romansh

Also Egnor is a ID supporter, so that tarnishes his credibility a little. Really Burl, you should know better. There was a good doctor called Egnor, Burl, my clever friend could not ignore Dear God, materialism It is such a big schism Contemplating, friend's head became sore

OK I got as far a the two first bits of evidence 1) Certain faculties are not localized as predicted by some in the 1800s is evidence that the mind is separate from the brain. No this is nonsense. 2) Split brain patients still function but only with subtle noticeable effects is evidence for dualism … give me a break. These same split brain patients are some of the best evidence we have that we unconsciously confabulate. This doctor is not as good as others make out.

Ah you are an expert on the "now". What do the theories of relativity have to say on the topic? While I might agree with you on the flat Earth opinion error … it just an opinion that it is in error. There may well be an ontological priority, but end of the day a "first cause" is an assumption. Turtles all the way down so to speak. Why can't the universe have always existed in some shape or form? Why call this first cause God? The term has a whole bunch of negative connotations. If you have no evidence for God being Love and it being an opinion, why believe (what causes you) in this concept? What evidence do you have to support materialism is in some way false?

You can see my reply here to Joseph. So in your opinion Warsaw being the capital is an accepted fact. OK is it an accepted fact that the Earth is indeed not flat? Maddox did indeed did favour a steady state interpretation, as did Einstein initially. I don't know whether Maddox was ever persuaded or not by the evidence but Einstein was. Notice how it is evidence that moves us from our entrenched positions. Now there is not a lot of evidence one way or another for there having been life on Mars. There have been a few false starts, but that is OK. So I would be agnostic on that and quite happily say I don't know and await evidence. But if someone put a gun to my head and make a bet, I would bet against life having been on Mars. Recognizing I could be very wrong. Regarding materialism (a subset of physicalism), depending on what you mean by materialism, there is a whack load of evidence for the position. Arguments against materialism seem to be god of the gaps type arguments, and they tend to be held by believers. What is the evidence against materialism? Remember not everyone thinks the Earth is not flat. We weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion. Moving on to the God is Love position. Now Joseph claimed he has experienced God. I claim I can experience the universe or at least bits of it. I suppose some might claim we can experience both. I can point to the universe. Joseph earlier argued it (the world) might be an illusion; true, I am sure our perception of the universe has many illusory properties, but nevertheless our perceptions are a reflection of the universe. While we might have philosophical arguments about what is and is not God. The first and continuing mover that causes cancers starvation, horrible parasites, to me does not seem to fit the God is Love bill. The universe does fit our experience. My point remains. It is evidence that sways us, or at least in an ideal discussion.

This is exactly what I had in mind Joseph. We could go all 'sciencey' here about the properties of time etc.

There was an old man called Burl. Rom's great idea he could not unfurl. He thought so hard, His brain turned to lard. He could not understand the pearl.

Then not terribly relevant to the thread.

I can't say I am familiar with their positions on materialism. Now Kant appears to argue that we can't know about metaphysics. As an agnostic I would be really careful about using the word 'know' other than a colloquial sense, ie I know Warsaw is the capital of Poland. Having said that, here's a question: beyond a concept does metaphysics exist? Materialism for me is specifically is the "mind" is not separate from the brain. It's a science problem not an arm waving exercise. Having said that if Kant et al. have anything to say about materialism and the various grades of opinion, I am all ears.

Here are three opinions: Warsaw (Warszawa) is the capital of Poland There must be life somewhere in this universe other than Earth God is Love The first is based on copious evidence. The second is based reasoned logic and the third, to me it far from clear what it based on. The second opinion while I can see the logic behind such arguments, I find them not necessarily convincing. While I can see arguments against the first opinion, I find to all intents and purposes we can consider this close to 'true'. Of course the third opinion is based on very little. So I can't help thinking saying these opinions have some equivalence would be a little disingenuous. Now is materialism true (ie mind and matter are not separate)? There is copious evidence that this position is true. Unless we start claiming things like distance and time are not part of the physical world, then materialism it could be argued is closer to Warsaw is the capital of Poland kind of opinion, rather than the God is Love opinion. I would like to hear your arguments for and against.

