true that living things often operate along "shortcuts" to conserve time and energy. The superficial categorization this beetle was apparently performing is actually quite similar to human categorizations ("All Mexicans are lazy," "Women belong in the kitchen," "Immigrants need to go back where they came from"). We tend to simplify and generalize because that makes things easier for us in the short term. However, the notion that any living thing can be radically divorced from reality and yet still "fit" to live in it is fairly absurd-- as the beetle demonstrates.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

The observer effect doesn't postulate that nothing happens without observation, merely that observation alters any perceived outcomes. With no observer, things would still happen, but without the quantum effects of the observer's presence.

What, for you, is the key difference in credibility between the Christian miracles that you have been discussing this whole time, apparently happening with no clear element of human will, and the practices of shamanism (which you insist on referring to derogatorily) found in numerous cultures, in which it is the power of human interaction with the sphere of the spiritual that creates results as well as the value of performance and self-expression, or in the interaction of science with the forces of creation in such a manner? I find the latter two to be far more interesting and philosophically sound means of realization, personally. Why would the latent power of forces beyond us intercede on our behalf without some sort of manipulation and fundamental understanding of the workings thereof? Why is the idea of "there being no mind-independent reality" incompatible to you with the acknowledgement of the presence of spiritual force of which we as a species occupy a part?

You are correct about the observer effect specifically - I should have cited superposition and wave collapse, which do require an observer. There are a number of metaphysical positions consistent with quantum mechanics, including dualism, theism, idealism, panpsychism, and solipsism, but materialism is not one of them.

Yeah, but the "observer" in wave collapse could just as well be a coin or a potato, there's no need for an intelligent or conscious being as an observer

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The observer effect doesn't postulate that nothing happens without observation, merely that observation alters any perceived outcomes. With no observer, things would still happen, but without the quantum effects of the observer's presence.

What, for you, is the key difference in credibility between the Christian miracles that you have been discussing this whole time, apparently happening with no clear element of human will, and the practices of shamanism (which you insist on referring to derogatorily) found in numerous cultures, in which it is the power of human interaction with the sphere of the spiritual that creates results as well as the value of performance and self-expression, or in the interaction of science with the forces of creation in such a manner? I find the latter two to be far more interesting and philosophically sound means of realization, personally. Why would the latent power of forces beyond us intercede on our behalf without some sort of manipulation and fundamental understanding of the workings thereof? Why is the idea of "there being no mind-independent reality" incompatible to you with the acknowledgement of the presence of spiritual force of which we as a species occupy a part?

You are correct about the observer effect specifically - I should have cited superposition and wave collapse, which do require an observer. There are a number of metaphysical positions consistent with quantum mechanics, including dualism, theism, idealism, panpsychism, and solipsism, but materialism is not one of them.

Yeah, but the "observer" in wave collapse could just as well be a coin or a potato, there's no need for an intelligent or conscious being as an observer

Yeah, this is a key point in quantum theory, and is what separates serious articulations of the Copenhagen interpretation (which is itself not as rock-solid of an orthodoxy now as it was half a century ago) from out-and-out pseudoscience.

My favorite (conceptually/"aesthetically") non-Copenhagen, indisputably-materialist interpretation of quantum mechanics is Bohm's pilot wave theory, but that one goes back many decades so I'm not sure how supported it is these days.

[Kingpoleon]

Yeah, but the "observer" in wave collapse could just as well be a coin or a potato, there's no need for an intelligent or conscious being as an observer

It could be, yes. But the fundamental ontology of materialism, resting upon determinism, is seriously undermined by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is fundamentally even more the case because that is still the dominant interpretation, and deterministic alternatives aren’t the growing alternatives.

Richard Conn Henry, a physicist at Johns Hopkins, has previously noted these implications: “Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.”

Further thoughts of his are here.

How do you know that things actually happened prior to our existence? If you really want to go down the solipsistic route that only the observer creates reality, then why not argue that there was nothing before there was man? It sounds as though you are trying to blend quantum mechanics and your own subjective Christian faith into a single entity, in a Deepak Chopra-esque new-age philosophy. And in any case, as Disco pointed out, the problem with observing photons is not that "nothing happens without our observation," it's that the act of observing alters the result of the experiment.

To smear the fact that the discoverers of quantum mechanics openly acknowledged its undoing materialism as New Age Woo is nonsensical.

