July 10, 2012

Quantum Nonlocality

nonlocal conscieness
He is an evolutionist, a believer in reincarnation, and does not believe in Jesus Christ as God. He wrote the textbooks for students of Quantum Mechanics. So, why am I writing about him? He is a scientist, a professor, that shows evidence for downward causation. That is why.

His name is Dr. Amit Goswami and recently I was drawn to his documentary, now on Netflix, called "The Quantum Activist" If you do not have Netflix, own it as a stream online for a mere $3.99.

I saw some video interviews on YouTube where he made some very good points also and I will post them at the end for those that wish to explore his research more. I was very excited, speaking of "Ah ha" moments, to hear him lay out the reason why the materialist fight and resist, tooth and nail, science that reveals the truth about downward causation that he even refuses to call God, but we know better. The paradoxes in science can be eliminated when this one point is realized. More on that later.

OK, let's make the case. Quantum physics states that objects are not determined things. Objects are actually quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. Be it material things, thinking, intuit, etc. Waves of possibilities into a conscious choice into an actual event of experience.

Now, in material science, they take the axiom that everything is matter, and that there is only upward causation. Elementary particles make atoms, make molecules, make cells, eventually making brain. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain. But this does not explain the subtle phenomena of external experience. We have non-sharability experiences also, as an example.

What is the nature of consciousness then?

So possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells, eventually making possible brain. Possibility of possible consciousness cannot possibly give you actual objects! This is not a scientific attainable philosophy. A paradox occurs, a Quantum Measurement paradox for wave function collapse.

So consciousness is non-material? No, Same paradox, a tangled hierarchy consciousness. Dualism needs a mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5 comes to mind.

Speaking of Presuppositional apologetics: The entire problem was solved with the consciousness as the ground of ALL being. It is Nonlocal consciousness. Nonlocal is a cosmic communication, it does not require energy producing signals, or energy involving signals, a signal-less communication that stands outside of space and time. 

Science does agrees with presuppositional apologetics in that we have to "appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature ... informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible…" ~Bahnsen

Dr. Goswami wishes to avoid the labels we use to avoid materialists attacking a strawman called "God". He wishes to stick to the science, the evidence, of it.

All Quantum Measurement paradoxes were not an issue anymore.

Even in the spring of 2003, the Quantum Mind Conference on "Consciousness, Quantum Physics and The Brain" was held Arizona, USA. Their, now down, web site states, "Recent experimental evidence suggests quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are becoming more and more apparent. Moreover macroscopic quantum processes are being proposed as intrinsic features in cosmology, evolution and social interactions."

The point here being that our brains are receptors to the One consciousness. Brains are different then our minds. We can think independently but cannot will possibilities into actuality. There is downward causation from this nonlocal consciousness that our minds access. We cannot imagine a car in the driveway, or the Euromillions lottery winning numbers for the first lotto drawing in August of this year, for that reason. Christians say, "Thy will be done" and Quantum physics say when the mind lines up with the nonlocal consciousness then we get actuality.

"All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created." ~John 1:3

"For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him." ~Colossians 1:16

The Doctor also pointed that our immune system simply determines what what is me, and not me. Love is our immune system accepting another. "Two flesh become one" Mark 10:7-9 reveals the One consciousness, God, telling the immune system the chosen mate.

Of course, this is resisted by the materialists, naturalists, and Atheists because they would be forced to change their entire atheistic worldview. So, for Atheists to say that God is not scientific is vastly misleading according to Quantum Physics. The evidence for nonlocal consciousness showed in experiments that the Doctor lists, reveals that.

Also discussed is that we, as humans, are not to only do, do, do but to also just Be. Being is more important then doing. It allows for incubation of the consciousness, like a bird to an egg, Christians call it praying.

"So it's a balance, not just do, do, do. Not just be, be, be. But do, be, do, be, do."

I just recommend the videos to the Atheists as critical thinking skills for their worldview. Caution, your worldview cannot withstand the scientific evidence. From this point forward, it will fully be scientifically recognized as what we have been saying all along, merely denial.

"There is scientific empirical evidence for the existence of "God", the question now is, what are you going to do about it?" ~Dr. Amit Goswami



I wanted to point out something in this three-part playlist. At 1:30 to 6:24 of the second video is an explanation of what actually happened with the separation, and struggle, between science and religion. To me, it has never been put so well online, and I thought everyone would enjoy it. OK, maybe not everyone. :7)

"There was a definite struggle that was so lopsided in favor of Christianity, that it was impossible for a scientist to study the physical world without the interference from the Church of that time period."

"Descartes did a very smart thing" and asserted substance dualism, "that mind and matter are fundamentally distinct. Mind is God's realm and matter is the realm of science, without hindrance of the Church. They both, now, have their own domain. Descartes was trying to establish a truce."

Again, listen from 1:30 to 6:24 of the second video what actually happens next. Very interesting.

The reason for the Quantum Activist title is that he feels when we understand that we are all a part of this Non-Locality, or Oneness, we can make strides to improve our society, our nation, and our world that was destroyed and undermined by the naturalists and materialists. Instead of 'doing' something, like trying to strike down and counter my points, try 'being' and absorbing what I am posing here. Just think about it...Be with that information.

UPDATE:

In the post I briefly mentioned something called Quantum Measurement paradox, but I didn't really get into it. First, because it scared me to run down that rabbit hole in the conversation and second, it was not my focus for the post...until now.

So quickly explained is that the paradox, as in Schrödinger's cat, comes in the decision, i.e. when is the trigger point for the actually of quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from? What is that thing, consciousness, that chooses which reality? Dr. Goswami used the stop light example, which I liked because it is the will of the consciousness that is at play here.

We both arrive at a stop light. Who chooses the stop light to change green in QM language? You or I? It cannot be both. Chaos ensues in the universe if both our consciousnesses makes waves of possibilities become reality of two green lights. Why cannot I will the billions of dollars into my account? It is possible that I can have it, but it is not my consciousness that decides, or wills, that reality. Then who's? Yours? Nope. Anyone? Nope. But the entire QM language is based on a MIND that transfers the possibilities into reality. Yet we do have ego's that allows our souls to have even independent wills and desires.

Again, Quantum Physics is quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. So the whole question is which mind. The paradox arrives with the bottom up causation. The materialist believes that the universe is bottom up causation, as you know.

The post says, "possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells, eventually making possible brain." So then a possible brain makes a possible consciousness that, in turn, makes the choices from quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. To, then once again, make the possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells...? Infinite regress abounds. THAT is the paradox. This is NOT a scientific attainable philosophy.

Yet the materialist dogmatically states this is the reality we live in.

Occam's razor even applies here. This consciousness stands outside of space and time and where all brains are tuned in like radio receivers, but not ONLY receivers, relaying the signals. So the entire question, of the entire post and quantum physics, is where is the signal transmitting from? All the paradoxes are a non issue and fade away with Nonlocal consciousness...i.e. God. [More follows]


bit.ly/nonlocal

134 comments:

  1. If I felt you were sincere, I'd be tempted to engage you on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TL;DR Version:
    Dan does not leave his house, therefore he knows more about quantum physics than real-life quantum physicists. House-husband interprets science for the religious minded. Hilarity ensues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you both are confusing this blog with r/atheism at reddit, with those comments. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  4. D.A.N. said...

    Sounds like Dan's read a few too many Deepak Chopra books before coming up with this quantum bullshit.

    We can think independently but cannot will possibilities into actuality.

    Which is why claiming the Primacy of Conciousness fails. Either conciousness can actualise possibilities - as you claim God's conciousness can - or it can't (as we see when we check against reality). Your attempt to have it both ways shows the contradictory nature of your absurd Christian worldview.

    If the mind and body are separate and you can't will things into actuality - as you readily admit - how the fuck can you even make your body open it's eyes and get out of bed in the morning? How have you managed to force that lump of meat to breathe, to pass oxygen to the brain you claim is the "receptor[s] to the One conciousness" when your "mind power" cannot force anything to happen? Just how do you get the physical to respond to the immaterial when you admit that your mind "cannot will possibilities into actuality."?

    It also does not, as you claim, answer the Euromillions lottery question AT ALL.

    Even if we talk in these bullshit "quantum" terms, I'm not asking you to actualise the damned numbers, just use your claimed connection to the One conciousness that you claim can and does actualise those numbers and then tell me what they will be. Shouldn't be too difficult to somoene with a direct line to the "Quantum One".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I read this I thought of thinking, for your sake, the human brain as a thermometer that records the data, instead of a thermostat, mind of God (nonlocal consciousness), that sets the temperature. At least that was my initial analogy.

      Also, as far as the lottery numbers, yes we all have an ego. It can get so large at times we believe that our ego can and will run this universe and our will be done. Because of this nonlocality sending the messages through us, thermometer, we believe we can alter said message, and be god. Satan thought the same thing. I am sure his ego is Howard Huge. Being, more then doing, is a cure for that.

      Go watch the "quantum activist". In it, he talks of two people getting a green light at an intersection. Both want it, ego, but if both get it, chaos ensues. It is the nonlocality that reveals who gets the green. Of course this is thinking on the quantum level for this mere example.

      Delete
    2. D.A.N. said...

      When I read this I thought of thinking, for your sake, the human brain as a thermometer that records the data, instead of a thermostat, mind of God (nonlocal consciousness), that sets the temperature. At least that was my initial analogy.

      It's a poor analogy not least because you're trying to match immaterial concepts - independent conciousness and the Christian God - that you have yet to demonstrate the existence of, with physical objects which not only exist in reality, but that we also have a comprehensive working understanding of.

      Also, as far as the lottery numbers, yes we all have an ego. It can get so large at times we believe that our ego can and will run this universe and our will be done. Because of this nonlocality sending the messages through us, thermometer, we believe we can alter said message, and be god. Satan thought the same thing. I am sure his ego is Howard Huge. Being, more then doing, is a cure for that.

      You're getting further and further away from my original point - although I'm not surprises that you don't want to deal with it. I originally pointed out that the only logical means by which a deity could make you absolutely certain would be to grant you omniscience. If you're not claiming omniscience than you need to show how you can be absolutely certain while having gaps in your knowledge, whereas if you are, then I'd like the upcoming lottery numbers as a demonstration of your omniscience. You still need to deal with this problem as it is your particular brand of theism that counts not your stance on the mind/body relationship.

      Go watch the "quantum activist".

      I'll pass thanks. Your introduction to his theories have left me with little doubt that he's a crackpot.

      In it, he talks of two people getting a green light at an intersection. Both want it, ego, but if both get it, chaos ensues.

      It's a good thing that wishing doesn't make it so then isn't it? It's a good thing that the Primacy of Conciousness doesn't hold and that instead objects that exist aren't affected by the subjects who are aware of them.

      It is the nonlocality that reveals who gets the green.

      It's a bloody timer and a set pattern which says who gets the green "first" you mean. As long as the lights are working correctly everyone will get the green light at some point.

      Of course this is thinking on the quantum level for this mere example.

      I feel sorry for the quantum level that you're attempting to think on. So far in doing so you've reduced your deity to nothing more than a simple control system turning the heat on and off or picking who gets the green light. You've made your God little more than a reactive machine, responding to inputs it can only have a minor influence on.

      Delete
    3. >>I'll pass thanks.

      Your resistance is noted. After all, evil monkeys is the Atheists M.O. You know hear no truth, speak no truth, see no truth.

      >>You've made your God little more than a reactive machine, responding to inputs it can only have a minor influence on.

      Oh I see, because you refuse to HEAR the argument, SEE the points, you SPEAK against something you FEEL might be the case? Wow, your atheistic faith is strong. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    4. I should have just called them Atheist Monkeys, (hear no truth, speak no truth, see no truth) it's a work/meme in progress.

      Delete
    5. D.A.N. said...

      >>I'll pass thanks.

      Your resistance is noted.

      To what resistance are you referring? You presented an introduction to Dr. Goswami did you not? From your introduction - which you said was mostly Dr. Goshwami's own words - I've come to the conclusion that it would be pointless to listen to any more of the Dr's talk because it's just woo with the word "quantum" thrown around as if it makes a difference.

      After all, evil monkeys is the Atheists M.O. You know hear no truth, speak no truth, see no truth.

      I've certainly neither heard nor seen any truth in your latest post and, from that, I see no reason to go and watch someone speak no truth on a video. This is, of course, your problem, not mine.

      >>You've made your God little more than a reactive machine, responding to inputs it can only have a minor influence on.

      Oh I see,

      I don't think you do...

      because you refuse to HEAR the argument,

      I READ your post and responded to it - you have, as usual, failed to deal with ANY of the points I raised. This is unsurprising.

      SEE the points,

      What points are you referring to? All we have here is someone claiming substance duality and failing (dismally) to demonstrate how the immaterial mind can interact with the physical at any level. There's a claim that a mysterious 'ubermind' is actually creating and controlling everything else without either a) demonstrating that any such ubermind exists or b) how said immaterial ubermind has any effect on the physical.

      Shit Dan, even you, yourself noted that the mind cannot "will possibilities into actuality". This is the death knell for Primacy of Conciousness metaphysics and, by extension, your professed worldview, which relies on that Primacy holding in order for your God to create anything and everything in the first place.

      you SPEAK against something you FEEL might be the case?

      Feelings don't come into it Dan, logic shows it to be right and your utter failure to present valid objective evidence to the contrary is just the icing on the cake.

      Wow, your atheistic faith is strong. Good luck with that.

      I need neither faith nor luck when the facts are on my side Dan.

      Delete
  5. I see that you learned your copy/paste lessons well. You have no clue what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like watch documentary, taking notes, and discuss said documentary in a blog. But yea, what comes from me is the word "God", what comes from the doctor is "nonlocal consciousness" I think no one here, besides yourself, would be confused about that. Nice to see your attempt to write off to dismiss the subject at hand. We might be onto something here. :7)

      Delete
  6. Now you need to learn how to use quotation marks and to make proper citations. Nary a word in that was written by you.
    Just thought you'd want to know you're not fooling anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not trying to. From the beginning I do not allude these are my words. I said, in quotes "His name is Dr. Amit Goswami" these are his words. It is also why I LISTED THE SOURCE of his "Quantum Activist" documentary on netflix. I am sure everyone can see this baseless accusation of yours. "Just thought you'd want to know you're not foolong anyone" indeed. :7)

      Delete
    2. People assume using the word god you are advocating monotheism... god is a loaded word and Amit makes sure to make it clear that's not what is being pointed at.

      Delete
  7. Don't worry about the Frog. You know atheists are at their wits end (short trip usually) when they start demanding citations and quotation marks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It doesn't matter. You don't understand a word of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yo're definitely not cerebral enough to comprehend it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Dr. Amit Goswami was also in a "documentary" called What the bleep do we know with a 35,000 year old detached consciousness channeled through some lady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having had a little look around, Goswami has been pushing this "quantum quackery" (as Victor Stenger calls it) for a fair old time now.

      Poor old Dan is a little late to a party that ran out of punch and nibbles sometime around the mid 90's.

      Unsurprising that he's latched onto it though. He might only understand 1 word in 3 but he's taken the idea that conciousness can control reality and run as fast as he can with it. Unfortunately for Dan he's also denied that conciousness can control reality in the same post, which is almost as funny as him espousing the 'channeled' thoughts of a 35,000 year old Lemurian warrior as if they supported his presupp bullshit.

      Delete
  11. This is one of the problems with presuppositionists - one minute evidence is meaningless, then suddenly it's OK when they feel it helps their case.

    Science is all of a piece; if you think quantum physics is correct, then so are the many parts of physics that puncture creationism.

    Although evidence is too strong a word for this Chopaky fluffy woo.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Looks like that guy is a complete loon. Doing a google search on him doesn't show anything but his own websites, appearances on "Coast to Coast" where he talks about "quantum consciousness" or some such shit where "consciousness" not "matter" is the ground for all being.

    Whatever the fuck that means...if one doesn't have a brain, how can one think?

    This guy's just a new-age nutter who's taken some of the Hindu religion that he was raised with and is trying to shove that shit into science which now Dan is trying to use to "prove" his nuttery.


    Thesauros
    Wow, what whit the "holy spirit" has given you, eh? It's "usually a short trip" the the wit's end of an atheist? Wow. I've never heard that before!

    Got anything intelligent to say? From looking at your blog, it doesn't look it so maybe you're better off sticking to what you're uh, "good" at, relatively speaking and just keep snarking off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There you go again Reynold. How many times must you be told, attack the subject, counter the position being presented, instead of attacking the person, or their character. Ad hominems, wheeeee! Such a noob. I expected more from you.