That was the point of my reply. It is your right to vote down a post without being sure what the author meant. But when we enter into this voting thingy, we are simply trying to reinforce a particular behaviour (positively or negatively). Why do we want to modify other people's behaviour? Do they not have their right? This is why I avoid (as much as I can) that particular game. This is why I don't accuse people of trolling even when I suspect they are. I am simply advocating evidenced based reasoning. I hope no one here is against this. Here is an opinion from my heart-throb on Sheldrake.

Yes mine is an opinion, but it is based om observation, unlike your Cambridge man. Yes Sheldrake is given the right to be wrong. This is not clear. What cause would I have to give a this answer. But Spong does come to mind. Where on Earth did you get that?

John Maddox, like my reply said. If you are interested, I will let you look him up on Wikipedia. If any book is full of inaccuracies, then isn't such a criticism expected. Or are you suggesting we should not criticize, say Trump's twitter feed, because our criticisms are based on assumptions? FIFY … Here is a quick review. This is a brief critique [mine] of the Science Dleusion

No you appear to assume that I assume you are obscuring. Frankly I did not care. If materialism is an assumption it is based on evidence. From pondering this sort of thing, the major leap of faith I have to make is there is universe beyond my perception and that perception is a reflection of that universe (OK perhaps two assumptions). I will go with Oxford, John Maddox, though I prefer Cambridge as a location. We can exchange "true" scientists as much as you like thormas. Again there is evidence for materialism, and indeed physicalism the parent worldview.

This is a classic example of you evaluating evidence. I did not ask! Also I did not assume the worst. I simply pointed out the error is the person's reasoning. They are based on evidence. Now a speculative hypothesis might contain assumptions. But these assumptions are tested. Science as such never finds the truth. Based on the evidence I am right handed. Is that an assumption? Sheldrake … sheesh.

I am glad you kept the author's name anonymous. You saved him a bunch of embarrassment. Materialism is not an assumption. It is a scientific theory or at worst a hypothesis. I would carefully evaluate what I read before repeating the supposedly interesting bits. There is a ton of evidence that are so called minds are chemically based.

One could argue that evidence for Love is God is equally underwhelming. The problem here for those of rational bent these things need to make some sort of sense, ie there has to be some sort of causal correlation between events. Those of an emotional bent have no such need, it seems it is just another way of knowing. Of course this is just fine in the great scheme of things. But it can be a source of frustration (an emotion) for both sides

I did not say that.

Not quite. Perhaps I should have said that our perception of love is an illusion. You know our perception that god is Love etc.

Love is an illusion.

Well I would claim otherwise. Again this proof thingy … In the real world we don't deal in proof corroborating evidence yes. But if you are interested in this sort of thing I would suggest Robert Sapolsky's Behaviour.

Where is the evidence that it is not "chemical reactions"? Just stating it is not is not an argument. It is an opinion. Can one be a Christian without being agape? Can one be agape without having the other six forms of love?

OK I get this acceptance thingy … for me it an understanding, but that is OK. For example I might "accept" a behaviour [I don't like] in someone else, but I generally have a superficial understanding of that behaviour (and if I am lucky my aversion to that behaviour). I am not sure I understand this?

Is it a fact that Jesus existed?

My initial reaction is … it is not what it seems. I was asked the other day where does it come from? Well love in its various forms does seem to be an emotion that has come to be because of the evolution of biochemical reactions and genetics and is triggered by the environment. This in turn results in various actions that might be considered loving.

Well I am extrapolating from what I see of religion today and not some 2000 y old hypothetical. Perhaps … but for this to be "literally" true they would have to be pantheists. Even panentheists hold to some separation. Question away thormas. Note I never did claim we are totally are our actions. So what exactly are we? Thinking is an action is it not? God is a verb? Is god "totally" an action?