Arguments and empirical evidence that god(s) exist

So what? He can work on whatever he wants to work!

And? Who is saying otherwise except you? Listen up dude, I am responding to Whynot postings not yours and if you can`t conduct yourself without inventing problems with my posts out of this, go find a yourself a quiet stroll around a park. Just one more point, I can reply to whoever I want!




"that which is natural is spiritual, that which is spiritual is natural" Philosophy of Freedom-Rudolph Steiner

So what? He can work on whatever he wants to work!

And? Who is saying otherwise except you? Listen up dude, I am responding to Whynot postings not yours and if you can`t conduct yourself without inventing problems with my posts out of this, go find a yourself a quiet stroll around a park. Just one more point, I can reply to whoever I want!

Don't dude me please! You are not in your dudy-monastery here. You are holding not a private conversation, but a public discussion in a public place, read the rules if you can read. You seem to understand it only regarding yourself.

Social development goes by the same rules - and slowly building up evolutionary quantitative changes in the social system are followed by the rapid revolutionary, qualitative change of this system into the next one up. A school pupil for the long 10-12 years evolutionary increases the knowledge, and then the revolutionary stage would be passing the tests and getting a certificate of Secondary Education... In no cases of this type any higher Conscience plans the process stages, it all goes its own natural way. These processes are all around us and we witness them every day, it is just necessary to have the eyes to see

Are you trying to imply that the education system is not intentionally designed by intelligent beings? What do all those creatures in departments of education all over the world do, then? You are trying to prove that evolution is not a designed process by showing how it is like a designed process. Hmmm. Interesting.

Or perhaps are you suggesting that learning itself is not a process that requires intelligence?

Do you honestly believe that the process of education was not the product of centuries of design through thoughtful consideration and research about child development, curriculum development, age appropriate content, metacognition, assessment and instructional methods?

So evolution is dialectical like the process of education, but it is not designed. Which point were you trying to prove?

Even if you are merely referring to the learning cycles of each individual student, I fail to see your point because there is a dynamic between the intelligently planned pedagogy and the child's own intelligence that results in learning taking place. So intelligence is not a byproduct it is an essential feature of your example. Or are you really claiming that education is a mindless activity?

You are correct thar we need eyes to see when and where intelligence is active in a process. Since you missed its presence in the process of education perhaps you likewise cannot see it in active in the process of evolution.

How are you defining intelligence, because learning requires low level intelligence. We are talking about rote retrieval, basic comprehension and some application.

High order thinking is not achieved by more then 10 percent of the population and I am being liberal.

Marabod

Kapra, for start this is not his/her theory!

Marabod I will advise you read Whynots post #53 in which they plainly assert it is their theory. I advise you not to advise me on your allegations of my misinterpretation`s when you haven`t once addressed or read what I am saying without misinterpreting and to interject incorrectly when you do. Whynot

I am currently working on a philosophical/metaphysical paper entitled the "Theory OfSupernature"

Whynot the supernatural in its meaning is a study in philosophy and in its dictionary definition is understood full well. You seem to have a bias against the word yet don`t explain why you do? In Philosophy a book called "Is Nature Supernatural: A Philosophical Exploration of Science and Nature" Simon L. Altmann William Lane Craig earned a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England,debates "Is The Basis Of Morality Natural Or Supernatural?"He has authored over a dozen books, as well as nearly a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Whynot there are limits beyond which your understanding does not presently go, both our perception and your thinking can be extended far beyond their momentary abilities. It is our feelings tell how the world affects us, our will tells how we would affect the world.

In response to your criticism that I am prejudiced against supernatural considerations I concur. If what is meant by supernatural has anything to do with imagined deities and such I have no part. If, however, you are simply referring to as yet undiscovered aspects of nature then I have no beef with whatever you want to call these layers/levels/aspects of nature. I certainly do not imagine we have exhausted our research in discovering new aspects of reality/nature. Here is another excerpt from my paper:

Part Two

6.The Fifth STATE of some existent things in the universe is the SENTIENT/PSYCHOLOGICAL state. It is a sub-state of the Biological State of some existent things in the universe. Hereinafter referred to as SENPSYCH, no foundational theory of reality would be complete without special attention to this product of Process Refinement. The primary attribute of SENPSYCH is a perceived “sense of SELF” which is a complex function of Biologics. This perceived “sense of self” is the common IDENTIFYING characteristic of all biological things. The more complex the biologics, the more complex this perceived “sense of self” attains. For the purposes of this theoretic model of reality I will focus primarily on the human perceived “sense of self”, which appears to be the most complex and sophisticated product of Process Refinement to date. In contra-distinction to OMS total absence of a sense of “self”, the universe, via Process Refinement, has produced a specific biologic with a refined “sense of self”. The fundamentals of the human “sense of self” are derived from a unique combination of Perception, Conceptualization, Cognition, Memory and Imagination. Hereinafter referred to as SENSELF, within humans it is the subjective aspect of our perception of our reality. SENSELF creates and sustains, thru time, our perception of Individuality. Like all other existent things in the universe SENSELF exists in a constant state of internal modification. The primary attribute of SENSELF is a perceived “Inner Voice” that is Cogneived to be our own unique articulative thought processor. Thus the primary product of SENSELF is Language. All functions of SENPSYCH are refined through SENSELF and culminate in Language, whether it be linguistic or mathematic. Inter-subjective communication among all other SENSELVES follows this pattern. Even visual/observational input is reduced to Language, either linguistic or mathematical. Sustained Inter-subjective SENSELFISH agreement culminates in communities, societies and cultures.