It's interesting to me that Hoffman says at the beginning of his video that "fitness" and "truth" are separate things, and then immediately launches into an explanation of how that beetle nearly went extinct because it was insufficiently evolved to distinguish between its fellow beetles and glass bottles. That sounds to me like a direct refutation of his point; truth and fitness are the same thing, and if the beetle had more accurately perceived reality, it would not have had this problem. We see this all the time in the human world with cultists who have extreme beliefs-- refusing to engage directly with reality almost inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass. If you drink some Kool-Aid because you want to travel to a higher plane of existence, you die. If you storm the US Capitol under the pretense of some internet conspiracy theory, you find yourself friendless and in jail.

Now, it's true that living things often operate along "shortcuts" to conserve time and energy. The superficial categorization this beetle was apparently performing is actually quite similar to human categorizations ("All Mexicans are lazy," "Women belong in the kitchen," "Immigrants need to go back where they came from"). We tend to simplify and generalize because that makes things easier for us in the short term. However, the notion that any living thing can be radically divorced from reality and yet still "fit" to live in it is fairly absurd-- as the beetle demonstrates.

It’s a controversial thesis, at least for a materialist, but it is thus far the best hypothesis which begins to solve the hard problem of consciousness. However, for an atheist to claim that fitness and truth are the same category is rather funny. David Myers has decades of research which are now psychologically canonical which thus far proves the benefits of religiosity and regular religious attendance. Indeed, if truth and fitness are the same, then the most psychologically healthy group in the country are West Virginian snake handlers. Above average lifespans after taking into account income and region and way above average psychological health. Can we then conclude that their societal philosophy is the most true?

[John Dule]

To smear the fact that the discoverers of quantum mechanics openly acknowledged its undoing materialism as New Age Woo is nonsensical.

You are beginning with a scientifically accepted principle (subatomic superposition) and, from there, leaping to extreme and unsubstantiated conclusions (nothing exists unless a conscious human observes it) while operating under the guise of scientific inquiry. If that isn't "New Age Woo," I don't know what is.

[Kingpoleon]

You are beginning with a scientifically accepted principle (subatomic superposition) and, from there, leaping to extreme and unsubstantiated conclusions (nothing exists unless a conscious human observes it) while operating under the guise of scientific inquiry. If that isn't "New Age Woo," I don't know what is.

Things exist without conscious observation, but not without observation. The Hoffman hypothesis, if proven true, would eliminate materialism entirely. Indeed, many prominent physicists agree with me that materialism and quantum mechanics are incompatible.

“Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less "substance" than we might believe.” - Paul Davies and John Gribbin

“My own opinion is that the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory still makes the most sense. In two respects it seems quite congenial to the worldview of the biblical religions: It abolishes physical determinism, and it gives a special ontological status to the mind of the human observer.” - Stephen Barr

“Materialism is not logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” - Eugene Wigner

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” - Erwin Schrödinger

“The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible due to quantum mechanics.”  - Werner Heisenberg

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” - Max Planck

“I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible.” - William Daniel Phillips

“I believe in God. It makes no sense to me to assume that the Universe and our existence is just a cosmic accident, that life emerged due to random physical processes in an environment which simply happened to have the right properties.” - Antony Hewish

That is six Nobel Prizes in Physics, if you were wondering.

[John Dule]

You are beginning with a scientifically accepted principle (subatomic superposition) and, from there, leaping to extreme and unsubstantiated conclusions (nothing exists unless a conscious human observes it) while operating under the guise of scientific inquiry. If that isn't "New Age Woo," I don't know what is.

Things exist without conscious observation, but not without observation. The Hoffman hypothesis, if proven true, would eliminate materialism entirely. Indeed, many prominent physicists agree with me that materialism and quantum mechanics are incompatible.

Even if the quantum state were proven to have properties that could be construed as truly "random," you still have a number of hurdles to get over before you make your case solid. Namely:

1) Does the existence of subatomic superposition actually affect things on our level of reality? The article you posted earlier would suggest that this is true, but that is far from being a scientific consensus.

2) If the principle of subatomic superposition affects our level of reality, then how does it do this? Does this account for the apparent "randomness" of chaos theory? Or is the result something more perceptible, such as human consciousness itself?

3) By this stage, you have disproven determinism. But because this is all still predicated on the existence of particles, you have not yet disproven materialism. The question now is: Is there a factor outside of the material essence of reality that affects causality?