      You do understand he wrote text books on QM for the college students. Right? They do not hold a raffle for that you know. Thanks for revealing what we have been saying all along. Atheists are in strong denial. Self deception is very powerful to the mind. Nice to, at least, have that revealed to us here. Thanks

      Delete
    2. Dan you hypocrite. What do you think that Thesauros was doing?

      Plus: When did I ever have to be told to attack the subject as opposed to the person??

      Back up your accusations now.

      Delete
    3. Dan, as far as my "attack" on Amit goes, as soon as he can answer the question I asked about if one doesn't have a brain, how can one think then I'll take him seriously.

      Dan, you're way too eager to claim victory because you have totally missed the fact that my question above is dealing with the basic position that Amit is taking, as opposed to just being an attack on his person.

      That fool Thesauros though, did nothing but insult, so screw him, that's all he gets.

      Delete
    4. >> if one doesn't have a brain, how can one think

      You obviously have not watched the videos I conveniently provided. He indeed addresses that specific question. If you are actually seeking you would have already sought that information and would have found it. As a bonus, what he talks about is also evidence for nonlocal consciousness. Take some time out of your life and watch the videos, especially "Quantum Activist" Seek and you shall find.

      The brain =/= the mind.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, that stuff is bullshit. It is obvious: if you don't have a brain, you can't think. What that guy presents is so stupid, I can't even.....

      You're so desperate to find justification for what you want to be true that you're hitching onto this stuff? Good grief.

      Delete
    6. >>You're so desperate to find justification for what you want to be true that you're hitching onto this stuff? Good grief.

      Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. It was all for your benefit, not mine. Remember you're claiming that you're willing to listen to the scientists. Well, here is the scientist that wrote the manuals of quantum mechanics saying nonlocality is a reality in QM. He give evidence for it even. IF you reject it, that has nothing to do with me and EVERYTHING to do with you denial of reality.

      "There is scientific empirical evidence for the existence of "God", the question now is, what are you going to do about it?" ~Dr. Amit Goswami

      Reynold would answer that with "DENY IT!!!!!"

      My salvation is not affected by this post in the least. I certainly do not believe in reincarnation, for example, by watching this. I was merely rooting for you to have an "Ah ha" moment since science reveals empirically there is downward causation from a nonlocal consciousness.

      I will remain hopeful, and optimistic, for you. Maybe next time. See you next post. :7)

      Delete
    7. I would answer that with the charge that that guy is a damned loon. It is impossible to think unless you have a brain. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

      If it wasn't then people with brain damage and degenerative diseases wouldn't suffer ill effects then, would they? "Quantum nonlocality" does not deal with that.

      Your guy says that "The universe is self-aware?" Huh? Even if that was true, that's not the same as saying that there's a god outside the universe who created it, as your god did, eh Dan?

      So just how is it your god is proven by this, Dan and not the "gods" of the east:
      Eastern mysticism does not divide spirit from matter as we do in the West. Swami Brahmanda said: “Show where matter ends and spirit begins. Only our own private delusion creates separate habitations for God And man (Vedanta, from the Introductory Chapter, ©1971 Harper & Row, Pub.)."


      And yes, despite what you claim, you are looking for justification for what you believe. How do I know?

      You pick and choose out of what this guy says to buttress your beliefs. You reject his idea of reincarnation yet you use his beliefs in nonlocality to assume that it's evidence for your god.

      At least it's better than that presupper crap you've been on for a while.

      By the way, didn't we go through this "nonlocality" stuff before?

      Delete
  13. Dan:

         Thesauros did not present a position. He only attacked Froggie. Funny that there was no criticism to "You know atheists are at their wits end (short trip usually) when they start demanding citations and quotation marks."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Replies
    1. You too? I felt at one with the universe watching it. :7)

      Joking aside, I thought it was great to see a Scientist and professor agreeing with my presuppositional stances. It sure got me to sit up and lean forward in my chair. I thought there was no hope for you all. Now, I am very optimistic that science can, God willing, reveal God for the Atheists sake. Nonlocality, and the evidence for it's actuality, has taken away ALL your excuses to keep hanging onto that, empirically evidenced, false atheistic worldview. Repentance is your only option.

      Delete
    2. Joking can't be put aside, because Goswami's "theories" are nothing but jokes. Why don't you go have a conversation with Ramtha?

      Delete
  15. Or let me quote Murray Gell-Mann: "Quantum flapdoodle".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. deflective behaviour noted. :7)

      Delete
    2. deflective behaviour noted. :7)

      How many times must you be told, attack the subject, counter the position being presented, instead of attacking the person, or their character. Ad hominems, wheeeee! Such a noob. I expected more from you.

      Delete
  16. There is a difference bx Ad Homs and valid observations, just so you know, Dan.
    It was you that proved you don't have a concept of simple algebra.

    ReplyDelete
  17. (Duplicated)

    >>You're so desperate to find justification for what you want to be true that you're hitching onto this stuff? Good grief.

    Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. It was all for your benefit, not mine. Remember you're claiming that you're willing to listen to the scientists. Well, here is the scientist that wrote the manuals of quantum mechanics saying nonlocality is a reality in QM. He give evidence for it even. IF you reject it, that has nothing to do with me and EVERYTHING to do with you denial of reality.

    "There is scientific empirical evidence for the existence of "God", the question now is, what are you going to do about it?" ~Dr. Amit Goswami

    Reynold would answer that with "DENY IT!!!!!"

    My salvation is not affected by this post in the least. I certainly do not believe in reincarnation, for example, by watching this. I was merely rooting for you to have an "Ah ha" moment since science reveals empirically there is downward causation from a nonlocal consciousness.

    I will remain hopeful, and optimistic, for you. Maybe next time. See you next post. :7)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DAN,
      Interesting post. By the looks of the comment section, you have had quite a robust conversation started.

      I am interested: are you saying that this theory, while suggesting a consciousness outside our space/time, suggests that free will is merely an illusion? While it may go a ways in expressing a scientific rationale for God, it would create thorny issues theologically.

      Thanks! :-)

      Delete
    2. Hi Ken,

      No, there is no such thing as free will. If I had the desire to be a bird I could not will wings and fly. So that is silly. God did give us the ability to have choices though. You can freely choose to deny His existence. You can choose to deny the existence of scientific evidence for a nonlocal consciousness.

      I am curious how does that "create thorny issues theologically" or did you mean according to your reasoning? To which I would ask, how do you know for certain your reasoning is valid?

      Delete
    3. And Dan continues to acknowledge that Primacy of Conciousness metaphysics doesn't fit with reality whilst at the same time trying to make out that Conciousness holds Primacy.

      The contradiction is as absurd as the Christian worldview he professes to hold.

      Delete
    4. Huh? Wait...what? Where and how did I say what you say I said? Or are these barely asserted yet again? Make a case or continue to hand wave. It's up to you. You have that free choice to make. :7)

      Delete
    5. Huh? Wait...what? Where and how did I say what you say I said?

      In your original post and now again in your response to Ken.

      Or are these barely asserted yet again?

      I haven't barely asserted anything as yet - let alone "yet again".

      Make a case or continue to hand wave. It's up to you. You have that free choice to make. :7)

      The only one hadnwaving here is you - perhaps in the hope that readers might not notice your contradictory stance?

      As for the case, well, here you are actively pointing out that conciousness does not hold metaphysical primacy:

      "We can think independently but cannot will possibilities into actuality."

      "We cannot imagine a car in the driveway, or the Euromillions lottery winning numbers for the first lotto drawing in August of this year"

      "If I had the desire to be a bird I could not will wings and fly."

      And yet you also claim that the Christian God exists and is responsible for the entirety of existence. Due to the nature and properties attributed to your God this can only be true if conciousness did indeed hold metaphysical primacy.

      So which is it Dan? Does conciousness hold primacy or not? Or are you going to stick to advancing both positions, using whichever one you think supports your argument best at the time?

      Delete
    6. Freddies Dead,

      I apologize. I had no idea that you were so confused about the subject. I thought you were messing with me, for some reason. Maybe because of our past conversations. So I will attempt to help you in your obvious misstep and confusion.

      In the post I label something called Quantum Measurement paradox, but I didn't really get into it. First, because it scared me to run down that rabbit hole in the conversation and second, it was not my focus for the post...until now.

      So quickly explained is that the paradox, as in Schrödinger's cat, comes in the decision, i.e. when is the trigger point for the actually of quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from? What is that thing, consciousness, that chooses which reality? Dr. Goswami used the stop light example, which I liked because it is the will of the consciousness that is at play here.

      We both arrive at a stop light. Who chooses the stop light to change green in QM language? You or I? It cannot be both. Chaos ensues in the universe if both our consciousnesses makes waves of possibilities become reality of two green lights. Why cannot I will the billions of dollars into my account? It is possible that I can have it, but it is not my consciousness that decides, or wills, that reality. Then who's? Yours? Nope. Anyone? Nope. But the entire QM language is based on a MIND that transfers the possibilities into reality.

      Again, Quantum Physics is quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. So the whole question is which mind. The paradox arrives with the bottom up causation. The materialist believes that the universe is bottom up causation, as you know.

      The post says, "possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells, eventually making possible brain." So then a possible brain makes a possible consciousness that, in turn, makes the choices from quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. To, then once again, make the possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells...? Infinite regress abounds. THAT is the paradox. This is NOT a scientific attainable philosophy.

      Yet the materialist dogmatically states this is the reality we live in.

      Occam's razor even applies here. This consciousness stands outside of space and time and where all brains are tuned in like radio receivers, relaying the signals. So the entire question, of the entire post and quantum physics, is where is the signal transmitting from? All the paradoxes are a non issue and fade away with Nonlocal consciousness...i.e. God.

      Delete
    7. D.A.N. said...

      Freddies Dead,

      I apologize.


      Apology accepted.

      I had no idea that you were so confused about the subject.

      On the contrary, I'm not the one trying to hold 2 contradictory positions at the same time.

      I thought you were messing with me, for some reason. Maybe because of our past conversations. So I will attempt to help you in your obvious misstep and confusion.

      I suspect you're actually only going to reiterate your confused concept of all things quantum yet again. Cue Dan claiming that conciousness cannot will things to happen while at the same time claiming that conciousness can will things to happen...

      In the post I label something called Quantum Measurement paradox, but I didn't really get into it. First, because it scared me to run down that rabbit hole in the conversation and second, it was not my focus for the post...until now.

      It's actually the Quantum Measurement problem that gives rise to 2 paradoxes but it's actually all pretty irrelevant to the subject at hand. Do you believe that conciousness holds primacy or not Dan? Your professed worldview suggests that you do believe conciousness holds primacy and you think that the guff Goswami has been spouting for the last 20 years or so in some way supports that belief. However, whenever we start talking about the real world you actually seem to realise that conciousness doesn't have primacy and we can't actually make things happen just by wishing for them.

      So quickly explained is that the paradox, as in Schrödinger's cat, comes in the decision, i.e. when is the trigger point for the actually of quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from?

      Word salad. What decision are you talking about? We also don't get to choose quantum possibilities, you don't choose whether the cat is dead or alive (or both) - those states exist independently but when we try to measure the quantum state we can only ever observe 1 of those possibilities as the act of measurement affects the state all the way up to the macroscopic level.

      What is that thing, consciousness, that chooses which reality?

      There are multiple realities now? Or are there simply different possible quantum states but we're uncertain as to which one holds until we make a measurement?

      Dr. Goswami used the stop light example, which I liked because it is the will of the consciousness that is at play here.

      At play doing what? Are you still pushing that conciousness can choose which light is green? Do you have any evidence of anyone being able to change a stop light using the power of their mind alone? No? Not a surprise. Based on that, why is it then rational to claim that some "nonlocal" conciousness can do it when none of the local ones can?

      We both arrive at a stop light. Who chooses the stop light to change green in QM language? You or I? It cannot be both.

      And here's a fundamental problem with Goswami's stop light drivel. No-one gets to choose that the stop light changes to green. Not in QM language nor any other. Instead, the stop light has a control system independent of any conciousness (local or otherwise) and changes the light according to it's parameters. I did say it was a shit analogy in my last post so I'm not sure why you've persisted with it again.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    8. cont'd...

      Chaos ensues in the universe if both our consciousnesses makes waves of possibilities become reality of two green lights.

      Nail 1 in the coffin of the Primacy of Conciousness metaphysics because we already know (and you've already admitted) that neither of us can change the light using mind bullets.

      Why cannot I will the billions of dollars into my account? It is possible that I can have it, but it is not my consciousness that decides, or wills, that reality.

      Nail 2 in the coffin of the Primacy of Conciousness metaphysics because we already know (and you've already admitted) that neither of us can influence a lottery draw or our bank accounts using mind bullets.

      Then who's? Yours? Nope. Anyone? Nope.

      Nail 3 - time to bury that coffin.

      But the entire QM language is based on a MIND that transfers the possibilities into reality.

      What the fuck? Why are you crowbarring the coffin open? You cannot resurrect the corpse of the Primacy of Conciousness. You've stated that conciousness can't affect possibilities but you're now back arguing that, no, actually there is a conciousness that does have that ability - it's just not "local", whatever that is supposed to imply. What the hell does locality have to do with an attribute (in this instance the ability to wish things to happen) assigned to conciousness? Either conciousness can have an effect or it can't, so why are you insisting on trying to have it both ways?

      Again, Quantum Physics is quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. So the whole question is which mind.

      Bollocks, QM is a means of describing actions at the quantum level. It acknowledges the inability of using classical mechanics to measure and predict happenings at that level. It talks of quantum possibiities which are superpositions of quantum states. It also points out that we can only know the actual state when we observe them and that the very act of observation may have an effect on the observed. Those positions are not chosen by some effort of conciousness.

      The paradox arrives with the bottom up causation.

      No, the problems with QM arise when discussing the act of measurement.

      The materialist believes that the universe is bottom up causation, as you know.

      From wiki:
      Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

      Which bit of that definition forces the materialist to assume only bottom up causation? Not to mention that you haven't explained how atheism forces one to be a materialist.

      I would say I'm wondering why you're building such a straw man but I'm pretty sure it's so you can burn it down later while claiming victory...

      cont'd...

      Delete
    9. cont'd...

      The post says, "possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells, eventually making possible brain." So then a possible brain makes a possible consciousness that, in turn, makes the choices from quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. To, then once again, make the possible elementary particles make possible atoms, make possible molecules, make possible cells...? Infinite regress abounds. THAT is the paradox. This is NOT a scientific attainable philosophy.

      THAT is gibberish and has pretty much nothing to do with QM. Simply repeating the word possible a few dozen times and then throwing in the word conciousness for fun does not actually represent anything real. In reality we have elementary particles that are in one of a number of possible states but we cannot know which one unless we measure them. Unfortunately the act of measurement forces the issue and we see a state which might not necessarily be the state the particle was in before we decided to measure it. There's no infinite regress just a problem of how to know what state a particle is in without affecting it. Conciousness has fuck all to do with it. We certainly don't get to choose which state we get when we measure it.

      Yet the materialist dogmatically states this is the reality we live in.

      Citation very much needed.

      Occam's razor even applies here.

      By slicing away this ubermind you claim has an extra attribute unavailable to all other minds you mean.

      This consciousness stands outside of space and time and where all brains are tuned in like radio receivers, relaying the signals.

      More word salad. How does this conciousness interact with the physical if it has no extension into physical space and has no time in which to act?

      So the entire question, of the entire post and quantum physics, is where is the signal transmitting from?

      It's a rubbish question and has fuck all to do with quantum physics. What signal are you on about? Can you demonstrate the existence of this signal? What are it's properties? How do we measure it? etc... etc...

      All the paradoxes are a non issue and fade away with Nonlocal consciousness...i.e. God.

      Handwaving away the problems in QM by claiming a nonlocal conciousness isn't doing you any good when you fail to demostrate the existence of said nonlocal conciousness in the first place.

      God of the QM gaps, sheesh.

      In the end all we have is you going through this whole special pleading routine, first denying that conciousness can have an effect followed quickly by you claiming that, hang on, wait a minute, there's this certain conciousness that actually can have an effect.

      Any valid objective evidence that such an ubermind exists yet? Beyond all this quantum waffle of course.

      Delete
    10. Hi Dan,

      I posted something earlier, but I may have hit the wrong button, or maybe my comment is in your spam folder or something.

