Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
25 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, RAZD, Theodoric (6 members, 19 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,934 Year: 21,970/19,786 Month: 533/1,834 Week: 33/500 Day: 33/96 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 16 of 38 (458174)
02-27-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bertvan
02-26-2008 11:54 AM


bertvan writes:

The amount of choice available to some living organisms may be extremely limited, but Beuhler argues that even single cultured cells display a degree of volition, of intelligent free choice.

All Beuhler is really doing is the opposite of what you seem to want him to be doing. He is reducing the idea of intelligence so that it can be applied to the way in which a single cell can react positively (to its advantage) in its environment. The single cell and its parts that he describes are very much material, and this fits a view of intelligence being, ultimately, the product of chemical reactions.

quote:
My research for the past 30 years or so was devoted to examine whether cells have such signal integration and control center(s). The results suggest that mammalian cells, indeed, possess intelligence.

Far from ideas of non-material intelligence, Beuhler is suggesting that the kind of intelligence that we see as coming from our very material control centres, our brains, can in a sense be ascribed to the control centres of single cells. It's a way of looking at it, and there's nothing non-material involved, it's all chemical.

Evolutionary biologists won't really have a problem with this. It would end up in a discussion of definitions of intelligence, and at what level can cells, or complex combinations of cells forming brains, be regarded as sentient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bertvan, posted 02-26-2008 11:54 AM bertvan has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 38 (458177)
02-27-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by bertvan
02-27-2008 2:57 PM



Is it your argument that dualism and the concept of mind as something separate from the brain are "out of fashion" among philosophers?

That's not really my argument, no. I did point out that those that study this phenomenon don't generally come to the conclusion that materialism has to be abandoned. I made that point because Ray thought that you weren't "advocating...any type of dualism". I take it from your reply that Ray was wrong and you are advocating a type of dualism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:57 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 18 of 38 (458186)
02-27-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bertvan
02-27-2008 3:21 PM


The point that a non-materialistic force would be required would be when new, unforeseeable information was introduced, which the robot would be required to interpret for itself. If a programmer interprets the new information and tells the robot how to react to it, the programmer is making the decision – not the robot. (Yes, I consider the mind of a human programmer a non-materialistic force.)

And what prevents the robot from being able to interpret unexpected/unforseeable information? What exactly is unexpected/unforseeable information? A zombie for instance, would react to the unexpected/unforseeable information in the same way as a human would (that's the nature of the thought experiment).

I am yet to see any reason to assume that a person has to represent a non-materialistic force simply because it possesses a significantly complex discrimination system. Why should we be compelled to agree that there is some non-materialist force in play? I am certainly not going to accept your word on it :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 3:21 PM bertvan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:01 PM Modulous has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 38 (458200)
02-27-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
02-27-2008 4:17 PM


I am yet to see any reason to assume that a person has to represent a non-materialistic force simply because it possesses a significantly complex discrimination system. Why should we be compelled to agree that there is some non-materialist force in play? I am certainly not going to accept your word on it

Naturally, and I hope you do not expect anyone to take your word on it, either, which brings us right back to the earlier point. Is it a judgement call or is it not?

I did not respond to your last reply because you chopped all of my quotes and then answered the chopped quote, which, of course, is not my quote anymore but your quote. And it appears that the reason you did this is because you do not understand the issues or points being raised here.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 4:17 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 5:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 20 of 38 (458214)
02-27-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 5:01 PM


Naturally, and I hope you do not expect anyone to take your word on it, either, which brings us right back to the earlier point. Is it a judgement call or is it not?

Well of course I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for it. We can argue about it and present our cases. The OP says: "I have concluded that non-materialistic forces such as volition, motivation, and fallible free choice". I simply challenged this statement that volition/motivation etc are necessarily non-materialistic forces. If bertvan wants to concede that ultimately his argument relies on a metaphysics position we can debate the metaphysics.

Choosing a metaphysic obviously requires judging the virtues of the arguments presented.

I did not respond to your last reply because you chopped all of my quotes and then answered the chopped quote, which, of course, is not my quote anymore but your quote. And it appears that the reason you did this is because you do not understand the issues or points being raised here.