4) If the answer to #3 is yes, then by this stage you have disproven materialism. But regardless, you are still several massive leaps of faith away from proving that Jesus Christ was the son of God who died for our sins (which I presume is something you believe). Yes, obviously there are individual pieces of evidence that appear to run contrary to determinism (just as there are individual pieces of evidence that appear to support Christianity). But when examining these competing bodies of evidence altogether, it is factually wrong to say that religion-- and specifically the Christian religion-- has more evidence on its side. The difference here is that you are beginning with your conclusion (that Christianity is real) and then attempting to gather evidence in support of that argument, picked from various sources that are frequently in conflict with one another. I, however, am trying to begin with as few assumptions as possible, following the chain of logic wherever it takes me.



(Also, please respond to my earlier question. I still have no idea what you meant when you said you were a "cessationist.")

[Kingpoleon]

Even if the quantum state were proven to have properties that could be construed as truly "random," you still have a number of hurdles to get over before you make your case solid. Namely:

1) Does the existence of subatomic superposition actually affect things on our level of reality? The article you posted earlier would suggest that this is true, but that is far from being a scientific consensus.

2) If the principle of subatomic superposition affects our level of reality, then how does it do this? Does this account for the apparent "randomness" of chaos theory? Or is the result something more perceptible, such as human consciousness itself?

3) By this stage, you have disproven determinism. But because this is all still predicated on the existence of particles, you have not yet disproven materialism. The question now is: Is there a factor outside of the material essence of reality that affects causality?

4) If the answer to #3 is yes, then by this stage you have disproven materialism. But regardless, you are still several massive leaps of faith away from proving that Jesus Christ was the son of God who died for our sins (which I presume is something you believe). Yes, obviously there are individual pieces of evidence that appear to run contrary to determinism (just as there are individual pieces of evidence that appear to support Christianity). But when examining these competing bodies of evidence altogether, it is factually wrong to say that religion-- and specifically the Christian religion-- has more evidence on its side. The difference here is that you are beginning with your conclusion (that Christianity is real) and then attempting to gather evidence in support of that argument, picked from various sources that are frequently in conflict with one another. I, however, am trying to begin with as few assumptions as possible, following the chain of logic wherever it takes me.

The article previously posted does not “suggest” this is the case. There are dozens of studies which show that quantum mechanics applies above subatomic level - that is the largest one documented.

If absolute determinism (wherein contingency is actually zero) is incorrect, then chaos theory would explain a number of things materially. It would not explain a number of problems with the materialist’s explanation consciousness! If we are to grasp that, we must begin by understanding that neural plasticity seems to indicate that purely mental processes or actions affect a purely physical brain and body. This is fundamental to even beginning to explain problems with a reductionist materialism and will be necessary for neurology and psychology.

I apologize - I thought your belief system was that of an atheist. If I had known you were an agnostic, then I will reconsider this chain further. Was I incorrect about your belief system being atheistic?

(Also, please respond to my earlier question. I still have no idea what you meant when you said you were a "cessationist.")

Essentially, I think lesser miracles require some sort of human miracle worker. If you’re interested in a deep dive, there’s a great deal of theological literature on cessation and continuation available, and many videos on YouTube. But to vastly oversimplify, I require a rather high standard to believe someone is capable of being a miracle worker and am, as such, skeptical of claims of people performing miracles unless those people are apparently capable of such.

I should also point out that from a moderate or absolutely deterministic viewpoint, considering recent research on animal intelligence, it seems highly implausible to conclude that consciousness is merely material. Indeed, if physics necessitates the periodic table and chemistry, then chemistry necessitates life and biology. And if chemistry necessitates biology, then biology necessitates consciousness and neurology. So even determinism seems to indicate that consciousness is fundamental.

[John Dule]

The article previously posted does not “suggest” this is the case. There are dozens of studies which show that quantum mechanics applies above subatomic level - that is the largest one documented.

If absolute determinism (wherein contingency is actually zero) is incorrect, then chaos theory would explain a number of things materially. It would not explain a number of problems with the materialist’s explanation consciousness! If we are to grasp that, we must begin by understanding that neural plasticity seems to indicate that purely mental processes or actions affect a purely physical brain and body. This is fundamental to even beginning to explain problems with a reductionist materialism and will be necessary for neurology and psychology.