      In any event, I just thought I'd pop in and leave a comment. I have been following some of the conversation in this thread, and by no means am I anywhere close to being as informed about QM as you and freddies_dead seem to be, so I'm a little in the dark as far what's all the fuss is about.

      But in my quest to learn more about the topic at hand, I started reading a little of Travis Norsen's published work.

      As a physics professor at Marlboro and Smith Colleges, he has written extensively on the subject, with an eye toward, according to what I found, "the de Broglie-Bohm realist/causal interpretation of quantum theory."

      If you're interested, 17 of his published papers can be found here, a site supported by Cornell University Library (according to the banner):

      http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+travis+norsen/0/1/0/all/0/1

      Of course, you could always do a Google search under his name and title -- Professor Travis Norsen -- if you're interested investigating these and other published works of his.

      Thanks.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    11. Freddies dead,

      >>We also don't get to choose quantum possibilities, you don't choose whether the cat is dead or alive (or both) - those states exist independently but when we try to measure the quantum state we can only ever observe 1 of those possibilities as the act of measurement affects the state all the way up to the macroscopic level.

      You certain of that? How? lol So which is it? Consciousness affects the measurement or not? Does consciousness holds primacy or not? If not, why is it affecting the outcome of the measurements?

      To answer your question though, Of course consciousness hold primacy. Otherwise your word salad of "Primacy of Conciousness" would not affect the measurements in the first place. You observe this, but deny it. Or are you introducing a new one called "Primacy of act of measurement"? lol Either way it is still "Primacy of Conciousness"

      So, you're being difficult as to consciousness. If the act of observation alone changes the results of measurement EVERY time, then you can only ignore the primacy of the consciousness. That part is the given. The wave of possibilities MUST have a consciousness to act it into reality. Another given. So where is your problem? Admitting that. Can we move on from there first? Or is there more denial that I am missing? :7)

      >>There are multiple realities now?

      No, I meant the possibilities of realities. The collapse of the Wave Function happens when consciousness gets involved. Otherwise, it continues to be wave of possibilities. This is the entire point of all this.

      >>Or are there simply different possible quantum states but we're uncertain as to which one holds until we make a measurement?

      The act of conscious measuring, you mean? Fine, OK. So which came first the consciousness or the quantum possibilities? Think it through to it's logical conclusion here. If the ACT of measuring forces the wave function, or wave of possibility, to actuality over and over again, then one had to come first. Is it the Primacy of Consciousness or the Primacy of wave possibilities, or something else?

      I am asking these things in honor of Proverbs 26:4-5, not that I am asking in confusion, of course.

      [to be cont'd]

      Delete
    12. [cont'd]

      >>Are you still pushing that [consciousness] can choose which light is green?

      No, I am pushing, now, your confusion of the point in the example. The stop light represents the wave of possibilities at an intersection. The wave function, if you will.

      >>No, the problems with QM arise when discussing the act of measurement.

      Yes, but are you not being difficult as to the entire point of the post? If consciousness, act of measuring, is NECESSARY for collapse of wave function into actuality then we are moving on to the point of which consciousness. Any one? Insert the stop light and money in bank, analogies.

      >>Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. Which bit of that definition forces the materialist to assume only bottom up causation?

      It is right there in the post. "Possibility of possible consciousness cannot possibly give you actual objects!" Materialism must deny Quantum physics, and reality itself, to inject that position. Is that healthy science? Materialism OBVIOUSLY is completely falsified, as it meets and concludes into the paradoxical position. The double split revealed that point. You deny this?

      >>Handwaving away the problems in QM by claiming a nonlocal conciousness (sic) isn't doing you any good when you fail to demostrate (sic) the existence of said nonlocal conciousness (sic) in the first place.

      The empirical experiments are there, even if not on this post, as multiple experiments were cited in BOTH of the videos, and work, of this man. This post was not to reveal the empirical experiments in the falsifiability of this theory, but the theory itself. I understand where you're coming from, I actually do, I just did not focus on that aspect of the points. I feel that is not my job here anyway. I am not here to give you evidence so you can judge the existence of nonlocal consciousness, especially if I call it God. I am here to proclaim the already empirically established truth of it. It is for you to believe it or not.

      Now, if any atheists say that God is not falsifiable all I have to do is point to this post as evidence of that mistake on their part. If nonlocal consciousness has empirical evidence, is falsifiable, then that claim of God not being falsifiable is wrong and needs correcting. That is what I am here to do..., proclaim that truth.

      Delete
    13. D.A.N. said...

      Freddies dead,

      >>We also don't get to choose quantum possibilities, you don't choose whether the cat is dead or alive (or both) - those states exist independently but when we try to measure the quantum state we can only ever observe 1 of those possibilities as the act of measurement affects the state all the way up to the macroscopic level.

      You certain of that?

      Yes

      How?

      Because the people who know how it works i.e. actual physicists, have done the work.

      lol So which is it? Consciousness affects the measurement or not?

      Not.

      Does consciousness holds primacy or not?

      No, existence does.

      If not, why is it affecting the outcome of the measurements?

      It isn't.

      To answer your question though, Of course consciousness hold primacy.

      Lol. Can you please will £100,000,000 into my bank account pronto to demonstrate your claim? After all, you believe consciousness holds primacy and, assuming you have consciousness, you can affect reality in such a way as to be able to make that money appear. If not, why not? Cue Dan trotting out the uber-consciousness again - capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound but unwilling to change my bank balance by even 1 penny 'cause ... well ... it just doesn't want to is all.

      Otherwise your word salad of "Primacy of Conciousness" would not affect the measurements in the first place.

      It doesn't affect the measurements. The measurements affect the thing being measured.

      You observe this, but deny it.

      No Dan, physicists observe that their experiments affect the thing they are trying to test. There's nothing for me to deny.

      Or are you introducing a new one called "Primacy of act of measurement"? lol Either way it is still "Primacy of Conciousness"

      Now you're just babbling.

      So, you're being difficult as to consciousness.

      How am I? I fully accept that consciousness exists. I just recognise that it doesn't hold metaphysical primacy.

      If the act of observation alone changes the results of measurement EVERY time, then you can only ignore the primacy of the consciousness. That part is the given.

      What is this supposed to mean? I'm not ignoring the primacy of the consciousness, I'm saying it doesn't hold.

      The wave of possibilities MUST have a consciousness to act it into reality. Another given.

      What? I don't even ... Where/when/how does consciousness "act [the wave of possibilities] into reality"? And why is it that you or I can't will possibilities into reality when we both have a consciousness that is supposedly capable of such things?

      So where is your problem? Admitting that. Can we move on from there first? Or is there more denial that I am missing? :7)

      What denial Dan? You claim that consciousness can will things to happen whilst, at the same time, claiming that consciousness can't will things to happen. I'm not denying anything just trying to get you to explain your contradictory stance.

      >>There are multiple realities now?

      No, I meant the possibilities of realities. The collapse of the Wave Function happens when consciousness gets involved.

      So, I can will atoms to do what I want with the power of my mind now? Oh wait, now you'll tell me that I can't but that there's this special type of consciousness that can do just that. Yeah right.

      Otherwise, it continues to be wave of possibilities.

      No it doesn't - it is already one of those possibilities. We just don't know which one until we attempt to observe it and the act of observation affects what we end up seeing.

      This is the entire point of all this.

      There's actually a point to this? Are you sure? As you seem to be pushing 2 points which contradict each other.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    14. cont'd...

      >>Or are there simply different possible quantum states but we're uncertain as to which one holds until we make a measurement?

      The act of conscious measuring, you mean?

      What? Are you measuring things at the quantum level with your mind now? How big is that quark over there? No, not that one, the one by the plant....

      We use instruments to do the measuring and perceive the results through our senses. Do you need to will a microscope to work Dan?

      Fine, OK. So which came first the consciousness or the quantum possibilities?

      Existence.

      Think it through to it's logical conclusion here. If the ACT of measuring forces the wave function, or wave of possibility, to actuality over and over again, then one had to come first.

      No Dan, there is an actuality already - we just don't know what it is until we observe it - then the act of observing affects what we see.

      Is it the Primacy of Consciousness or the Primacy of wave possibilities, or something else?

      The Primacy of Existence.

      I am asking these things in honor of Proverbs 26:4-5, not that I am asking in confusion, of course.

      And now you resort to ad homs. Duly noted.

      >>Are you still pushing that [consciousness] can choose which light is green?

      No, I am pushing, now, your confusion of the point in the example.

      I'm not confusing the point, I'm simply pointing out how the example doesn't work.

      The stop light represents the wave of possibilities at an intersection. The wave function, if you will.

      And we don't know what colour the light is until we observe it. However, it is still a certain colour and we do not choose which colour with our minds. As I've pointed out before, no other consciousness does either, the colour depends on an idependent control system which has a timer and parameters - or are you claiming that someone has to sit there all day willing stop lights to be certain colours? The example also breaks down as the act of observing the light has no effect on the light whatsoever because it's on the macro scale. This is an inherent problem when trying to come up with useful macro examples of quantum phenomena.

      >>No, the problems with QM arise when discussing the act of measurement.

      Yes, but are you not being difficult as to the entire point of the post?

      I'm not being difficult at all. I'm trying to get you to explain why you're holding 2 contradictory positions. Any chance you'll try soon?

      If consciousness, act of measuring, is NECESSARY for collapse of wave function into actuality then we are moving on to the point of which consciousness. Any one? Insert the stop light and money in bank, analogies.

      But as I keep pointing out - consciousness doesn't "collapse [the] wave function into actuality", it's not necessary for measurement either i.e. there doesn't need to be someone willing a microscope to 'look at' something. Sometimes you admit that and sometimes you claim otherwise. I just wish you'd stop fannying around and pick which position you'd like to stick with. Now, if consciousness really did have primacy, then my act of wishing would force you to pick a position but, as it doesn't, I fully expect you to carry on trying to hold both.

      >>Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. Which bit of that definition forces the materialist to assume only bottom up causation?

      It is right there in the post.

      It's not.

      "Possibility of possible consciousness cannot possibly give you actual objects!"

      Gibberish...

      Materialism must deny Quantum physics, and reality itself, to inject that position.

      It doesn't as you've simply made up that position out of nothing. It's not what QM/QP says.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    15. cont'd...

      Is that healthy science? Materialism OBVIOUSLY is completely falsified, as it meets and concludes into the paradoxical position. The double split revealed that point. You deny this?

      The double what now? You mean the double slit experiment that demonstrates that light can be either a wave or a particle depending on different circumstances? As Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger noted (thank you wiki):

      "[T]he observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. That way, by deciding whether or not to determine the path through the two-slit experiment, he/she can decide which property can become reality. If he/she chooses not to put the detectors there, then the interference pattern will become reality; if he/she does put the detectors there, then the beam path will become reality. Yet, most importantly, the observer has no influence on the specific element of the world that becomes reality. Specifically, if he/she chooses to determine the path, then he/she has no influence whatsoever over which of the two paths, the left one or the right one, nature will tell him/her is the one in which the particle is found. Likewise, if he/she chooses to observe the interference pattern, then he/she has no influence whatsoever over where in the observation plane he/she will observe a specific particle. Both outcomes are completely random."

      Get that Dan? Consciousness not required as it has no influence.

      >>Handwaving away the problems in QM by claiming a nonlocal conciousness (sic) isn't doing you any good when you fail to demostrate (sic) the existence of said nonlocal conciousness (sic) in the first place.

      The empirical experiments are there, even if not on this post, as multiple experiments were cited in BOTH of the videos, and work, of this man.

      Which experiments are you talking about? The one where they claimed to reduce violent crime in DC through meditation - oops, the murder rate actually rose and the reviewers of the experiment were all followers of the Maharishi - not to mention the experiment has never been successfully replicated? Maybe you're thinking about the crystals that form shapes based on a word on the tube where the guy doing the experiment will take days sifting through loads of samples until he finds one that looks right? Again no-one has been able to reproduce these 'results'.

      This post was not to reveal the empirical experiments in the falsifiability of this theory, but the theory itself.

      But the theory is bullshit and it's not even supported by the few crap experiments that have been done.

      I understand where you're coming from, I actually do, I just did not focus on that aspect of the points. I feel that is not my job here anyway. I am not here to give you evidence so you can judge the existence of nonlocal consciousness, especially if I call it God.

      Because the 'evidence' doesn't actually support the claims ... I get it. I mean I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss the evidence as it singularly fails to support the theory.

      I am here to proclaim the already empirically established truth of it.

      Except that the empirical experiments were anything but.

      It is for you to believe it or not.

      Definitely a not for me.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    16. cont'd...

      Now, if any atheists say that God is not falsifiable all I have to do is point to this post as evidence of that mistake on their part.

      If only there was evidence of anything amongst this pile of horse manure...

      If nonlocal consciousness has empirical evidence,

      It doesn't. At least certainly not through these 'experiments'.

      is falsifiable,

      It isn't, as the experiments themselves were deeply flawed and so can't be used to actually support the claim - in which case there's not actually anything to falsify at the moment.

      then that claim of God not being falsifiable is wrong and needs correcting. That is what I am here to do..., proclaim that truth.

      What truth Dan? Do you want us to accept that God is falsifiable or do you want us to accept the presuppositionalist view that all evidence is evidence of God which basically makes Him unfalsifiable?

      You've gone from holding 1 contradictory position - that consciousness can and can't affect physical reality - to holding 2 contradictory positions - the aforementioned problem with the Primacy of Consciousness plus now the issue of the falsifiability of God.

      Delete
    17. >>Lol. Can you please will £100,000,000 into my bank account pronto to demonstrate your claim?

      Already explained this. You're slipping here. There is a difference, a glaring distinction, between consciousness and nonlocal consciousness. You, and your worldview, denies it, but that does not erase truth. You may even be denying the title of the post exists. Only you can verify that.

      >>After all, you believe consciousness holds primacy and, assuming you have consciousness, you can affect reality in such a way as to be able to make that money appear.

      Verified. Quote mining - FTW

      >> I'm not denying anything just trying to get you to explain your contradictory stance.

      Title of post...denied.

      >>No Dan, physicists observe that their experiments affect the thing they are trying to test.

      Yet, you omit the fact that the thing they are testing, the experiment, is the consciousness itself. Double slit experiment shows the act of observing affects the results. But that is NOT the only experiment either.

      Along the same lines, in thinking about this, I remember watching a documentary called "The Secret Life of Plants" and in it plants are affected by death of a fish. Or react with recordable signals when the person that cut down another plant comes into the room, essentially blowing the whistle as to who the murderer was. You would be hard pressed to explain this without a nonlocal consciousness.

      The data is out there. It has been empirically tested and evidenced. There is such a thing called nonlocal consciousness running things. You deny this. I get it.

      >> I just recognise that it doesn't hold metaphysical primacy.

      You deny evidence. Got it.

      >>Where/when/how does consciousness "act [the wave of possibilities] into reality"?

      Without nonlocal consciousness it would continue to be waves of possibilities. I even helped the post by defining my terms,

      "Quantum physics states that objects are not determined things. Objects are actually quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. Be it material things, thinking, intuit, etc. Waves of possibilities into a conscious choice into an actual event of experience."

      >>We just don't know which one until we attempt to observe it and the act of observation affects what we end up seeing.

      Wrong. It will ALWAYS be waves of possibility, UNTIL we start to observe it. Consciousness affect the results, alters the results. Why? So there is consciousness in the electron that knows when you're observing it? That is the questions answered in this post. Maybe you misunderstand the implications and meaning behind the double slit experiments. But I doubt it.

      >>So, I can will atoms to do what I want with the power of my mind now?

      You're asking the wrong questions. Ask yourself, how it is possible, within your worldview, that electrons react differently through observation? Are electrons conscious of it's own surroundings? How does an electron KNOW when it's being observed? It's not measurements that affect it because we measure the wave of possibilities, it is only when we observe which slit it flows through, it alters it course to an actuality. So how do you get from waves of possibilities to actuality WITHOUT a consciousness first? Without invoking the Quantum Measurement paradox, of course?

      >>Oh wait, now you'll tell me that I can't but that there's this special type of consciousness that can do just that. Yeah right.

      You wonder why I am calling THIS denial? *pshaw. Imagine science in your mindset:

      "Oh wait, now you'll tell me that there's this special type of relativity that can do just that? Yeah right."

      So yes, there is "general" consciousness and there is a "special" consciousness. Got it?

      Otherwise, it continues to be wave of possibilities.