Does this advance the debate or is just to a way for you to attempt to patronise me? In case you hadn't noticed, you just did respond to my last reply - with this contentless attempt to assert your alleged superior understanding of the issue. If you are not going to respond because you think I don't understand - then just don't respond.

On the other hand, if you want to debate me - bring it on. Expose my lack of understanding of the issues for the hollow façades they are. I will consider it a service of great value should you do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 6:04 PM Modulous has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1036 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 38 (458215)
02-27-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bertvan
02-27-2008 2:00 PM


Statistical Predictability
bertvan writes:

Motivation, volition, free will and creative intelligence are non deterministic, can’t be weighed or measured, and are only statistically predictable.

If you set a tennis ball launcher in a completely isolated room and launched tennis balls in a given direction, how many of them would land exactly where Newton's laws of motion would predict? Likely, a few would: but not all of them. Newton's laws of motion are the tools used to predict nature, but they still only get it exactly right a minority of the time. Newton's laws are, therefore, non-deterministic and the balls' motion is only statistically predictable by them.

Statistical predicatibility is the basis of materialistic science. The "law of gravity" isn't a demand that the universe must live up to, it's an attempt to describe how the universe will behave. A zillion and one factors contribute to where the ball will land. Even if you precisely measured the mass, weight, throwing force, air resistance, etc., and determined them to be the same for each ball you throw, you would still only be able to statistically predict the exact landing spot.

So, in saying that volition is statistically-predictable, you are saying that it can be described with at least some certainty by materialistic processes.


Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:00 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 22 of 38 (458218)
02-27-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
02-27-2008 5:38 PM


Well of course I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for it. We can argue about it and present our cases......

STOP. I hate to interrupt you but the question was, for the third time, is it a judgement call or not?

If you don't believe me then allow me to re-paste the quote that you are responding to:

Naturally, and I hope you do not expect anyone to take your word on it, either, which brings us right back to the earlier point. Is it a judgement call or is it not?

**********

In case you hadn't noticed, you just did respond to my last reply

At the time your last outstanding reply to one of my messages was this one:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=339&m=1#13 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=339&m=1#13">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=339&m=1#13

If you are not going to respond because you think I don't understand - then just don't respond.

That is one of the reasons why I did not respond to message #13. In addition, like I said, you chopped my quotes thus changing their meanings, then you answered the chopped quote.

I even speculated that the reason you did this was because you didn't understand. But maybe it is I who does not understand?

Anyway, Bertvan has an interesting topic. Instead of returing to the message of mine that I am complaining about I will re-type the points and questions here - okay?

I believe (but I could be wrong) that Bertvan is making the following point in conclusion:

It is a judgement call if reality is produced by material or non-material causation? But since the judgement is unquestionably an intelligence based judgement either conclusion is subjective? He may have another point to make if this is answered, but as it sits these questions, and in my judgement they are damn good questions, is his concluding points for other participants to answer.

I might add: are Materialists suggesting that material causation produced intelligence so the latter could identify the former as its cause?

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 5:38 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 6:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 38 (458224)
02-27-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 6:04 PM


STOP. I hate to interrupt you but the question was, for the third time, is it a judgement call or not?

You made a statement about hoping I don't expect others to take my word on a point of metaphysics. I addressed this statement. You also asked the judgement question which I replied:

quote:
Choosing a metaphysic obviously requires judging the virtues of the arguments presented.

The funny thing is - in text format you don't need to interrupt a person...you can continue reading to the end of their point to see if they answered both issues raised. The joy is, that you get to back and read it again without having to ask for a person to repeat themselves.

I realize that sometimes oversights are made, and I hope your STOP was just a little bit of fun - I hope you didn't just skip over what I wrote after that part.

In case you hadn't noticed, you just did respond to my last reply.

At the time your last outstanding reply to one of my messages was this one:

You do realize that you can respond to a reply in a different post? You responded to my reply in a different subthread Message 19. If this causes confusion, just ignore it - it's not important. The important point is that your tone is much less patronising now and the discussion can try to move forward.

It is a judgement call if reality is produced by material or non-material causation.