I'm curious as to how you draw the line directly from the quantum state to disproving materialism/determinism. Obviously I see the connection-- but the fact that matter (albeit subatomic matter) behaves in a counterintuitive way does not in itself disprove materialism, yes? There is a big difference between materialism and determinism. To disprove materialism, you would have to prove that factors outside of the material world (supernatural factors, for example) interact with the material world and influence causation. To disprove determinism, you would have to establish the existence of an "uncaused cause"-- something that behaves truly randomly and operates outside the realm of the laws of causation. These are two different tasks; you could have a nonmaterialistic deterministic world (such as the Calvinists argue for) just as easily as you could have a materialistic nondeterministic world. In any case, the fact that certain pieces of matter behave in as-yet-unexplained ways does not disprove either materialism or determinism; such an argument still only addresses physical particles, and it also does not sufficiently demonstrate that the behavior of such particles was not predetermined by prior causes.

I apologize - I thought your belief system was that of an atheist. If I had known you were an agnostic, then I will reconsider this chain further. Was I incorrect about your belief system being atheistic?

I don't like the "agnostic" label because I think it's a cop-out. I think the only fair way of looking at the dilemma of god is to say that you cannot know for sure whether or not such a supernatural force exists, but there is currently not enough evidence to make a convincing argument for it. I don't think you'll meet many atheists who say they know for sure that there is no god; the consensus view is that a godless world is the only logical interpretation given the information we have at present.

For the record, this will hold true even if the Rapture happens one day and the Christian god is revealed to be the one true deity-- the people who currently believe in god today will always have been wrong to do so, because they never had the proper amount of evidence to jump to such a conclusion.

Essentially, I think lesser miracles require some sort of human miracle worker. If you’re interested in a deep dive, there’s a great deal of theological literature on cessation and continuation available, and many videos on YouTube. But to vastly oversimplify, I require a rather high standard to believe someone is capable of being a miracle worker and am, as such, skeptical of claims of people performing miracles unless those people are apparently capable of such.

Ok, but do you believe that there have been miracles since the 19th century or not? Because in one post you said that the odds of there being none during that time period were the same as George Washington not having existed.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm curious as to how you draw the line directly from the quantum state to disproving materialism/determinism. Obviously I see the connection-- but the fact that matter (albeit subatomic matter) behaves in a counterintuitive way does not in itself disprove materialism, yes? There is a big difference between materialism and determinism. To disprove materialism, you would have to prove that factors outside of the material world (supernatural factors, for example) interact with the material world and influence causation. To disprove determinism, you would have to establish the existence of an "uncaused cause"-- something that behaves truly randomly and operates outside the realm of the laws of causation. These are two different tasks; you could have a nonmaterialistic deterministic world (such as the Calvinists argue for) just as easily as you could have a materialistic nondeterministic world. In any case, the fact that certain pieces of matter behave in as-yet-unexplained ways does not disprove either materialism or determinism; such an argument still only addresses physical particles, and it also does not sufficiently demonstrate that the behavior of such particles was not predetermined by prior causes.

Quantum mechanics, such as it is, and modern physics research is problematic for materialism because atoms aren’t exactly physical “things” as such. I do agree that laws and causality approach one rather than zero - I don’t think they reach one absolutely, because to do so would be to violate themselves.

Materialism necessitates the principles of locality and local causation. Ronald Hanson, in 2015, demonstrated lack of locality on particles more than a kilometer apart. Local realist theories which also hinge upon determinism(statistical dependence) and thus a lack of free will are therefore highly implausible.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949.pdf

I don't like the "agnostic" label because I think it's a cop-out. I think the only fair way of looking at the dilemma of god is to say that you cannot know for sure whether or not such a supernatural force exists, but there is currently not enough evidence to make a convincing argument for it. I don't think you'll meet many atheists who say they know for sure that there is no god; the consensus view is that a godless world is the only logical interpretation given the information we have at present.

For the record, this will hold true even if the Rapture happens one day and the Christian god is revealed to be the one true deity-- the people who currently believe in god today will always have been wrong to do so, because they never had the proper amount of evidence to jump to such a conclusion.

I actually concur with you about the implications of opposing agnosticism. Even if there is no afterlife or God, the people who currently do not believe in God today will always have been wrong to do so, because the evidence suggests a contrary interpretation of the facts.

Ok, but do you believe that there have been miracles since the 19th century or not? Because in one post you said that the odds of there being none during that time period were the same as George Washington not having existed.