      [to be cont'd obviously]

      Delete
    18. [ cont'd ]

      >>No it doesn't - it is already one of those possibilities.

      Wrong again. The pattern continues to be a wave function. You're point ("it is already one of those possibilities") cannot be coherent in light of the actual experiment.

      Is it the Primacy of Consciousness or the Primacy of wave possibilities, or something else?

      >>The Primacy of Existence.

      Fine, let's use that one Ayn Rand. BTW, on a side note, Ayn Rand, who railed against governmental benifits, collected a government check and medicare, which was ultimately the most glaring hypocrisy. Moving on.

      You state existence exists. Great, but now transfer this into quantum laws, or language? Particles exist, Waves exist. Does existence collapse wave functions?

      >>And now you resort to ad homs. Duly noted.

      You need a brush up on your fallacies. Where did I ever use an Ad Hom? Explain.

      >>It's not [ right there in the post.]

      Evidenced with:"Possibility of possible consciousness cannot possibly give you actual objects!"

      >>Gibberish...

      So which is it, gibberish or not in the post? Talk about contradiction.

      >>Yet, most importantly, the observer has no influence on the specific element of the world that becomes reality.

      Complete strawman.The conscious act of observation DOES change the results. You deny that?

      Your will does not affect the results, but that is NOT what is being claimed in the experiment. Classic Strawman.

      It is like the electron, itself, has the knowledge, consciousness, of being observed and decided to go left or right. THAT is the entire point. Deny it if you must. Get's us back to the "Secret life of plants" experiment, as another example of this. You do not will the plant into desired actions, the plant responds to your actions. Same with the particles.

      >>Get that Dan? Consciousness not required as it has no influence.

      You completely missed the experiment's results and the entirety of quantum physics. Please, NEVER, do science for humanity sake. Since you're a fan of wiki, look up "Quantum Measurement paradoxes" or "Measurement problem" If "Consciousness is not required, as it has no influence" then there would be no measurement paradox in the first place. You're skimming surfaces here. I should follow up that statement with, are you absolutely certain of that? if so, how are you certain? The paradox would reveal it's ugly head.

      >>Which experiments are you talking about?

      Specifically Orme-Johnson, 1982; Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1988 as a start.

      >>If only there was evidence of anything amongst this pile of horse manure...

      You still do not consider this denial, huh? The guy that wrote the textbooks on quantum mechanics, you consider this just manure? Wow.

      >>It isn't [falsifiable], as the experiments themselves were deeply flawed and so can't be used to actually support the claim - in which case there's not actually anything to falsify at the moment.

      This statement tells me that you do not know what "falsifiable" means. Do you? That does not mean it's not falsifiable, those are gripes and complaints about the experiments themselves. In poker we call this a "tell".

      >>Do you want us to accept that God is falsifiable or do you want us to accept the presuppositionalist view that all evidence is evidence of God which basically makes Him unfalsifiable?

      Falsifiability of God is there. You confused about that? Demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic, to falsify God. There, the Falsifiability of God.

      Delete
    19. Hi Dan,

      You wrote: "Fine, let's use that one Ayn Rand. BTW, on a side note, Ayn Rand, who railed against governmental benifits [sic], collected a government check and medicare, which was ultimately the most glaring hypocrisy. Moving on."

      Rand wrote this in 1966:

      “The recipient of a public scholarshi­p is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitutio­n and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarshi­ps, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradict­ions of welfare statism, not in its victims."

      “The same moral principles and considerat­ions apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployme­nt insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifical­ly, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers­. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-st­ate administration.”

      If only Ron Paul were that eloquent when he was asked about his taking Social Security on MSNBC not long ago.

      As far as QM goes, I would also urge you to read a little of what Travis Norsen has written on the subject.

      Thanks.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    20. Hi again Dan,

      Here is the citation for that Ayn Rand quote:

      http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html

      One last tidbit: When I saw the Huffington Post's Sam Stein ask Ron Paul a question about him receiving Social Security checks, even though he is against Social Security, I became alerted to the premises smuggled into such a question, which prompted me, at the time, to jot down the following:

      Ron Paul, who made a campaign issue out ending Social Security, was asked on MSNBC the other day if he shouldn’t set an example by refusing the Social Security checks he receives.

      Wow! What a great question!

      It's sort of like asking: Hey, if someone puts a gun
      to your head, demanding your money year after year, with the promise that they’ll pay it back 50 years down the line... when they do start paying it back, don’t you think you should refuse to take your money, you know, to set an example?

      And what would that example be? Well, not only that it's okay for someone to take your money by force year after year, but that when the time comes to get your money back, you should turn it down, voluntarily handing it over to the very looters who took it from you in the first place!

      Why on earth wouldn't anyone want to set an immoral example like that?

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    21. Ydemoc.

      Travis Norsen. Got it.

      As far as the RP question, valid point of sorts on the surface, my first reaction, though it would take some thought about it, was to point out why we protest in the first place. We use civil disobedience to enact change. We fight the system to stop the insanity from continuing, not get in line AS the protest. Some great sacrifices and suffering has happened for bucking the system. Blacks eating at the "whites only" restaurants being a good example. We OWE the ones who pioneered the way the respect to NOT just get in line, but to battle to the death for what is right. Getting in line to receive your stolen money is insanity. Crack heads will steal your watch and resell it back to you. Now, if a crack head steals your watch, and you ask him what time it is, you're a fool.

      We are against banks robbing us, so we should advocate robbing banks? Granted, I will admit that I am being difficult here, because it is Ayn Rand after all. BTW, Atlas Shrugged II is coming 10/10/12, I look forward to it. I am the ultimate hypocrite for wanting to see it.

      I sit here contemplating to press publish in wanting to think about it some more, but my thoughts are as they are for the moment. It still seems very hypocritical to one's core beliefs, to do such a thing.

      "-Ron Paul says he will NOT accept his congressional pension.
      -He gives back a large portion of his current congressional pay to the Treasury each year.
      Recently it was $70,000 that he gave back.
      -He is the only one who says that if, elected he'll only accept presidential pay of around $39,000 per year - the average for an American worker - not the $400,000+ per year salary currently paid presidents.

      Unselfish, principled, not corrupt. Compare this to the others and their motivations.
      This is awfully convincing!!!" ~source

      Delete
    22. Ydemoc,

      Got here, and understand perfectly why Travis Norsen REFUSES to call it nonlocal consciousness and instead labels it "locality and hidden variables" instead.

      He cannot bring himself to the truth of God having falsifiability and resists the implications. Sounds very familiar to some even here. Nothing new.

      Plus, it is solidifying the points in the post:

      "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~<a href="http://bit.ly/stillevidence>
      bit.ly/stillevidence</a>

      Delete
    23. Hi again, Dan:

      You wrote: "I sit here contemplating to press publish in wanting to think about it some more, but my thoughts are as they are for the moment. It still seems very hypocritical to one's core beliefs, to do such a thing."

      Please realize that I am defending Ron Paul's actions here -- with regard to his receiving his own Social Security check -- on the same principle I defend Rand's. As she wrote:

      "The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

      -- the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it. . . ." (Ayn Rand Lexicon)

      So there is an essential difference between someone **voluntarily choosing** to forgo things that are paid for by taxpayers (his government salary) vs. giving back to those who confiscate what he has earned and what was rightfully his all along. (Social Security he receives is his money.)

      Perhaps more importantly, though, especially in the current political climate, is the ability to spot and reject the hidden premises contained in the question that was asked of Ron Paul by Sam Stein.

      This question -- wittingly or unwittingly -- was designed to paint Ron Paul as an immoral hypocrite for accepting what was HIS OWN MONEY!

      With this kind of thinking, taken to an extreme, Ron Paul or Ayn Rand could be painted as hypocrites if they used public roads or walked on public sidewalks!

      "How dare they use public roads while advocating the elimination of the very taxes that went to build those roads! What hypocrites!"

      Wrong.

      If one accepts such reversals in morality (as the kind hidden in the question Stein asked) -- and if government were even bigger than it is today -- one could never claim the moral high-ground when trying to effect change in such bloated systems -- because everyone, in one way or another, would be living off of or benefiting from that very system.

      Essentially, it could be stated: "What right or moral high-ground do you or does anyone have to clamor for lower taxes, gradual elimination of Social Security, and an overall reduction in the size of government, when you yourself benefit from government subsidies, grants, safety nets -- perhaps even being an employee of that very government?"

      Once ObamaCare goes fully into effect, and I am forced to buy health insurance, will I be a hypocrite if I advocate its elimination? I don't think so.

      And I would reject any attempt by anyone to paint me as such (as Ron Paul did with Stein with regard to Social Security), by pointing out the moral fundamentals involved -- which I think is what I have done in this response.

      P.S. I did not see Atlas Shrugged Part 1. With the stance you have with regard to Rand, I can see -- on the surface -- why you might consider it hypocritical to see it -- that you're giving money to those whose view you fundamentally oppose.

      But, in the context of the reason that you are viewing the movie, is this really the essential? Would you consider me a hypocrite if I went to a church? If I paid a Christian to do my plumbing or cut my hair? Or would you ask: What is the full context?

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    24. Dan,

      One other thing: I'm pretty much a numskull when it comes to QM, but even with my very limited knowledge in this area, I'm pretty sure you're mischaracterizing the work of Travis Norsen.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    25. >>...the victims should take it. . . ." (Ayn Rand Lexicon)

      Become bank robbers then!? Got it. :7)

      It is disappointing to not have Ayn here to see the large corporations, Banks, and FED, absolutely and completely looting this entire country, and planet, to line their own greedy pockets at the expense of everyone involved. At this point, I do not blame the people doing a knee jerk reaction against the Corporations, Government, and banks to wish to tax, or punish, them for their behavior. Making very bad choices in doing so. They all should be in jail, but wait, they made the laws to keep them from it. It is a difficult one that is for sure. It is beyond us, literally.

      The fact the Derivatives out there exceed all GDP of all the countries combined x 10, et al is frightening in itself. I see all the pieces in place for complete collapse and Armageddon, don't you? I am very curious as to how Ayn would address, and articulate, these very damaging practices? Soon we will be out of a country anyway. Gold will be worthless even, as a currency. Seeds, Ammo, and trade will be the new wealth. I just am wringing my hands in anticipation for Christ to come and set the Government of His Kingdom here on earth so we, yes me included, can do the right thing for all of eternity under His rule. Can you imagine a fair world? Paradise! It seems so foreign at this point. I patiently await my quickening (post-Trib of course) so I can finally get to work for the King.

      Thanks for allowing Ayn to speak from the grave to my accusations, Ydemoc. No matter how much I resist you at times, God has soften my heart for, towards, you. I consider that good news. Maybe we will be part of that eternal government working together. At least I could envision that as a piece of heaven to look forward to. I patiently wait for that day.

      "Be silent before the Lord and wait expectantly for Him;
      do not be agitated by one who prospers in his way,
      by the man who carries out evil plans." ~Psalm 37:7

      Delete
    26. I make no apologies for length:

      >>Lol. Can you please will £100,000,000 into my bank account pronto to demonstrate your claim?

      Already explained this.

      You explained nothing. You claimed you couldn't do it, despite having a consciousness, whilst silmultaneously claiming that another consciousness could do it without explaining how or even demonstrating such a consciousnes exists.

      You're slipping here.

      Not really.

      There is a difference, a glaring distinction, between consciousness and nonlocal consciousness.

      And what would that be then? That one is local and the other is ... erm ... not? Lol, what a pile of horseshit. It doesn't matter how 'local' the consciousness is, either it can or can't affect physical reality, your attempt to discriminate between types of consciousness is nothing but special pleading.

      You, and your worldview, denies it, but that does not erase truth. You may even be denying the title of the post exists. Only you can verify that.

      As I've pointed out several times already, demonstrating where you are either wrong, contradictory or both is not 'denying'.

      >>After all, you believe consciousness holds primacy and, assuming you have consciousness, you can affect reality in such a way as to be able to make that money appear.

      Verified. Quote mining - FTW

      Demonstrating the contradictory nature of your position isn't quote mining.

      >> I'm not denying anything just trying to get you to explain your contradictory stance.

      Title of post...denied.

      The title of the post is irrelevant - as well as failing to demonstrate the existence of quantum nonlocality, you've yet to demonstrate how 'locality' can lead to consciousness having two distinct and contradictory natures. Maybe you'd like to try at some point?

      >>No Dan, physicists observe that their experiments affect the thing they are trying to test.

      Yet, you omit the fact that the thing they are testing, the experiment, is the consciousness itself.

      Hold on, the physicists are testing quantum particles so you're saying that the quantum particle is the consciousness? Is it the non-local consciousness? Or just a standard local consciousness which can't make it's own possibilities become actualities? Is the non-local consciousness forcing its will on the poor little local consciousness of the quantum particle? That's just mean. The 'experiments' that quacks like Goswami and the like are doing are shit and then they're bodging the results to 'prove' what they already want to be true.

      Double slit experiment shows the act of observing affects the results. But that is NOT the only experiment either.

      I never claimed it was. However, the only 'experiments' I can find linked to Goswami's guff are piles of shit.

      Along the same lines, in thinking about this, I remember watching a documentary called "The Secret Life of Plants" and in it plants are affected by death of a fish. Or react with recordable signals when the person that cut down another plant comes into the room, essentially blowing the whistle as to who the murderer was. You would be hard pressed to explain this without a nonlocal consciousness.

      And now you resort to more woo. A bunch of uncontrolled 'experiments', random observations and anecdotal reports. Are you suggesting plants have consciousness? Or is the non-local consciousness sad on their behalf despite being the non-local consciousness that killed the fish or chopped down the plant's 'friend' in the first place? This is pretty ridiculous stuff even for you Dan.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    27. cont'd...

      The data is out there.

      What data? The data from these 'experiments' designed to support the conclusion they'd already reached? Horse shit.

      It has been empirically tested and evidenced.

      It has been bodged, faked and outright fabricated in order to reach a conclusion they already held.

      There is such a thing called nonlocal consciousness running things. You deny this. I get it.

      Again. Pointing out where the 'experiments' are flawed and therefore the conclusions aren't sound is not denial. There isn't any valid objective evidence to support the claim so the claim is dismissed.

      >> I just recognise that it doesn't hold metaphysical primacy.

      You deny evidence. Got it.

      Lol, nope. I've simply pointed out that the 'evidence' is crap and can't be used to support the conclusion.

      >>Where/when/how does consciousness "act [the wave of possibilities] into reality"?

      Without nonlocal consciousness it would continue to be waves of possibilities.

      So the wave of possibilities isn't real then, got it. Why are you denying objective reality? Have you given up on the things like the laws of logic and morality? How does this non-local consciousness make it 'real'? Why can a non-local consciousness do that but a local consciousness can't? At the moment all we have is loons like Goswami saying so and then faking experiments to come up with 'evidence' for their claims.

      I even helped the post by defining my terms,

      Lol.

      "Quantum physics states that objects are not determined things. Objects are actually quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. Be it material things, thinking, intuit, etc. Waves of possibilities into a conscious choice into an actual event of experience."

      And then you failed to back up your mostly gibberish definition in any meaningful manner. If quantum possibilities are there for consciousness to choose from how come I can't choose the possibilities that I want? You keep telling me that consciousness can and then changing your mind and telling me my consciousness can't cause it's not 'non-local'. It's all very contradictory and absurd but then that's what I've come to expect from you.

      >>We just don't know which one until we attempt to observe it and the act of observation affects what we end up seeing.

      Wrong. It will ALWAYS be waves of possibility, UNTIL we start to observe it.

      What. The. Fucking. Fuck? So nothing is 'real' UNTIL we start to observe it? So God isn't real until we start to observe Him? This is brilliant, denying objective reality. I'm not even sure it's worth continuing on after that.

      But what the hell, this is fun.

      Consciousness affect the results, alters the results.

      How does it? The measuring apparatus actually physically interferes with the particle under observation but just how does consciousness affect the physical? Oh wait, you denied there was a reality earlier so I guess the particle doesn't actually exist ... "there is no spoon", hey everyone, we're in the matrix!

      Why?

      Hold on you haven't even answered how yet...

      So there is consciousness in the electron that knows when you're observing it? That is the questions answered in this post.

      No Dan, nothing is answered in the post. All we've ended up with is more and more questions as you mangle quantum theory to try and claim some scientific underpinning to your bullshit presuppositionalist worldview.

      Maybe you misunderstand the implications and meaning behind the double slit experiments. But I doubt it.