It really doesn't say anything about reality being produced by non-materialistic causes. It simply says that the act of judging something requires a non-material cause.

quote:
How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process? Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice.

bervan is discussing how volition and free judgement are the hallmarks of a non-materialistic process and cannot be produced by materialistic forces.

But since the judgement is unquestionably an intelligence based judgement either conclusion is subjective. He may have another point to make if this is answered, but as it sits this question, and in my judgement it is a damn good question, is his concluding point and question for other participants to answer.

And as I said - that our judgements are subjective and thus subject to being flawed is not a new concept. If that was all that the OP was about it would be a very dull thread. Hey guys, did you know that you cannot explore objects as they really are but only as they appear to be? The answer - yes Kant pointed this out already. But this means that everything you know could be wrong. Yes, Descartes already wrestled with this one and Pierce and Popper were instrumental to formalising this as a principle of epistemology (fallibilism).

are Materialists suggesting that material causation produced intelligence so the latter could identify the former as its cause?

No. Material causation did not lead to intelligence for any reason at all, let alone so that it could identify materialism as its cause. Materialists are just saying that material causation has lead to intelligent beings that argue about the metaphysics of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 2:49 PM Modulous has responded

  
bertvan
Junior Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 29
From: Palm Springs California
Joined: 09-10-2007


Message 24 of 38 (458269)
02-28-2008 1:04 AM


The question I asked in this thread is whether a materialistic formula can describe reality

If . . .IF. . .

that reality is actually something more than just a mechanical process?

Obviously for those of you who are materialists, random mutation and natural selection (or some equally mechanical explanation) can be sufficient to completely explain living processes. If you believe life is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, you are not going to look for explanations that include intelligent, purposeful organization. That is as it should be. I don’t have much real enthusiasm for debating materialism or quibbling over definitions of intelligence. I am skeptical that we will someday build a computer that displays volition. But hey, no one can prove what might happen someday. I have no desire to dissuade anyone from a materialist philosophy. However, I don’t believe materialism should be obligatory. I don’t believe one philosophy is more intellectual than the other. I don’t believe one philosophy is more scientific than the other. If life is not materialistic, a materialistic explanation is not more scientific than a non-materialistic explanation.

I don’t participate in these debates just for the fun of arguing. I participate because I care passionately about academic freedom, and I’ve seen enough to convince me of the very real intimidation and harassment directed toward anyone questioning materialism in biology. I have a non-materialistic understanding of life that satisfies me. It involves an organizing intelligence innate to all living systems. I am a religious agnostic, but if religious people choose to believe their god participates in the intelligence of living organisms, they are as entitled to their belief as I am to mine. So as long as skepticism of materialism is equated with biblical creationism, I do all I can to spread the word that one doesn’t even have to be religious to be skeptical of random mutation and natural selection. One doesn’t have to be committed to a personal god to believe in an immaterial soul capable of free will, love and all sorts of immaterial things. Theism is not the only alternative to materialism.

Edited by bertvan, : No reason given.


http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:40 AM bertvan has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 8:17 AM bertvan has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 5:00 PM bertvan has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 25 of 38 (458285)
02-28-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by bertvan
02-28-2008 1:04 AM


bertvan writes:

The question I asked in this thread is whether a materialistic formula can describe reality
If . . .IF. . .

that reality is actually something more than just a mechanical process?

Slightly wrong. You don't actually use the word mechanical in the O.P. To save confusion, why not stick to the word material?

Here are the exact questions you asked in the O.P., and my answers.

bertvan writes:

Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process,

No. I'm taking your use of the word materialistic to mean what I'd call naturalistic. I say this because science is described as methodological naturalism, and nature includes forces as well as matter, and some might not see all the forces as material.

and is neoDarwinism a materialistic explanation?

Yes. And one that can (and is) easily agreed with by people with a non-materialistic philosophy, like theism, and by agnostics like yourself.:)

More specifically is the following a materialistic explanation?

quote:
"all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; … the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."

Yes. But it's badly phrased, IMO, and doesn't illustrate the tentativity of science. "According to current evidence and observations, all organisms appear to have descended from....etc." is better.

How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process?

Assuming that "materialistic" is interchangeable with naturalistic, a "non-materialistic process" might be distinguished or identified by an apparent breaking of the natural laws of the universe. A genie appearing from a small lamp might be an example.