None which I believe are satisfactory, but that could result from my own lack of research. My absence of evidence thus far is not conclusive evidence of absence, hence why I am an advocate of moderate cessation. However, I don’t think the materialist has correctly evaluated these because the presumption of zero without any theological reasoning is rather poor grounding.

[John Dule]

Quantum mechanics, such as it is, and modern physics research is problematic for materialism because atoms aren’t exactly physical “things” as such. I do agree that laws and causality approach one rather than zero - I don’t think they reach one absolutely, because to do so would be to violate themselves.

Materialism necessitates the principles of locality and local causation. Ronald Hanson, in 2015, demonstrated lack of locality on particles more than a kilometer apart. Local realist theories which also hinge upon determinism(statistical dependence) and thus a lack of free will are therefore highly implausible.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949.pdf

What do you mean exactly by "atoms aren't physical things?" I know that there are massless particles, but atoms are not in that category. Regardless, I generally agree-- I have long thought that if there is a proof against determinism to be found, it lies within the quantum realm. If the behavior of subatomic particles (or "strings") is proven to be truly random, I will more than happily latch onto that as a nice way of telling myself that there's a chance I have free will. However, without understanding quantum mechanics on a more fundamental level, we can't make a judgement like that yet.

I think the major issue with extrapolating quantum states to our physical world is that-- without any sort of unifying theory-- we lack a sufficient explanation for how quantum factors could influence larger-scale events. And quantum-level events, even if they are governed by a set of different laws than standard physics, still may obey a different set of causal norms that would not disprove determinism. Again, the proof against determinism is an uncaused event, not an event that obeys different causal laws than what we are used to.

I actually concur with you about the implications of opposing agnosticism. Even if there is no afterlife or God, the people who currently do not believe in God today will always have been wrong to do so, because the evidence suggests a contrary interpretation of the facts.

To be clear, all you have done in this thread is argue against materialism and determinism. Some of your arguments are fair-minded and convincing. However, you have not yet made a single reasonable argument for the existence of a creator, and I think you know that.

None which I believe are satisfactory, but that could result from my own lack of research. My absence of evidence thus far is not conclusive evidence of absence, hence why I am an advocate of moderate cessation. However, I don’t think the materialist has correctly evaluated these because the presumption of zero without any theological reasoning is rather poor grounding.

So... you believe that miracles have happened in the past 100 years, but you've never heard of any that were convincing to you? Then why cite Craig Keener? The man blathers on endlessly about the "miracles" he supposedly witnessed while running a 102-degree fever in the Congo or whatever; his picture should appear beside the dictionary definition of "unconvincing."

[Kingpoleon]

To be clear, all you have done in this thread is argue against materialism and determinism. Some of your arguments are fair-minded and convincing. However, you have not yet made a single reasonable argument for the existence of a creator, and I think you know that.

That is not my intent. We still do not know that the universe began from nothing. My own view is rather like Maimonides here: I think it more likely that the Big Bang was preceded by a “Big Bounce” of sorts and view God more as a sustainer in that sense than a Creator. Of course, the physicists will ultimately conclude upon this, but from my own study of physics from a number of books, I think the Big Bounce is most likely. I should point out, here, that you haven’t “begun from nothing,” as you previously implied. Materialistic determinism is your belief system, not the absence of one. It is far too intuitive of an idea to really grasp me - I have always been highly suspicious of people who make arguments from “common sense,” because it is never followed by sensible things. Even Thomas Nagel, who is heads and shoulders above almost all of his peers, has this annoying habit.

So... you believe that miracles have happened in the past 100 years, but you've never heard of any that were convincing to you? Then why cite Craig Keener? The man blathers on endlessly about the "miracles" he supposedly witnessed while running a 102-degree fever in the Congo or whatever; his picture should appear beside the dictionary definition of "unconvincing."

Keener is a rather serious scholar and is one of the most cited people in New Testament academia, a prestigious field in its own right. You don’t get your Doctorate at Duke and teach at Asbury unless you are a seriously intelligent person. The main thing Keener is notable for in New Testament studies is his book The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, which caused a bit of a revolution in his field by reframing Jesus’s Jewish background. If you’d actually like to see a crazy person who “works” in NT studies, you should look into Richard Carrier, the world’s worst abuser of Bayesian statistics.

I believe it’s possible that miracles continued after the Apostolic Age, and those three are decidedly convincing. Now, I’m not absolutely convinced on them and could be convinced by hardline advocates of cessation. See here for further information on the topic.