      You're right, I don't misunderstand the meaning behind the experiment.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    28. cont'd...

      >>So, I can will atoms to do what I want with the power of my mind now?

      You're asking the wrong questions.

      They are the questions raised by your post Dan, I accept that you can't answer them but that doesn't make them 'wrong'.

      Ask yourself, how it is possible, within your worldview, that electrons react differently through observation?

      Because electrons are so small that we cannot observe them without interfering with them in some way - they are affected by the instruments we use to observe them.

      Are electrons conscious of it's own surroundings?

      No.

      How does an electron KNOW when it's being observed?

      It doesn't.

      It's not measurements that affect it because we measure the wave of possibilities, it is only when we observe which slit it flows through, it alters it course to an actuality.

      So you don't understand the double slit experiment, that's OK. No Dan, the effect of observing doesn't create an actuality. The light/particle will go through the slit and hit the back of the experiment whether we're watching or not.

      The experiment actually shows that light isn't made of discrete particles but, instead, exhibits wave like properties. Coupled with work done later by Hertz on the photoelectric effect we end up with the the quantum concept of wave-particle duality:

      (from Wiki) "Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects."

      We're not measuring "the wave of possibilities" we are measuring an actual wave but, unfortunately, the act of measuring affects the wave.

      So how do you get from waves of possibilities to actuality WITHOUT a consciousness first? Without invoking the Quantum Measurement paradox, of course?

      You're still butchering QM with a mangling of the uncertainty principle for good measure. QM doesn't state that everything is just a bunch of possibilities waiting to happen. QM is just a way of mathematically expressing the behaviour at the quantum level. The uncertainty principle just describes the limits to how precisely we can know certain pairs of properties of quantum particles - the most used example would probably be how we can know a particle's position but not it's momentum or we can know its momentum but not its position.

      >>Oh wait, now you'll tell me that I can't but that there's this special type of consciousness that can do just that. Yeah right.

      You wonder why I am calling THIS denial? *pshaw.

      I do indeed. You're the one baselessly asserting that there are different types of consciousness. You are the one who is refusing to explain how this works. There's no need to deny when there's nothing yet to deny.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    29. cont'd...

      Imagine science in your mindset:

      "Oh wait, now you'll tell me that there's this special type of relativity that can do just that? Yeah right."


      You 'imagined' wrong. See, Einstein had the maths to back up his claim. Other scientists looked at it, tested it and recognised that he was right. Do you have anything other than spoof experiments from quacks who are trying to create data that supports their conclusions?

      So yes, there is "general" consciousness and there is a "special" consciousness. Got it?

      Nope, all I've 'got' is your baseless assertion. What is the difference between these types of consciousness? How do they manifest? How do they affect the physical? Can they operate outside the quantum level? Do you have any valid objective evidence to support the existence of each of these types? As the crap you've presented so far doesn't count.

      Otherwise, it continues to be wave of possibilities.

      You've swallowed this new wave garbage hook, line and sinker it seems. You'd need to to keep denying an objective reality.

      >>No it doesn't - it is already one of those possibilities.

      Wrong again. The pattern continues to be a wave function. You're point ("it is already one of those possibilities") cannot be coherent in light of the actual experiment.

      And now you're mangling the concept of wave functions. A wave function simply decribes a quantum state - that quantum state refers to an actual reality.
      Try reading work done by actual physicists

      Is it the Primacy of Consciousness or the Primacy of wave possibilities, or something else?

      >>The Primacy of Existence.

      Fine, let's use that one Ayn Rand.

      I am not Ayn Rand, I think I might have noticed if I was...

      BTW, on a side note, Ayn Rand, who railed against governmental benifits, collected a government check and medicare, which was ultimately the most glaring hypocrisy. Moving on.

      A sad little ad hominem used to try and poison the well. The hypocrisy here is all yours. After you admonished Reynold earlier one would have thought you'd avoid doing exactly what you claimed he did i.e. attack the person instead of the idea. It gets better as your claim of Rand's hypocrisy fails to note that she supported the idea of humans being selfish. In that situation one would try to avoid paying the tax that goes for things like medicaid while silmultaneously taking full advantage of those benefits whenever possible. (I notice ydemoc has already dealt with this in more detail).

      You state existence exists. Great, but now transfer this into quantum laws, or language? Particles exist, Waves exist. Does existence collapse wave functions?

      Yes, the observer (exists) interacts with the particle and the wave function collapses from a superposition into a single eigenstate - of course whether the wave function collapse is itself a physical thing, or merely an epiphenomenon of another real process is still under debate.

      >>And now you resort to ad homs. Duly noted.

      You need a brush up on your fallacies. Where did I ever use an Ad Hom? Explain.

      By calling me a fool (as you do by using those Proverbs verses) rather than by actually adressing my arguments.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    30. cont'd...

      >>It's not [ right there in the post.]

      Evidenced with:"Possibility of possible consciousness cannot possibly give you actual objects!"

      >>Gibberish...

      So which is it, gibberish or not in the post? Talk about contradiction.

      No contradiction, the fact that you wrote gibberish precludes your claim that the post contains an argument supporting your assertion that the materialist is forced to assume only bottom up causation. Gibberish isn't a valid argument. Would you like to actually give an argument that shows how materialists are forced to assume bottom up causation or are you going to just repeat the same gibberish?

      >>Yet, most importantly, the observer has no influence on the specific element of the world that becomes reality.

      Complete strawman.The conscious act of observation DOES change the results. You deny that?

      Either the sentence quoted is a strawman and your argument doesn't claim that consciousness has an effect or, as your second sentence states "the conscious act of observation DOES change the results". Which would you prefer Dan? The one where you refute your own argument or the one where the science refutes your argument?

      Your will does not affect the results, but that is NOT what is being claimed in the experiment. Classic Strawman.

      That's exactly what's being claimed - that a consciousness affects the results - the fact that you're trying to claim that there are different types of consciousness, each capable of doing different things depending on what you want consciousness to do doesn't change that.

      It is like the electron, itself, has the knowledge, consciousness, of being observed and decided to go left or right.

      "Not sure if serious..." as the meme goes.

      THAT is the entire point.

      Holy shit you are!

      Deny it if you must.

      It's better to just point and laugh. You honestly believe quantum particles have consciousness and can choose to change direction if they know they're being watched? This is just too funny. Especially when you've spent the entire time claiming it's a 'non-local' consciousness that chooses what happens. How, now, can the electron choose using it's 'local' consciousness all of a sudden?

      Get's us back to the "Secret life of plants" experiment, as another example of this.

      Gets us back to more incredibly poor 'science' - better described as woo - you mean...

      You do not will the plant into desired actions, the plant responds to your actions. Same with the particles.

      Yes, plants will react to a physical stimulus and so will particles, what has this got to do with a distinctly non-physical consciousness (wherever it may be)? Is the plant using it's own local consciousness to actualise the possibility of it nodding vigourously at a fish murderer? I thought the claim was that a non-local consciousness is the only one capable of causing the plant to nod? Which is it Dan?

      cont'd...

      Delete
    31. cont'd...

      >>Get that Dan? Consciousness not required as it has no influence.

      You completely missed the experiment's results and the entirety of quantum physics.

      Lol.

      Please, NEVER, do science for humanity sake.

      I just wish people like you and Goswami wouldn't butcher what actual scientists are doing to come up with bullshit like this. Wholly designed to fleece gullible people who really want to believe in God, or in Goswami's case, a 35,000 year old Lemurian warrior being 'channeled' by some random woman.

      Since you're a fan of wiki, look up "Quantum Measurement paradoxes" or "Measurement problem" If "Consciousness is not required, as it has no influence" then there would be no measurement paradox in the first place.

      I did read them, they still don't support any claim that a non-local consciousness decides on what colour a stop light will be.

      You're skimming surfaces here.

      There's no need to go deeper - certainly Goswami and his stooges didn't. They took a few popularised notions of QM/QP and built a house of straw upon them. Doesn't take much to blow that house down.

      I should follow up that statement with, are you absolutely certain of that? if so, how are you certain? The paradox would reveal it's ugly head.

      I duly note you have nothing more to offer on the subject and so you return to the presuppositional script. Are you absolutely certain that a 'non-local' consciousness exists? If so how are you certain of that? If you're thinking of claiming this 'non-local' consciousness has the usual omnimax traits and 'revealed' this knowledge to you, can you please demonstrate how such a being could grant you absolute certainty whilst leaving you with massive gaps in your knowledge?

      >>Which experiments are you talking about?

      Specifically Orme-Johnson, 1982; Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1988 as a start.

      So exactly the experiments I thought you meant - by people who worked for the Maharishi and had a personal stake in having the 'results' of the 'experiments' support the claims. Lol.

      >>If only there was evidence of anything amongst this pile of horse manure...

      You still do not consider this denial, huh?

      Nope. You have yet to present anything that needs denying.

      The guy that wrote the textbooks on quantum mechanics, you consider this just manure? Wow.

      He wrote a textbook on QM - unfortunately it seems he couldn't make enough money at that so took to fleecing the gullible by twisting the QM he knew to advocate woo.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    32. cont'd...

      >>It isn't [falsifiable], as the experiments themselves were deeply flawed and so can't be used to actually support the claim - in which case there's not actually anything to falsify at the moment.

      This statement tells me that you do not know what "falsifiable" means. Do you?

      I do. I'm suspecting you struggle with the concept though. Not surprising as you can't even account for concepts from within your presupp worldview.

      That does not mean it's not falsifiable, those are gripes and complaints about the experiments themselves. In poker we call this a "tell".

      In the real world we call those experiments shit. If there's nothing useful in them how can they be used to falsify anything? Let alone the thing they were devised to support?
      Why don't you present us with the criteria which make the idea of non-local consciousness falsifiable given that it's non-physical and could be interfering or not whenever it sees fit and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference?

      >>Do you want us to accept that God is falsifiable or do you want us to accept the presuppositionalist view that all evidence is evidence of God which basically makes Him unfalsifiable?

      Falsifiability of God is there. You confused about that?

      I'm not but you sure seem to be.

      Demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic, to falsify God. There, the Falsifiability of God.

      And here you show me to be correct. How is it possible to do that when the presupper claims ALL evidence is evidence of God. We present anything to that effect and you simply say "No, that argument, that falsifies God, cannot possibly falsify God because you need God to have an argument to falsify God" it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" pile of crap because you're not interested in responding to the arguments that are levelled at you.

      You've been given such arguments several times before - your usual response it to start asking "how do you know?" over and over again as if it means something.

      Delete
    33. Wow that WAS long! I cannot address every word, so here are some highlights for the massive confusion that should settle down your rant.

      >> So God isn't real until we start to observe Him? This is brilliant, denying objective reality.

      Dude, we're talking about the double slit experiment, and you extrapolated it to me denying objective reality? To answer though, YES, Without the nonlocal consciousness, there is no such a thing as objective reality that we know it as. That is why we say all evidence is evidence of God.

      >>A sad little ad hominem used to try and poison the well.

      Yes, I noticed that too. Thanks for pointing that out. I rail against Ayn Rand, I admit that.

      >>Would you like to actually give an argument that shows how materialists are forced to assume bottom up causation or are you going to just repeat the same gibberish?

      So causation is top down? Congratulations, you just may have given up your atheism. Let me step aside to allow that to happen.

      >>It's better to just point and laugh.

      Nervous laughter? I said "It is like the electron..." The appearance of, in other words. You missed the point, or are being difficult here. I would say the latter.

      >>Is the plant using it's own local consciousness to actualise the possibility of it nodding [vigorously] at a fish murderer?

      No

      >>I thought the claim was that a non-local consciousness is the only one capable of causing the plant to nod?

      Yes

      >>can you please demonstrate how such a being could grant you absolute certainty whilst leaving you with massive gaps in your knowledge?

      Sure, we're certain about things revealed. His existence, Jesus, and His resurrection, etc. God has not revealed to me your motives, for example, to proclaim "whilst leaving you with massive gaps..."

      If God revealed ALL things, then we would be omniscient. No need for us to have such omniscience. Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all of it to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that possibility. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.

      >>So exactly the experiments I thought you meant - by people who worked for the Maharishi and had a personal stake in having the 'results' of the 'experiments' support the claims. Lol.

      Do you understand how many fallacies that was? Wow.

      >>You've been given such arguments several times before - your usual response it to start asking "how do you know?" over and over again as if it means something.

      Since we cannot finalize an argument engaged in infinite regress, we must stop at some self-validating, self-attesting authority. You have none.

      Bahnsen says that the Christian system has a self-attesting authority. My epistemology is grounded in the all-interpreting presupposition of the personal, infinite, eternal, self-contained, self-revealing Creator of all facts and laws.

      God is my ultimate reference point, and He alone is self-validating. You?

      Delete
    34. Hi again, Dan,

      I would be remiss if I didn't jump in here and offer my two cents on a little something you wrote -- you know, just to present an opposing viewpoint for any fence-sitters who may be following along.

      You wrote: "Bahnsen says that the Christian system has a self-attesting authority. My epistemology is grounded in the all-interpreting presupposition of the personal, infinite, eternal, self-contained, self-revealing Creator of all facts and laws."

      Dawson writes: "The Christian wants us to accept as fact the claim that his god exists. We are also told that, for the Christian, “the most basic fact of all facts is the existence of the triune God” (Common Grace and the Gospel, ch. 1). So it is a fact, we are told, that the Christian god exists. But we are also told that this “God is the creator of every fact,” that “all facts are God-created.” So was the fact that this god exists, also created by this same god? This seems quite illogical. To create anything, a creator-god would first have to exist. A thing cannot create the fact of its own existence. The presuppositionalist must allow an exception to the rule here, but this would split facts into two mutually exclusive categories, thus requiring duplicitous provisions in the Christian theory of facts. It would, in the case of its god’s existence for instance, need to allow for at least some facts to be uncreated. But if any facts can be uncreated, why couldn’t all other facts be uncreated? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Dawson Bethrick, http://katholon.com/Rival_Philosophies_of_Fact.htm)

      Along similar lines, here is Anton Thorn's interaction with Bahnsen's material:

      "Bahnsen: "Created reality is revelational of the living and true God, and thus scientists deal with that which inescapably communicates God (Psalm 19:1-3)." [76]

      Thorn: Ah, so, you think reality is "created"? This suggests that you think that whatever is real is created. That would mean that whatever created what is real must be something other than real. I take it that this is where you get the idea of "forces outide the scope of man's experience or outside the universe." That's going to put you in a bind if you want to say that god is real, since the universe is the sum total of all that exists. I'm still wondering, by what means would one acquire awareness of what you call "forces... outside the universe" and how does all this qualify as knowledge of reality, Dr. Bahnsen?

      Bahnsen: "How do we know this worldview? We don't build it up block by block by block, piece by piece by piece, evidence by evidence by evidence. We know this worldview because it's been delivered to us in the pages of Scripture." [77]

      (continued)

      Delete
    35. Thorn: I see, then it is clear: you do not establish any of the Bible's claims by offering evidence to secure them. This means that your earlier talk about evidence was in vain, since in the final analysis evidence plays no role in grounding the foundations of your worldview. You're not integrating facts that you discover firsthand in reality and forming rudimentary principles on this basis. Instead, you start with consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a vacant, empty consciousness which creates its own objects and thus invents knowledge according to no objective standard whatsoever. You simply swallow the whole Bible in one gulp, and claim it is all true on no basis at all. Apparently it's true because you want it to be true, is that right, Dr. Bahnsen?

      Bahnsen: (silence)

      Thorn: This does not qualify as knowledge of reality, Dr. Bahnsen. It is a massive confusion on your part. In the end, all you have is a vain appeal to empty authority.

      Bahnsen: "[All this] is set forth by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-25. He says that all men inescapably know God the Creator. The eternal power and divinity of the Creator are clearly revealed throughout the cosmic order of nature. Thus, man possesses definite knowledge concerning the origin of the world and himself." [78]

      Thorn: I see, so, it doesn't matter that your own words can only imply that the god you worship could not be real. Indeed, you go on to suggest that you have knowledge in your mind without having to discover and validate it by any process, objective or otherwise. This is a claim to automatic knowledge, Dr. Bahnsen, that is, "just knowing," or knowledge by no means, information from nowhere, deduction without reference to reality. It indicates that you have no argument for your claims. If you had an argument, you wouldn't need to appeal to automatic knowledge, you'd be able to rest your verdicts on reason. I think it also indicates a faulty understanding of the nature of the mind. Paul exhibits this same poor understanding in his writing, and you read it and believe it and on this basis claim it's true. This of course is a reversal: we should first establish that our claims are true and then we can have confidence in them.