At present, what you call "non materialistic processes" are also distinguished by a complete lack of evidence for them, except when you cheat to define them, by including things for which there is evidence, as in your answer to the last question, here.

Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice. And since choices would not be free without the option of being wrong, no such conclusion will ever be universally accepted.

Our judgements and the distinctions we make change with physical damage to the brain, a material organ. A micro-organism that detects light and reacts to it does so by material, chemical processes.

bertvan writes:

I don’t participate in these debates just for the fun of arguing. I participate because I care passionately about academic freedom, and I’ve seen enough to convince me of the very real intimidation and harassment directed toward anyone questioning materialism in biology.

So, you believe that the Spaghetti monster being the driving force behind life should be taught in science classrooms if there are people who believe that. That's essentially what you're calling academic freedom. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and requires evidence.

You may desire a non-material mind, or soul, and such a thing could possibly exist, as there is no conclusive proof that it doesn't. But the same goes for fairies and unicorns, and the anatomy of the unicorn is not taught in science classes because it is impossible do do science based on zero evidence.

For your beliefs to be excepted as science, you need to present evidence.

In the O.P., you claim that making distinctions is a non-materialistic process.

So, you need to back this up with evidence. At the moment, the evidence points heavily against you. When organisms are damaged in the physical areas that have to do with decision making, the "judgements" made change, indicating that the base on which we make judgements is physical.

But academia as a whole is not science, and there's nothing to stop your ideas being discussed in a philosophy class. Also, history of science would certainly cover some "I.D." type ideas.

There's nothing to stop you looking for concrete evidence for them, either. I.D. type critics of the theory of evolution are very demanding when it comes to evidence that backs the ToE, but always seem to think that they are exempt from finding evidence for their own views.

The Beuhler summary that you point to is just a way of describing the very material way in which single cells can behave as "intelligent", which is an interesting angle, but doesn't show non-material intelligence at all. I'm not surprised that he emphatically disassociates himself from the I.D. movement.

This is hilarious:

bertvan writes:

If life is not materialistic, a materialistic explanation is not more scientific than a non-materialistic explanation.

I agree. But we observe that life is made of matter, and we haven't observed life yet which is made of something else.

So is it really surprising to you that scientists look for material explanations of, err, material? Or, to put it another way, natural explanations for natural phenomena?

If you rub a lamp one day, and a giant green genie pops out, then I'll be the first person to agree with you that we require explanations to match the phenomenon. Non-natural, non-material explanations.

Perhaps all I.D. types should be going around hopefully rubbing lamps. You've got to get your evidence from somewhere.:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bertvan, posted 02-28-2008 1:04 AM bertvan has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 38 (458297)
02-28-2008 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by bertvan
02-28-2008 1:04 AM


However, I don’t believe materialism should be obligatory.

It isn't. See - you're not a materialist!

I participate because I care passionately about academic freedom, and I’ve seen enough to convince me of the very real intimidation and harassment directed toward anyone questioning materialism in biology.

A thread in its own right. Perhaps you can start one to lay out your evidence?

I have a non-materialistic understanding of life that satisfies me.

Fantastic. But is it true? You stated that "a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process [by the presence of] judgement." Are you now stating this is just an opinion and you have no way of defending it but by stating that it is an opinion. If that is the case there is nothing to debate.

So as long as skepticism of materialism is equated with biblical creationism, I do all I can to spread the word that one doesn’t even have to be religious to be skeptical of random mutation and natural selection.

Skepticism of materialism is not equated with biblical creationism, your job is done. See the non-creationist dualistic biologist Kenneth Miller for an example.

One doesn’t have to be committed to a personal god to believe in an immaterial soul capable of free will, love and all sorts of immaterial things. Theism is not the only alternative to materialism.

Yep - that's true. You can also not believe in an immaterial soul with free will and other immaterial things (I wouldn't say love is necessarily immaterial) and also believe in a personal god. What has this got to do with the OP?