[John Dule]

I have always been highly suspicious of people who make arguments from “common sense”

This is a good place to leave this conversation. I have nothing to add.

[Kingpoleon]

I have always been highly suspicious of people who make arguments from “common sense”

This is a good place to leave this conversation. I have nothing to add.

You’re not actually suggesting that arguments from a gut feeling are better than arguments from empiricism, rationalism, and emotionalism, are you?

[John Dule]

I have always been highly suspicious of people who make arguments from “common sense”

This is a good place to leave this conversation. I have nothing to add.

You’re not actually suggesting that arguments from a gut feeling are better than arguments from empiricism, rationalism, and emotionalism, are you?

"Gut feeling" is not the same as common sense.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Of course, our premonitions are in the Astral planes as we dream of the future to warn us of danger.


There is no evidence of reincarnation but there could be and our dreams may lend us there, to see into the future

But, reincarnation isn't supposed to last forever, there comes an end at some pt and we are all waiting for the Rapture

[Kingpoleon]

A reading list for those I have made interested in physics, neurology, and systems biology:

Dancing to the Tune of Life by Denis Noble
Systems Biology by Herbert Sauro
A Practical Guide to Cancer Systems Biology (translated from Chinese)
The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist
The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman
You Are Not Your Brain by Jeffrey Schwartz
After by Bruce Greyson
The Matter Myth by John Gribbin and Paul Davies
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr
The Waning of Materialism by two dozen authors

[Kingpoleon]

As far as common sense goes, it is a completely anti-science way of going around the world. In the most quantifiable intellectual field - chess - a grandmaster has the same odds of winning against an amateur adult who’s been playing ten years as against a five year old child. For us to pretend that common sense is a good metric in philosophy, metaphysics, physics, chemistry, biology, or economics is to be wrong. We have to deal with the literature as we can understand it and not at some random level we wish it were at. Everything in all of these fields we know runs deeply against “common sense,” and analytic philosophy still refuses, by and large, to admit that. Materialistic philosophers cling to an old way of thinking that physics disproved a hundred years ago and neurology forty years ago. They were wrong and remain wrong.

[John Dule]

As far as common sense goes, it is a completely anti-science way of going around the world. In the most quantifiable intellectual field - chess - a grandmaster has the same odds of winning against an amateur adult who’s been playing ten years as against a five year old child. For us to pretend that common sense is a good metric in philosophy, metaphysics, physics, chemistry, biology, or economics is to be wrong. We have to deal with the literature as we can understand it and not at some random level we wish it were at. Everything in all of these fields we know runs deeply against “common sense,” and analytic philosophy still refuses, by and large, to admit that. Materialistic philosophers cling to an old way of thinking that physics disproved a hundred years ago and neurology forty years ago. They were wrong and remain wrong.

Perhaps you have a different definition of common sense than I do.

[vitoNova]

Nope.

I abstain from crack-rocks. 

[Samof94]

No. I have never been on a pirate ship in order to combat global warming.

[Kingpoleon]

As far as common sense goes, it is a completely anti-science way of going around the world. In the most quantifiable intellectual field - chess - a grandmaster has the same odds of winning against an amateur adult who’s been playing ten years as against a five year old child. For us to pretend that common sense is a good metric in philosophy, metaphysics, physics, chemistry, biology, or economics is to be wrong. We have to deal with the literature as we can understand it and not at some random level we wish it were at. Everything in all of these fields we know runs deeply against “common sense,” and analytic philosophy still refuses, by and large, to admit that. Materialistic philosophers cling to an old way of thinking that physics disproved a hundred years ago and neurology forty years ago. They were wrong and remain wrong.

Perhaps you have a different definition of common sense than I do.

That would explain why you were so offended by my relentless attack upon it. I am afraid to say it, but the postmodernist points about meta narratives seem uncannily accurate.

[Kingpoleon]

Look, all I'm asking is that you admit that your faith is just that-- faith. You shouldn't feel the need to justify your beliefs using the language of science (which will inevitably result in disappointment). You cannot reason through a belief that you didn't arrive at through reason in the first place-- so why try?

This is an oddly presumptuous statement. It reminds me of an interesting tweet:

https://mobile.twitter.com/GHeathWhyte/status/1353620818102788096

I am rather confused as to your preference for fideistic religion rather than Thomistic religion. You are the first atheist I have met with such a preference.