      (http://reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/bahnsen_dialogue.htm)

      -------------------End quoted material--------------

      Thanks again.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    36. D.A.N. said...

      Wow that WAS long! I cannot address every word,

      What a surprise. Oh, wait, no it's not. I think it's safe to assume you'll dodge answering most or even all of the questions I asked.

      so here are some highlights for the massive confusion that should settle down your rant.

      Rant? Lol, on the contrary I'm enjoying pointing out your absurd contradictions immensely and the only confusion here is just which position you want us to believe you hold.

      >> So God isn't real until we start to observe Him? This is brilliant, denying objective reality.

      Dude, we're talking about the double slit experiment, and you extrapolated it to me denying objective reality?

      Dude, we're talking about quantum possibilities - that's more than just the double-slit experiment. Quantum phenomena make up the world we experience at the macro scale. Are you now saying that it's only in the double slit experiment where this claim (that the "waves of possibilities" aren't acted into reality until we observe them) holds? So other quantum phenomena are real without us observing them? This is, of course, you refuting your own argument. We no longer need a non-local consciousness because objective reality exists again.

      The other option, of course, is that NO quantum phenomena are 'real' until we observe them i.e. what I took you to mean before. This is you arguing that objective reality doesn't exist. If there's no objective reality then there's nothing for any consciousness to be conscious of and, therefore, it's not really consciousness, local or otherwise.

      This is yet another set of contradictory positions you're trying to hold. Either things are real whether we're observing them or not, or they aren't - note that this includes your God despite your special pleading.

      To answer though, YES, Without the nonlocal consciousness, there is no such a thing as objective reality that we know it as.

      Lol, brilliant. Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics precludes the existence of an objective reality i.e. an external reality that exists independently and that consciousness is aware of. Instead it only allows for a purely subjective reality totally at the whim of consciousness. Of course this doesn't comport with the reality we experience. We can all test this for ourselves and see that wishing doesn't make things so - I'd have that £100,000,000 if it was.

      That is why we say all evidence is evidence of God.

      Nope, you make that baseless assertion to try and avoid answering any arguments which refute your position.

      >>A sad little ad hominem used to try and poison the well.

      Yes, I noticed that too. Thanks for pointing that out. I rail against Ayn Rand, I admit that.

      You're welcome.

      >>Would you like to actually give an argument that shows how materialists are forced to assume bottom up causation or are you going to just repeat the same gibberish?

      So causation is top down? Congratulations, you just may have given up your atheism. Let me step aside to allow that to happen.

      So, no then, you can't make any such argument. Thanks for conceding that there's nothing in materialism that forces the materialist to assume bottom up causation.

      >>It's better to just point and laugh.

      Nervous laughter?

      Nope, genuine belly laughs.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    37. cont'd...

      I said "It is like the electron..." The appearance of, in other words. You missed the point, or are being difficult here. I would say the latter.

      How are we to distinguish between the electron having it's own consciousness and it being controlled by a non-local consciousness when it gives the appearance of having it's own consciousness? How do we detect/measure either the local purely non-physical consciousness or the non-local purely non-physical consciousness and determine which one is actually in charge? It's not me being difficult it's that your claims are unsupported and, quite honestly, pretty ridiculous.

      >>Is the plant using it's own local consciousness to actualise the possibility of it nodding [vigorously] at a fish murderer?

      No

      How are we to distinguish between the plant having it's own consciousness and it being controlled by a non-local consciousness when it gives the appearance of having it's own consciousness? How do we detect/measure either the local purely non-physical consciousness or the non-local purely non-physical consciousness and determine which one is actually in charge?

      >>I thought the claim was that a non-local consciousness is the only one capable of causing the plant to nod?

      Yes

      Again, how do we detect/measure the purely non-physical consciousness and discover whether it's local or non-local and which one is in charge?

      >>can you please demonstrate how such a being could grant you absolute certainty whilst leaving you with massive gaps in your knowledge?

      Sure, we're certain about things revealed.

      Lol, you're certain because you say so. I asked for a demonstration, for you to 'show', not 'tell'. Although I do love it when you abandon the logic you claim only exists thanks to your God, in order to support the existence of your God.

      1. Absolute certainty require omniscience.
      2. You're not omniscient.
      C. You're not absolutely certain.

      Now I know you'll throw in some caveat about having 'access' to omniscience. Of course, you can't be absolutely certain that you have said access because you're not omniscient. We can then watch your argument disappear into it's own infinite regress.

      His existence, Jesus, and His resurrection, etc. God has not revealed to me your motives, for example, to proclaim "whilst leaving you with massive gaps..."

      If you have these massive gaps, which you must have or you'd a) know my motives and b) have given me the lottery numbers I asked for in order to demonstrate the truth of your claims, then how do you know that the true source and veracity of your 'revelation' isn't in one of them? Cue infinite regress of "God revealed it".

      If God revealed ALL things, then we would be omniscient.

      And absolutely certain of that which was revealed, yes, your point?

      No need for us to have such omniscience.

      There's no need for absolute certainty when you wish to claim absolute certainty? What an odd claim to make.

      Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all of it to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that possibility. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.

      So you're not absolutely certain you just hope you are based on what you read in the Bible. Got it.

      cont'd...

      Delete
    38. cont'd...

      >>So exactly the experiments I thought you meant - by people who worked for the Maharishi and had a personal stake in having the 'results' of the 'experiments' support the claims. Lol.

      Do you understand how many fallacies that was? Wow.

      None. The people did work for the Maharishi and they did have a vested interest in the results supporting their claims. They conducted uncontrolled 'experiments' that weren't replicable and then 'interpreted' the results in such a way that they supported the conclusion they had already come to.

      Considering you already don't trust what science says - evolution, age of the universe etc... - it's always amusing when you then try to rely on science to underpin some argument you're trying to make.

      >>You've been given such arguments several times before - your usual response it to start asking "how do you know?" over and over again as if it means something.

      Since we cannot finalize an argument engaged in infinite regress,

      I have no idea why you keep presenting arguments that rely on such an infinite regress then.

      we must stop at some self-validating, self-attesting authority. You have none.

      On the contrary, I have existence. It exists. To deny it requires that it exist.

      Bahnsen says that the Christian system has a self-attesting authority.

      Except he couldn't actually support this baseless assertion with evidence so he made up a whole circle of bullshit 'reasoning' and called it a 'proof' that the Christian God exists. All the while building his proof from a whole host of concepts stolen from the very worldview he was trying to deny. I must note once again that ydemoc has already given a full refutation of this claim - thank you ydemoc.

      My epistemology is grounded in the all-interpreting presupposition of the personal, infinite, eternal, self-contained, self-revealing Creator of all facts and laws.

      Your epistemology is a house of straw built on foundations of shifting sand - you believe what you want to believe is true.

      God is my ultimate reference point, and He alone is self-validating.

      What do you call the non-local consciousness which actualises reality for your God - after all he cannot be non-local to Himself so will need a non-local consciousness to do stuff for Him. Cue more special pleading.

      You?

      Existence. It exists.

      Delete
    39. Hi, freddies_dead,

      You wrote, to Dan: "Considering you already don't trust what science says - evolution, age of the universe etc... - it's always amusing when you then try to rely on science to underpin some argument you're trying to make."

      This is a good point. I find that when I engage a Christian sibling of mine (of the Reformed brand), he exhibits this same lapse of consistency.

      Now, I'm no whiz when it comes to science, but I know enough to recognize that he was doing this. For example, though I don't recall what it was we were talking about, (I think it may have had something to do with newly discovered galaxies), I jotted down the following immediately after one of our discussion:

      "You count on established science in an attempt to undermine recent science. Fine, if you are doing so in an attemp to check all angles -- to make sure that you've got things right. But that's not what you are doing nor why you are doing it.

      You question this new science because it does not fit your worldview paradigm, your preconceived notions, your beliefs: Christianity. Yet I notice that you do not question the established science which you actually rely upon -- science that got you to this point where you were even able to question what it is you are questioning in a most uninformed manner; science -- and many products of -- that were, at one point in time, considered to be antithetical to the very beliefs you now cling to!

      You do not question telescopes, microscopes, infertility drugs, anesthesia, blood thinners, DNA testing, television, radio, the internet, computers; satellite technology, Hubble Space Telescope, air conditioning, X-rays, photography, etc., etc., etc. You take all this science for granted, all the while relying upon them in your unscientific attempt to undercut the results they provide -- along with the very faculty responsible for all of it: reason.

      To be the least bit consistent, you should really be questioning (and/or just as dismissive of) the reliability of those very products of science which you now rely upon in your unscientific attempt to dismiss or undercut emerging science -- and reason."

      You wrote, regarding Rand: "I must note once again that ydemoc has already given a full refutation of this claim - thank you ydemoc."

      You're welcome! In those excerpts I provided, both Dawson and Thorn expose just a tiny fraction of Christianity's many inconsistencies -- inconsistencies which are unavoidable in such a worldview due to its Primacy of Consciousness -- a metaphysics which underwrites their complete lack of proper epistemology, i.e., they evade, ignore, or just completely fail to recognize that knowledge is hierarchical in nature, and that they have no coherent theory of concepts. Essentially, they have no epistemology, because for them, everything is metaphysics -- of the Primacy of Consciousness kind.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    40. Still playing catch up. I had no idea so many people on reddit don't believe in God. lol These comments remain in my inbox and I cringe to find time to address the issues. It is now Friday after all. Family get's some time with me. :7)

      Have a good weekend all. Try not taking risks, stay safe and alive.

      Delete
    41. >>You do not question telescopes, microscopes, infertility drugs, anesthesia, blood thinners, DNA testing, television, radio, the internet, computers; satellite technology, Hubble Space Telescope, air conditioning, X-rays, photography, etc., etc., etc. You take all this science for granted, all the while relying upon them in your unscientific attempt to undercut the results they provide -- along with the very faculty responsible for all of it: reason.

      Sure, we rely on science, but the sciences you listed do not contradict Scripture. Naturalism does. It's an equivocation fail to say they are the same. Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm. I have said in the past, many times, the failures of scientists pushing agendas, and concluding presuppositions without evidence, is the problem. The process is flawed in many ways. It is like you're ignoring what scientists themselves have said are the problems of the peer review process.

      I understand both of your positions. I disagree. What more can I add?


      Delete
    42. Ydemoc noted:

      >>You do not question telescopes, microscopes, infertility drugs, anesthesia, blood thinners, DNA testing, television, radio, the internet, computers; satellite technology, Hubble Space Telescope, air conditioning, X-rays, photography, etc., etc., etc. You take all this science for granted, all the while relying upon them in your unscientific attempt to undercut the results they provide -- along with the very faculty responsible for all of it: reason.

      Dan replied...

      Sure, we rely on science, but the sciences you listed do not contradict Scripture.

      Except, of course, where DNA testing refutes the story of Adam and Eve and has, along with x-rays, microscopes, computers and satellite technology, allowed scientists to build a particularly good idea of how modern biological diversity came about i.e. through evolution. Where Hubble's Telescope has been used (amongst other evidences) to determine that the age of the earth is many orders of magnitude older than the 6000 years claimed by Scripture.

      Naturalism does.

      Only because there's no evidence for the supernatural bullshit put forth by the Bible.

      It's an equivocation fail to say they are the same.

      No-one has claimed that science = philisophical naturalism. Instead science assumes methodological naturalism i.e. assuming naturalism without claiming that there is absolutely nothing but the wholly natural. It does this as there's no way to test the supernatural directly - just how do you detect/observe/measure a deity? The only thing science can do is attempt to measure the possible effects of some claimed supernatural force on the natural world, except that, every time scientists do this - think studies on intercessory prayer here - they find there is no effect.

      Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.

      Except that it has been. There comes a point where the absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence and the complete lack of evidence of supernatural forces acting on our universe, despite many attempts to demonstrate the opposite, suggests that it's because there are no supernatural forces able to act on our universe.

      I have said in the past, many times, the failures of scientists pushing agendas, and concluding presuppositions without evidence, is the problem.

      And I wish the woo-meisters like Goswami would stop giving honest scientists a bad name by pushing their religious agendas and claiming that the 'evidence' supports the conclusions they already held prior to them even starting to do any 'science'.

      The process is flawed in many ways. It is like you're ignoring what scientists themselves have said are the problems of the peer review process.

      We haven't ignored anything Dan, we're well aware that scientists aren't perfect but we've continued to use the scientific method and the results of said method because, despite the mangling by a few bad apples like Goswami and other woo-meisters, it works. We try to judge the results on the rigour with which they were obtained rather than whether they fit a pre-determined conclusion.

      You, however, like to moan about how flawed science is and then turn around and push a supposedly scientific work as evidence that your God exists.

      Which one is it Dan? Is science so flawed as to be practically useless? Or can we trust the scientists? I'm betting that you're only happy to trust the scientists who put out work that supposedly supports the conclusions you've already come to.

      I understand both of your positions.

      Unfortunately you haven't yet demonstrated any of this supposed "understanding".

      I disagree.

      I've noticed.

      What more can I add?

      I have no idea Dan.

      Delete
    43. >>It does this as there's no way to test the supernatural directly - just how do you detect/observe/measure a deity?

      So you lost your keys in the kitchen but search for them in the back yard because the lighting is better? Got it. How is that not woo-science?

      >> Or can we trust the scientists?

      No, you can't. They get it wrong, remember? The "method" is not the problem, the conclusions based on the presupposition of naturalism is indeed.

      "There comes a point where the absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence..." ~Freddies Dead, (Woo-science, Argument from ignorance fallacy fail Pg. 1)

      Even if there was zero evidence of a Creator does that mean there is certainly not one?

      I know you see the flaw in your logic, and it pains me you ignore that, and "publish" your words anyway. I wonder if other dudes that call themselves "scientists" do this very same thing? Possible?

      Delete
    44. Hi again, Dan,

      Thanks for addressing my previous comment. I think it's safe to say that there were many, many past scientific innovations and discoveries that went against scripture -- and continue to do so unto this day. It's just that after a while, it becomes quite difficult for mystics to fight the rising tide of reason -- so science forges ahead, eventually overwhelming adherents of mysticism, to the point where such believers end up looking for ways (and way more often than not, failing) to square the emerging science with what's written in their particular holy book, i.e., they rationalize.

      But you're right: you do seem to know where I'm coming from in this particular matter. And you're also right that we disagree.

      You wrote, to freddies_dead: "Even if there was zero evidence of a Creator does that mean there is certainly not one?"

      Well, let's ask: What basis would one have for positing the existence of something, if there were no evidence for that something? Such a basis certainly couldn't be direct perception of the evidence, since there would be "zero evidence," and if we are to take the fact of "zero evidence" seriously, that means there would be no trace of anything on which to base our claim for the existence of that something. There is no such thing of direct perception of that which doesn't exist.

      What about reason or conceptual evidence? Could that be a basis on which to assert something exists with "zero evidence" for that something? I think you run into the same problem here.

      The basis for such a notion would require that there be some proof; and "'proof' presupposes the concept 'evidence' (which may be either perceptual -- which has already been ruled out by the "zero evidence" assertion -- or conceptual in nature), and since the concept 'evidence' applies only to that which exists (we do not look for evidence for that which doesn't exist, for that would be a stolen concept) it is proper to call for proof only in regard to positive claims with respect to existential claims." (Dawson Bethrick; Slick's Sleight of Hand: A Review of Matt Slick's Rebuttal to My Criticism; http://katholon.com/CARM/Slicks_Sleight.htm )

      So we can rule out direct perception and reason as our basis for positing a Creator for which there is "zero evidence." So what does that leave us with as our basis?

      Enter "faith" -- a concept which, ironically, ends up being clear evidence that whoever champions it, relies upon it as a means to such a knowledge claim, or as a guide to action based upon such a knowledge claim, really has no basis at all.

      "...[A] proof of the non-existence of something is certainly not warranted simply because someone makes the claim that the something in question exists. One does not inherit an obligation simply because another presents a claim." (Ibid.)

      And all this is just the tip of the iceberg... just one of many reasons why it's often said that god and the non-existent "look" and "behave" an awful lot alike.

      And thanks again, Dan.

      Ydemoc









      Delete
    45. D.A.N.

      >>It does this as there's no way to test the supernatural directly - just how do you detect/observe/measure a deity?