You ask can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialist process? No it can't. The question is: do any non-materialist processes exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bertvan, posted 02-28-2008 1:04 AM bertvan has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 38 (458351)
02-28-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
02-27-2008 6:35 PM


According to you - Modulous - this is your answer to the question (repeatedly asked): Is the phenomena of nature caused by materialistic or non-materialistic processes a judgement call or not?

Choosing a metaphysic obviously requires judging the virtues of the arguments presented.

This is why I have said and still say that you do not understand the question or issue. I have every right to point this out everytime you choose to not remain silent and respond.

BUT, farther down in your post you say this:

It really doesn't say anything about reality being produced by non-materialistic causes. It simply says that the act of judging something requires a non-material cause.

Is it a judgement call that nature is caused by material or non-material causation? I am not talking about metaphysics. I am talking about Creationism or Divine causation causing living things to exist or material causation causing living things to exist. Is it a judgement call or not?

Obviously it is, a persons worldview determines the answer.

You do realize that you can respond to a reply in a different post? You responded to my reply in a different subthread Message 19.

False.

Message 19 was not a response to Message 13. Message 19 told you why I did not respond to message 13. Message 19 states this clearly.

The important point is that your tone is much less patronising now and the discussion can try to move forward.

Is it possible that you are a little too sensitive? Most people ignore such perceptions lest recognition confirms inferiority.

Bertvan writes:

How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process? Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice.

Modulous in response writes:

bervan is discussing how volition and free judgement are the hallmarks of a non-materialistic process and cannot be produced by materialistic forces.

That may be implied but that is not his point. You do not want to admit that it is a judgement call because you actually believe your judgements are objective and not subjective.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : minor grammar correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 6:35 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 5:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 28 of 38 (458359)
02-28-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object
02-28-2008 2:49 PM


Judgement calls.
CFO writes:

Is it a judgement call that nature is caused by material or non-material causation?

Yes, obviously.

I am not talking about metaphysics.

Actually, you are.

I am talking about Creationism or Divine causation causing living things to exist or material causation causing living things to exist. Is it a judgement call or not?

A judgement call on a metaphysical question, yes. What about the many other possibilities? The elves did it, for example, or a divine causation of the universe as a whole, followed by the material causation of life.

Obviously is it, a persons worldview determines the answer.

By which you mean, presumably, "obviously it is a person's world view that determines his or her answer."

Obviously, yes. A devout Muslim might say "Allah did it" for example, expressing the cultural indoctrination of his background.

Which seems to answer all your questions, but what you really seem to want to discuss is the level of subjectivity or objectivity in people's "judgement calls" on your metaphysical question. I seriously suggest you start a thread on the subject.

A brief opinion here on the example of the Muslim I gave above would be that he's being highly subjective, as there's no evidence for Allah's existence, so he's going on culture based personal feelings that have no base in observed reality.

The more evidence based someone's "judgement call" is, the more objective it is.

On this topic, the answer to the question in the topic title:

quote:
Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?

is No!

Edited by bluegenes, : grammer!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 2:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 4:32 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 4:45 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 29 of 38 (458364)
02-28-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluegenes
02-28-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Judgement calls.
Actually, you are.

No, I am not. Like Modulous, you do not understand. Your understanding assumes I am speaking of a metaphysical biological First Cause, when I am actually addressing as to the means that living things owe their existence to: Divine or material causation, that is, I am specifically talking about after First Causes. You assume that Creationism only claims First Cause, but the fact of the matter is that Creationism claims that species, each species, owes their existence to direct Divine causation.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:20 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 30 of 38 (458367)
02-28-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluegenes
02-28-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Judgement calls.
Yes, obviously.

I commend you for supplying a direct and straight answer. Something that Modulous has failed to do four separate times now. And I generally agree with your answer.

By which you mean, presumably, "obviously it is a person's world view that determines his or her answer."

Apparently you replied right before I made the grammatical correction now noted in my post.

Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?

Bluegenes: "is No!"

Ray: Because Materialism by definition says non-materialistic processes do not exist. Materialism is supported by definition, not evidence.

But to frame the wholistic issue in a objective manner:

The issue is this. Whose presuppositions best explain and correspond to scientific reality, Supernaturalism or Materialism?

Answer: well, because I am a Creationist you know the answer.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:20 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 5:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019