      So you lost your keys in the kitchen but search for them in the back yard because the lighting is better?

      What? The? Fuck? This incoherent drivel isn't even close to an analogy. It's actually more like I've lost my keys in the kitchen and you are complaining that I'm not asking Santa where they are.

      Got it.

      Got what? So far it looks like you've got nothing.

      How is that not woo-science?

      Looking for some lost keys isn't really science at all so I can see why you're confused and accept the crap Goswami does as science.

      >> Or can we trust the scientists?

      No, you can't. They get it wrong, remember?

      So we can't trust what Goswami is claiming about there being a non-local consciousness, right, good, so why, when it can't be trusted, are you claiming it as evidence that allegedly supports your presuppositional worldview? You're being contradictory as usual Dan.

      The "method" is not the problem, the conclusions based on the presupposition of naturalism is indeed.

      How so? Do you have some idea of how to detect/observe/measure a deity (indeed any supernatural entity)? Other than asking Santa where your car keys might be I mean.

      "There comes a point where the absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence..." ~Freddies Dead, (Woo-science, Argument from ignorance fallacy fail Pg. 1)

      Even if there was zero evidence of a Creator

      Which is how it currently stands....

      does that mean there is certainly not one?

      No, and I never claimed it did. I simply said that when you continually look for evidence for something and continually come up empty handed the probability that it is actually there to be found gets smaller and smaller.

      I know you see the flaw in your logic, and it pains me you ignore that, and "publish" your words anyway.

      To what flaw are you referring? The one that was only introduced when you misrepresented what I said to be a statement of certainty instead of the statement of probability that it actually was? Here's a clue - go back and re-read the bit where I said "the complete lack of evidence of supernatural forces acting on our universe, despite many attempts to demonstrate the opposite, suggests that it's because there are no supernatural forces able to act on our universe."

      I'm sure you enjoyed burning down your little straw man but it hasn't actually gotten you anywhere close to giving actual evidence of the existence of your chosen deity - or any other supernatural entity for that matter. You haven't even gotten around to explaining exactly how we'd detect/observe/measure your chosen deity in order to confirm that it exists.

      I wonder if other dudes that call themselves "scientists" do this very same thing? Possible?

      Do the same as you and misrepresent what other people have said you mean? Quite possibly and the probability rises quite sharply if those "scientists" work for organisations like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

      Delete
    46. I wonder if other dudes that call themselves "scientists" do this very same thing? Possible?

      >>Do the same as you and misrepresent what other people have said you mean?

      Do you understand you JUST misrepresented my position? Quite telling.

      >>Quite possibly and the probability rises quite sharply if those "scientists" work for organisations like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

      And you end with a fallacy (Ad Hom). You're obviously all over the map. Hopefully lost fallacious hypocrites will admit their own denial of knowledge. Like denying God's existence by asking for evidence of Him, while knowing Him. You're a hot mess.

      Delete
    47. D.A.N. said...

      I wonder if other dudes that call themselves "scientists" do this very same thing? Possible?

      >>Do the same as you and misrepresent what other people have said you mean?

      Do you understand you JUST misrepresented my position? Quite telling.

      Except I didn't misrepresent your position. You quite clearly misrepresented what I had said as I showed above. If you deny this then please demonstrate where I made the claim that absence of evidence means that there is certainly no Creator?

      >>Quite possibly and the probability rises quite sharply if those "scientists" work for organisations like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

      And you end with a fallacy (Ad Hom).

      Except there are a multitude of examples of creationists doing exactly that.

      You're obviously all over the map.

      What map? Mostly all you've shown us is a blank piece of paper.

      Hopefully lost fallacious hypocrites will admit their own denial of knowledge.

      We're still waiting for you to do just that after you denied the ability to reason autonomously.

      Like denying God's existence by asking for evidence of Him, while knowing Him.

      But of course I correctly maintain that I do not know Him. Never have and, without some valid objective evidence, I'm never likely to. Despite this you continue to claim that, in fact, I do know Him and am only suppressing that truth in my unrighteousness. It's hilarious because you have yet to even demonstrate His existence, let alone that He divinely inspired the words you have based your script upon.

      You're a hot mess.

      Sorry Dan, only my wife is allowed to be that forward.

      Delete
  18. "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. It was [posting this piece of excrement] all for your benefit, not mine. Remember you're claiming that you're willing to listen to the scientists."

    Ohhhh puuuulllleeeaaassseeee. That is analogous to me posting an article on Christian outreach by the Westboro Baptist Church and claiming it represents your style.

    Or it would be like sending a recipe for horseshit with ketchup on it to Bobby Flay while informing him it was great chef that sent it to me.

    You are losing it, man. But as long as you get the meager attentions you desire then I suppose you have succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Hey Chef! I'm sending you this recipe for Horseshit with Ketchup for your benefit!"
    hehe......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the kind of stuff that Goswami's ideas bring in. Not very close to Dan's god, is it?

      Delete
  20. I'm surprised Dan hasn't yet found a way to spin the recent Curiosity landing on Mars into something that validates his entire world view...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No life on any other planet, is what I predict. I will be right. Are there odds on that bet in Vegas. I would clean up if I was a betting man, I am no longer one though.

      Delete
    2. Hi Dan,

      I'm curious: If your prediction turned out to be wrong, and there was not only life found some place else in the universe, but intelligent life, do you have any thoughts on how Christianity, Reformed or otherwise, might deal with it?

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    3. Intelligent life on other planets? Pandemonium! It would be an ultimate test of faith. I am not sure if I would stop being a Christian, but I would enroll myself in some serious Bible study.

      Delete
    4. t would be an ultimate test of faith

      In what way? I know Christians who think that life on other planets is almost a given, and this idea doesn't seem to shake (or shape) their faith...

      Delete
    5. Hi again, Dan,

      Thanks for your quick, straight-forward response, and for satisfying my curiosity.

      Ydemoc

      Delete
    6. >>In what way? I know Christians who think that life on other planets is almost a given, and this idea doesn't seem to shake (or shape) their faith...

      Sure. Some Christians believe in evolution too. Some believe the Pope has authority over the Bible even. It is just not Biblical.

      Delete
  21. Christians believe in evolution too. Some believe the Pope has authority over the Bible even. It is just not Biblical.

    I'm obviously looking for specifics, Dan, not platitudes. What in the Bible leads you to believe there isn't life on other planets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not given it great study but off the top of my head two things come to mind.

      First, the Bible doesn't mention inelegant life on other planets. Second, are the Justification/Sanctification problems.

      How are you going to be saved through Christ if you live on another planet? Granted if there is intelligent life and they come proclaiming Christ, then Halleluiah! Christ glorified. Otherwise, God has created a being that has no chance of Justification/Sanctification, or to be saved.

      That is how I can say that there is zero intelligent life on other planets, with complete confidence. You're wasting your time and money searching for such nonsense.

      Delete
    2. How are you going to be saved through Christ if you live on another planet?

      Doesn't revelation reach to Mars or something?

      Delete
    3. There is a logical possibility you are overlooking. Perhaps intelligent life on other planets is not guilty of original sin. In that case, they don't need a substitute for sins. Just saying.

      Delete
    4. So you believe life God created, outside of man, as perfect? So "none good" in Romans was only towards man only? Where is your evidence for your beliefs? BTW, a fallen universe is just that. There is no such thing as intelligent life outside of the earth.

      Delete
    5. BTW, a fallen universe is just that. There is no such thing as intelligent life outside of the earth.
      Where is your evidence for your beliefs?

      Delete
    6. God's revelations is our evidence. Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

      Delete
    7. God's revelations is our evidence.
      Evidence which you assume but fail to demonstrate as being God's revelation.

      Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
      Sure. But a limited being could also fool us into believing something with certainty (ie. in Christian mythology, the devil could certainly accomplish this).
      And in fact, psychology shows us that we can fool ourselves into believing things with certainty.

      Believing something with certainty doesn't mean that belief is certainty true.

      Do you concede that you, a limited being, could be mistaken in this certainty of belief?

      Delete
    8. Sorry Rian, I just noticed I never addressed anything beyond this point. Forgive me, wife has cancer yada, yada, moving on...let's get into this.

      >>Believing something with certainty doesn't mean that belief is certainty true.

      You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.

      >>Do you concede that you, a limited being, could be mistaken in this certainty of belief?

      The power is not in me, and my fallibility, the power that you admitted to, lies with God alone to communicate to His family. We cannot know things without revelation from the ONE that knows everything, Jesus Christ i.e. God.

      Again, it all comes to the source of your reasoning. How do you know? Like morality...People can BELIEVE that something is wrong without knowing why it is wrong, but in order to KNOW that something is wrong, they must know WHY it is wrong.

      Knowledge is revealed, otherwise opinion and belief. This is exposed with a simple question, how do you know your reasoning is valid without God or being viciously circular?

      Delete
  22. How are you going to be saved through Christ if you live on another planet? Granted if there is intelligent life and they come proclaiming Christ, then Halleluiah! Christ glorified. Otherwise, God has created a being that has no chance of Justification/Sanctification, or to be saved.
    Right, so let's just assume that if God created life on those other planets, he'd be trying to save that life similar to what He's doing down here on Earth.

    How does this suggest that there's no life on other planets? If Jesus appeared simultaneously to all sentient beings on all planets in the universe, would you know about it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. What would life look like to us here on this planet if God had created Adamus239 and Eve Eve Binks on a different planet?

    Well first, our Bible would mention that the entire universe was corrupted by two dorks on a different planet. These dorks wouldn't be related to human beings in any way (other than having been created by the same deity who thought it wise to allow dorks to ignorantly destroy His perfect universe), which might change our acceptance of the book describing our situation.

    Dan? Do you think non-humans would accept two human beings corrupting their world, such that those non-humans would have to spend a lifetime atoning for faults they didn't create?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan

         I have posted a question for you on my own blog. Since, for the time being, you claim your god is falsifiable, it is relevant. I'm sure you will go back to your unfalsifiable doctrine soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  25.      It seems that Sir Dan bravely bravely ran away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not running. Still here fighting the good fight. Are you wondering about that same question you posted on your blog?

      Really I am not sure, If God were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical. Now, does that make God falsifiable or not? I don't know.

      Delete
    2. Dan we keep telling you: All that is just pure assumption on your part. How do you know that Allah/Zeus/Apomps, etc is not the real justification for logic?

      You and Sye and all those other circle-jerking presuppositionalists keep blindly assuming your conclusion, then pretending that your conclusion (god) is the necessary precondition for logic. If there was any truth to that, then the ancient greeks who formalized the rules of logic would have all needed to know the the xian god.

      They did not. There is NO god of any sort that is even mentioned in any logical theorem, much less is the basis for it.


      I have pointed out before that your own bible contradicts the laws of logic (ex. the trinity contradicts the law of non-contradiction)

      Delete
    3. >>How do you know that Allah/Zeus/Apomps, etc is not the real justification for logic?

      As Sye said "We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, he's the creator of all things and thus he created logic. For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at all. If they have no basis in which to place their faith in logic or exists then they've yet to understand that logic or matter exists because their faith is based in logic and reason itself, yet you can't use either to explain where either originated from (enter circular reasoning). They must assume and accept that both logic and reason originated from a single omnipotent source because without that source, there is no logic or reason, man didn't create logic or reason, we only use them as the tools that were provided to us by God. If we say there is no God, then we put the cart before the horse and look pretty stupid... As for which God (which I believe is where this argument gets hung up) that falls to the legitimacy of the scriptures and the foundation of where the God you serve comes from. I lean on the God of the Bible, not only because he revealed himself to me and I chose to accept and believe on his son, and because the endless truth IN scriptures let alone the countless prophecies that God's word has spoken that have come true and are still coming true. The God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I say so, but because He does."

      Delete
  26. Ok Dan...Paragraphs are your friend!

    Dan
    As Sye said "We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, he's the creator of all things and thus he created logic.
    And I could go and say the same thing about the holy books of those other guys. You have to assume right from the get-go that "scripture" is true (ie. xianity is true) and you're using that to claim that your god is necessary for logic.

    As I say: Unbased assertions.

    For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at all.
    Nope. People have been doing that for millenia without biblegod. You're just building upon that unjustified assertion.


    ... and because the endless truth IN scriptures let alone the countless prophecies that God's word has spoken that have come true and are still coming true.
    Well at least now you're falling back on some non-circular bullshit here. Too bad it doesn't help your case at all.

    Lots of stuff there, especially the second link. See you in a long while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>You have to assume right from the get-go that "scripture" is true (ie. xianity is true) and you're using that to claim that your god is necessary for logic.

      Not true. God reveals it, we do not assume it. Like Sye said, the God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I assume so or say so, but because He does.

      >You're just building upon that unjustified assertion.

      Are you certain that it is an "unjustified assertion? If so, how are you certain? Could you be wrong?

      Also, "that unjustified assertion" is a positive claim, and therefore you own a burden of proof for THAT claim.

      >>Lots of stuff there, especially the second link. See you in a long while.

      O'rly? So, "you're wrong because a website says so". I guess you believe you "won the argument" with that assertion? Are you certain those websites reasoning is valid? If so, HOW?

      Delete
  27. Dan
    Not true. God reveals it, we do not assume it. Like Sye said, the God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I assume so or say so, but because He does.
    If that were the case Dan...there would be no atheists.

    Also, "that unjustified assertion" is a positive claim, and therefore you own a burden of proof for THAT claim.
    Since you just made an assertion with nothing to back it up except a bunch of already refuted claims (messianic "prophecies" and shit) yeah. I'd say I'm pretty certain and that it passed the burden of proof. It's not like you actually gave anything to work on, really.

    O'rly? So, "you're wrong because a website says so". I guess you believe you "won the argument" with that assertion? Are you certain those websites reasoning is valid? If so, HOW?
    Let's see: Put up by actual Jewish scholars, with a shitload of reading and references...if they are NOT valid Dan, go ahead.

    Refute them.

    Or just keep spinning around in circles using that presupp bullshit as an excuse to not even bother to do any further, you know, research into things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>If that were the case Dan...there would be no atheists.

      But you fully know that is not true. Remember, Hell's gates are going to be locked from the inside.

      There are so many Atheists, some even here, that say "if there is a God, I would never worship Him". So your point is moot. Denial of, and railing against, God is a positive choice of the conscious.

      >>I'd say I'm pretty certain and that it passed the burden of proof. It's not like you actually gave anything to work on, really.

      Yea we get the argument:

      Christian: Here is evidence for the existence of God'. Naturalist: That is not evidence for the existence of God. Christinan: Why is this not evidence for the existence of God?
      Naturalist: Because God does not exist'.
      Christian: How do you know God does not exist?
      Naturalist: Because there is no evidence of His existence.

      >>Refute them.

      Sure, but first tell me how you know their, or your, reasoning is valid?

      >>Or just keep spinning around in circles using that presupp bullshit as an excuse to not even bother to do any further, you know, research into things.

      Did you use your reasoning to make this determination?

      Delete
    2. Dan quoting me:
      If that were the case Dan...there would be no atheists.

      But you fully know that is not true. Remember, Hell's gates are going to be locked from the inside.
      What's the bible verse for that?

      There are so many Atheists, some even here, that say "if there is a God, I would never worship Him".
      Note the use of the word if Dan.

      It means that they still do not actually believe that god exists! They're just saying that if they actually did get convinced that biblegod exists they still would not worship him. Probably due to his OT immoral actions like enforced rape and baby-butchering but that's another topic...

      You seem to confuse believe in the existence of with willingness to obey. They are not the same thing.

      Also you are doing some serious broad-brushing here. You are blindly assuming that every single atheist thinks that. That is in addition to not even understanding what those people just said in the first place.

      So your point is moot. Denial of, and railing against, God is a positive choice of the conscious.
      Read what I just wrote.

      Dan, quoting me:
      I'd say I'm pretty certain and that it passed the burden of proof. It's not like you actually gave anything to work on, really.

      Yea we get the argument:

      Christian: Here is evidence for the existence of God'. Naturalist: That is not evidence for the existence of God. Christinan: Why is this not evidence for the existence of God?
      Naturalist: Because God does not exist'.
      Christian: How do you know God does not exist?
      Naturalist: Because there is no evidence of His existence.

      Complete lie Dan. It's more like: the "naturalist" brings up examples of biblical mistakes, failed prophecies (which I gave links to in this very thread!) etc. which the christian ignores in favour of asking if the naturalists reasoning is vali, which is what you did.

      You little skit above isn't even close to reality.

      Refute them.
      Sure, but first tell me how you know their, or your, reasoning is valid?
      Dodge noted. Dan: It is not my reasoning that is relevant here...the young earth creationists themselves know that the starlight distance thing is a problem for them.

      Or just keep spinning around in circles using that presupp bullshit as an excuse to not even bother to do any further, you know, research into things.
      Did you use your reasoning to make this determination?
      Nope. Just past experience with you, which has been borne out in your last reply dealing with the starlight problem.

      Delete
    3. >>What's the bible verse for that?

      It is a quote actually. "...the gates of Hell are locked from the inside." ~CS Lewis

      But if we are to examine it. I am sure verses like 2 Peter 3:9 should suffice, as you would have to leap over Christ to get, and stay, in hell. I am sure there are more verses to back it up.

      >>Probably due to his OT immoral actions like enforced rape and baby-butchering but that's another topic...

      With a standard of morality which does not comport with your worldview. Or they're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. How are those things "wrong" in an atheistic worldview?

      >> You are blindly assuming that every single atheist thinks that.

      Think like what? Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness? Uh, Yea! That is God's claim. So is He wrong?

      >> It's more like: the "naturalist" brings up examples of biblical mistakes, failed prophecies (which I gave links to in this very thread!) etc.

      Those are mere gripes and complaints and does not lend to a belief of no God at all. You're reaching.

      >> It is not my reasoning that is relevant here...the young earth creationists themselves know that the starlight distance thing is a problem for them.

      No problem at all from this end, and I am a YEC. Your claim is invalid. If God can create and grow grass before the sun, turn water to wine, get donkeys to talk, and create entire universes in the first place, then we can be sure this "starlight distance thingy" is a non-issue.

      Or do you mean it does not comport to YOUR autonomous reasoning? IF so, yes I understand how you're confused. Tell me, how do you know your autonomous reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

      >>Nope. Just past experience with you, which has been borne out in your last reply dealing with the starlight problem.

      How do you know that your reasoning and memory about past experiences are valid? Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

      Delete
    4. Dan
      No problem at all from this end, and I am a YEC. Your claim is invalid. If God can create and grow grass before the sun,
      Evidence?

      turn water to wine.
      Evidence?

      get donkeys to talk,
      Evidence?

      and create entire universes in the first place, then we can be sure this "starlight distance thingy" is a non-issue.
      Only if you start out by assuming that biblegod is real in the first place! And you keep accusing ME of circular reasoning?

      So then unlike those other creationists, you're not even going to bother looking for evidence to support your view; you're just going to say that god "poofed" it all into existence the way it is? No evidence required?

      I'm sure all those other guys would love to hear your insights.

      How do you know that your reasoning and memory about past experiences are valid?
      Uh huh. And round and round we go! Just look at your past replies to me where you say this same shit over and over and over again.

      Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning?
      It's just a matter of me looking at your previous replies to me and seeing this same dodge over and over.

      Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.
      Uh, as I said: I just look at your previous responses.

      Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
      You haven't given me anything else to go on! If you've got something, give it!

      Delete
    5. Dan quoting me:

      Probably due to his OT immoral actions like enforced rape and baby-butchering but that's another topic...

      With a standard of morality which does not comport with your worldview.
      yeah, rape and genocide kind of do go against my worldview, unlike apparently yours...

      Or they're suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
      When doing an ad-hom attack, make sure that it doesn't apply to you more than to me...You are the one who worships a baby-killer, not me!

      How are those things "wrong" in an atheistic worldview?
      They hurt and kill people, they mess up civilizations, etc. Let me guess: without biblegod to tell you, you would see no problem with any of those things.

      As I keep saying: Whenever you people say things like that, all you do is show that it's you who are the immoral ones. If the only reason that you don't kill or rape, etc is because biblegod has to tell you that's wrong, it's you who are effed in the head, not us.

      You keep rejecting the reasons atheists give for being moral, so you keep highlighting your own flaws.

      Delete
    6. Dan quoting me again:

      What's the bible verse for that?

      It is a quote actually. "...the gates of Hell are locked from the inside." ~CS Lewis
      He's not the bible so what he said is irrelevant it comes to the architecture of hell.

      But if we are to examine it. I am sure verses like 2 Peter 3:9 should suffice, as you would have to leap over Christ to get, and stay, in hell. I am sure there are more verses to back it up.
      Uh no. That verse claims that he actually doesn't want anyone to go to hell. All he'd have to do is show himself or even send angels down to straighten people out.

      He could have done that in the "new world" right when jesus was allegedly born so that all those people could have had "the gospel" well before the europeans came.

      Instead, nothing. It got left and left and left until they came. Sounds more like a god who either doesn't care or doesn't exist.

      Delete
    7. >>Evidence?

      Scripture x3

      >>Only if you start out by assuming that biblegod is real in the first place!

      Again, you start out by DENYING that God can, and has, revealed Himself to us. You need a mirror.

      BTW, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

      >>So then unlike those other creationists, you're not even going to bother looking for evidence to support your view; you're just going to say that god "poofed" it all into existence the way it is?

      I have ALL the evidence I need to satisfy and support my KNOWLEDGE. You? Not "enough"? That is your problem, not mine.

      >>yeah, rape and genocide kind of do go against my worldview, unlike apparently yours

      Great!! Please explain morality in an atheistic worldview then.

      Keep in mind what Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)." ~http://bit.ly/assmorals

      >>They hurt and kill people, they mess up civilizations, etc.

      Sure, but you haven't accounted for those things being "wrong" yet. Could others consider doing such things to be moral, and so being right? You have invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview MUST account for.

      >>As I keep saying: Whenever you people say things like that, all you do is show that it's you who are the immoral ones.

      Again, You have invoked a moral law, or standard in claiming things as "immoral" that your worldview MUST account for.

      >> If the only reason that you don't kill or rape, etc is because biblegod has to tell you that's wrong, it's you who are effed in the head, not us.

      No, I acknowledge that God gave us a conscience and that we are made in His image as compassionate, kind, and empathetic. It conforms to my worldview completely. You?

      >>You keep rejecting the reasons atheists give for being moral, so you keep highlighting your own flaws.

      I do not reject your morality, I KNOW God gave even you a conscience. I reject your account for said morality thus far. Because it is illogical and does not conform to reality. in other words, it isn't true.

      >>He's not the bible so what he said is irrelevant it comes to the architecture of hell.

      You asked for the source, you ASSUMED it was a verse. I provided the exact source and you cry "irrelevant"? Really?

      >>That verse claims that he actually doesn't want anyone to go to hell

      Right. So you would have to pass everyone including Christ to arrive into Hell. In other words, the gates of hell will be locked from the inside.

      >> All he'd have to do is show himself or even send angels down to straighten people out.

      Yup, and He certainly will. But wait, it appears you're claiming that if God, then there are NO such a thing as Atheists. Is that the case?

      >>He could have done that in the "new world" right when jesus was allegedly born so that all those people could have had "the gospel" well before the europeans came. Instead, nothing.

      Well, yes, that is factual, He could of done that. But. IF you're arguing that because He didn't then He doesn't exist, once again you're begging the question.

      >> It got left and left and left until they came. Sounds more like a god who either doesn't care or doesn't exist.

      Yup, I was right, question begging, viciously, with a side of appeal to ignorance. Reductio ad absurdum

      Delete
    8. Dan again:
      >>Evidence?

      Scripture x3
      And again, you're using the "tool" that's basically under argument in the first place. Any religious person can use his own holy book to give "evidence" for their beliefs when those beliefs fly against physical evidence like "creating the grass before the sun" etc.

      Dan and me:
      >>So then unlike those other creationists, you're not even going to bother looking for evidence to support your view; you're just going to say that god "poofed" it all into existence the way it is?

      I have ALL the evidence I need to satisfy and support my KNOWLEDGE. You? Not "enough"? That is your problem, not mine.
      Not my problem at all: It's the problem of your fellow YEC's who are stuck trying to explain away things like the starlight problem. They know that it doesn't match up with the bible.

      You just don't care. That's your problem.


      Dan, quoting me:

      You keep rejecting the reasons atheists give for being moral, so you keep highlighting your own flaws.

      I do not reject your morality,
      I never said you did. I said that you reject my reasons for acting moral.

      I KNOW God gave even you a conscience. I reject your account for said morality thus far. Because it is illogical and does not conform to reality. in other words, it isn't true.
      Huh? Isn't true? So you don't believe that I think that murder is wrong, huh? Baloney. You DO reject my morality. So-called "conscience" has nothing to do with it. If such a thing DID, then people wouldn't have been killing others in gods' name for centuries because their "god-given" consciences would have stopped them.

      Instead, in real life, their religious and cultural beliefs shaped their consciences so that they thought things like witch-killing was OK.

      So no: I do not believe that "conscience" is given by bible-god.


      Dan quoting me:
      All he'd have to do is show himself or even send angels down to straighten people out.

      Yup, and He certainly will.
      I'm not talking of the future Dan.

      Why didn't he do so earlier and save that many more souls? You seem to think that in the future, that tactic would work.

      But wait, it appears you're claiming that if God, then there are NO such a thing as Atheists. Is that the case?
      Huh? If god showed himself so that we all actually knew that he existed, that would probably would be the case.

      Well, yes, that is factual, He could of done that. But. IF you're arguing that because He didn't then He doesn't exist, once again you're begging the question.
      That's a big IF. I'm just trying to figure out, why in your worldview your god would act so contrary to his own stated goals.


      Yup, I was right, question begging, viciously, with a side of appeal to ignorance. Reductio ad absurdum
      Dan, you're describing yourself and your presupp bullshit again.

      Why don't you explain then, why this god who supposedly cares so MUCH about our souls did NOT reveal himself to the native americans at all, instead waiting for the europeans to show up?

      Delete
  28.      I note that Dan doesn't believe in his professed god. If he did, he would be trying to show real evidence. The "precondition for logic" cop-out is only used by those that don't believe their own preaching.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you use your reasoning to make this determination?

      Delete
  29.      Reynold asks for evidence that some of the claims in "scripture" are true and not fabrications. Dan provides none, only saying "scripture x3." Since this "scripture" is what is in dispute, it cannot be used as evidence of its own veracity.
         "BTW, assuming that the [b]ible is not evidence for [g]od because you do not believe God exists, is question begging."
         Except that is not the reason that people say the bible is not evidence for its god. (Dan is creating a straw-man.) People make up fantastic stories all the time. Many cults exist for just this reason. Those "holy books" are not evidence of their own veracity, and neither is the bible.
         "I have ALL the evidence I need to satisfy and support my KNOWLEDGE. You? Not 'enough'? That is your problem, not mine."
         If Dan has evidence, I would like to see him present it instead of hiding it and saying that it is everyone else's "problem." But I rather doubt that he has any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True enough. I'll also point out that Dan doesn't seem to realize that if BTW, assuming that the [b]ible is not evidence for [g]od because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. then so is assuming that the bible IS evidence for god because one believes that god exists.

      I go by how accurate the bible is as to whether god exists or not.

      And, since Dan is still on that Sye-type circular reasoning stick, I present Dawson's two year old, unanswered refutation of Sye's methodology.

      Van Til, Richard Pratt, and their latter-day followers.
      Monday, August 27, 2012
      STB: Two Years and Counting
      It has now been two years to the day since I posted my refutation of the argument showcased on Sye Ten Bruggencate’s website “proof that god exists dot org.” While the argument on his site remains unchanged, Bruggencate has so far failed to vindicate the defense of his worldview which he has presented to the world against my critique.


      Of the several points that I raise against Bruggencate’s case, I think the most damning include

      a) the lack of any rational justification on Bruggencate’s part for categorizing the examples he cites (e.g., truth, the laws of logic, universality, mathematics, science, moral principles, etc.) as “immaterial” (as opposed to conceptual phenomena), and

      b) Bruggencate’s association of his god with “abstract entities” such as truth, the laws of logic, mathematics, science and other conceptual operations only suggests that his god is something psychological rather than an independently existing entity.

      Delete
    2. >>Reynold asks for evidence that some of the claims in "scripture" are true and not fabrications.

      Wrong he questioned the events themselves. I told him it is confirmed in Scripture. Do you question history books that claim Shakespeare existed? If we were to say "Provide evidence for Shakespeare" you would point to all His work and HISTORY books. Same thing, Bible is the most accurate historical narrative on this planet. We understand why you reject it outright though.

      Nice attempt to move the goal posts.

      Delete
    3. BTW, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

      >>Then so is assuming that the bible IS evidence for god because one believes that god exists.

      Completely false and utter Non sequitur. That is NOT the same at all. God reveals that the Bible is true AND Scripture proves it validity and truth, internally. You deny BOTH in your (single) reasoning, that you reason is valid.

      Delete
    4. Dan
      Completely false and utter Non sequitur.
      Nope. That is exactly the "reasoning" that you use, except it's used against you.

      That is NOT the same at all. God reveals that the Bible is true AND Scripture proves it validity and truth, internally.
      I have given links before that show that not to be the case. You just dismiss them.

      You deny BOTH in your (single) reasoning, that you reason is valid.
      You dismiss everything that doesn't match up with your worldview, evidence be damned.

      Delete
  30. Dan:

         "Nice attempt to move the goal posts."
         Your attempt to move the goal posts was not as nice as you think. He questioned the events claimed in "scripture." As such he was clearly doubting its veracity.
         "If we were to say 'Provide evidence for Shakespeare'..."
         I would do nothing. If, for whatever reason, you believe that the existence of Shakespeare was a fabrication, I cannot prove otherwise. Furthermore, it is not important to me that you believe he existed. I am inclined to believe the recorded history because I see no reason for the authors to have lied, I am not expected to alter my behavior on the basis of these claims, and the claims are mundane (not containing anything I think impossible or extremely unlikely.)
         Some time ago, as you'll recall, I gave an example of something that, if it happened, would convince me that your god is real. So far, it hasn't happened. Instead, you want me to take a work of fiction as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey Dan,

    Just dropping in here to say that Reynold and pvblivs seem to be making some good points. I've never quite understood theism employing the defense of "Well, you believe Historical Person X existed, don't you?"

    If nothing about their existence contradicts known facts, then what's the problem? If they or something alleged about them does contradict known facts, i..e., previously validated knowledge, then they or whatever it is that is alleged about them can and should be dismissed as arbitrary.

    When one accepts the arbitrary out of cognitive habit, fear, faith, tradition or for on any other supposed basis, well, I think the results of doing so are quite clear.

    Ydemoc

    ReplyDelete
  32. No idea if an earlier comment directly addressed this, but the idea that consciousness is required to collapse a quantum state is simply wrong.
    This view, championed by the likes of the ridiculous Deepak Chopra, assumes the truth of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and simply asserts that the "observer" must be conscious, even though experimentally this is false (a machine will do the job nicely).

    Since the rest of your post seems to require this false view to be real, we can safely ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey, I'm a Christian, and like the atheists commenting on your blog, I see that your post is bull poop. It is based on a crackpot's interpretation of a scientific theory, which may not even be correct. And it shows that the Hindu worldview that sees everything as God and makes no creature/creator distinction is self-contradictory.

    Freddies_dead is right: the mind either can actualize possibilities, or cannot. You are actualizing possibilities every time you send signals from brain to muscles and cause fingers to move. So the mind does actualize possibilities, just not every possibility can be actualized. And two minds cannot actualize the same possibilities. I can't move your fingers, only you can. So there is not just one consciousness.

    It is a wonderful world God created, in which we know that distinct consciousnesses exist, and we cannot explain them with our scientific theories. I will not pretend that quantum mechanics explains God as a quantum field, because that would be reducing God to a material thing. I will just say that science doesn't have the answers to all the mysteries and leave it at that.

    Those who tout quantum mechanics as the explanation for their incoherent worldviews conveniently gloss over the glaring ineligancies of the theories: the infinities, the infra-red divergences, the ad hoc nature of the rules of calculations, the lack of a rigorous mathematical model of quantum field theory, the failure of string theory, the inability to unify quantum mechanics with gravity, and the list goes on. Interpretations that allow for such things as "beables" are simply ignored. We have all those knowledge gaps, and yet the quantum quacks keep going on about how the theory proves Hinduism correct. It does no such thing.

    Instead of accepting such a dubious theory which supports not Christianity but a pagan worldview, you should instead take the opportunity to acknowledge the marvelously delicate design of the creator who ordained that all things work in harmony. He set in order physical laws that we still know nothing about as well as the ones about which are we most certain.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>