SENSELF is SENSELFISH, which produces Individuality and Personality. Personality is the conclusion SENSELFISHNESS attempts to form within other SENSELFISH individuals about ones own SENSELF to effectuate continued Community participation and the subsequent benefits derived therein. SENSELFISHNESS is not a bad thing. It is produced by the realization of Limited Resources that require Competition. Thus Competition is a primary Driver of SENPSYCH. It is cognitively re-interpreted as DESIRE. It is activated Linguistically and Behavioristically in two corollary and axiomatic expressions: (1). The Desire to live as long as possible and, (2). The Desire to secure a lifestyle one can live with. From these twin corollary axiomatic expressions human history elides. But the primary axiom is SURVIVAL. In most cases the individual will sacrifice lifestyle to secure continued survival. The pressures of competition produces violence which threatens survival. Thus competition must be bridled with RULES to secure cooperation which increases the potential for lifestyles that can be lived with. Rules are the foundation of morals and ethics. Any foundation that does not recognize these basic facts of human nature does not have humanities best interests in mind.

Competition is driven by Limited Resources. Limited resources is the environmental circumstance that drives competition. Resources are limited by virtue of the size, mass and make-up of the planet upon which humans evolved. Thus the solution is to increase access to available resources. The universe is comprised of an almost infinite amount of resources. Humans are restrained from access to these resources by virtue of the circumstances of our biologics. The primary purpose of this theory is to formulate a foundation upon which humanity can build a stairway to heaven. Access to infinite resources can be achieved by a combination of technological advances scientifically and genetic manipulation scientifically. By genetic manipulation I mean predetermined genetic mutation to create a human that is acclimated to deep space exploration. The reduction of biological dependence. Once human inter-subjective agreement is reached, that the continued existence of humanity will necessitate this approach, the value of this theory will be realized. One of the primary results of genetic manipulation will have to be increased individual longevity/lifespan. Which brings me to a place where I can compare this theoretic foundation to other existing foundations that I may demonstrate the superiority of this theoretical foundation.

Death has always been, and remains for many people, the great mystery. Once SENSELFISHNESS recognizes its own mortality/temporality a psychological angst is created that threatens to derail the SENSELFISH desire for long life and lifestyle behavior. Theistic foundations that promise life after death become appealing as a medication for this angst. But such foundations are anti-human survival mechanisms that promulgate a status quo mentality. The maintenance of the status quo will become more and more expensive as natural resources begin to dwindle. Some of the classical theistic models carry the double whammy of an end times prophecy that is basically a “give-it-up” mentality about man's future. It is time for humanity to put away these fairy tales and embrace the reality of his condition. We have a chance, if we don't squander it, to shape our own destinies. Death is as much a part of reality as making babies. Like everything else we once feared until we removed the mystery, death will also prove not to be such a fearful event. In all likelihood it is not death that drives us to embrace faulty foundations as it is the aging process itself. I, personally, would not care to live forever, especially if that entails a continual medical treatment to sustain such an existence. Another reason why genetic manipulation is the clearest path to the securement of our SENSELFISH desires.


Which brings me to the IDENTIFICATION of OMS which resolves the mystery of DEATH, along with the angst produced by our realization of our mortality/temporality. You see, OMS is US before and after this reality. We came out of OMS. We return to OMS. OMS is a FORCE of life prior to refinement. SENSELF is the distillation of that energy. SELF is an illusion created by our imagination, like that peculiar voice with which we communicate internally. The only thing we lose upon death is the illusion. The illusion serves its purpose...here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are different from the sum of our parts. But this quantity and quality only works ...here. Within OMS, quantity and quality are infinite. The essentialness of US is already eternal. It is only the SENPSYCH perception of our SENSELF that is temporal and mortal. This biological suite of skin and bones is the mechanism that permits our temporal existence. We have all been here before, many times, in many different SENPSYCH and SENSELF configurations. HERE, in this context, is relative. The peculiar energetic force of LIFE is inexhaustible and dynamic. More than anything, OMS is a place as much as a thing somewhere in the center of this universe. How we get from there to here and back again is a mystery, to be sure, and something else to be resolved along our journey, but likely a quantum event like simultaneity.

Now, lest I be accused of delving into mysticism, let me resolve the above statements scientifically. I am postulating “LIFE” as a unique Force of energy that finds its expression via PROCESS REFINEMENT, in biologics. This is a scientific statement and one that most scientists will not argue. It is highly likely that energy, as a force, can express or manifest in any number of forms or forces. There is no reason to limit forces of energy to the four primary forces. It is all the same energy anyway, refined to work in accordance with the specifics within which it is found. A good example analogous to what I’m saying here is the process of refining oil into various grades and octanes of useable fuels. Just as the phenomenon of lightning incurs the energetic transferance of ionization into pyrotechnics and thunderous sound effects, so too does the phenomenon of LIFE incur the energetic transferance of a specific chemical combination of materials that we call biologics, into living organisms. But the refining process doesn’t end there.

LIFE energy is further Process Refined into Sentience and SENPSYCH which culminates into SENSELF. Biologically it is a distillation process such that what we call consciousness is nothing more than refined LIFE energy that expresses itself via perception, conception, cognition, imagination and memory all working together towards the end of producing a SENSELF capable of sustaining itself over time. What we lose upon death is the illusion of SENSELF, but so what. I have this pesky little voice riding around inside my head that misses no opportunity to remind me that I could have and should have behaved better than I did under X circumstances. I suspect I am not alone in this experience.


But, how does this work? For the purposes of this model I will say that when a woman ovulates an instantaneous quantological transfer of life/energy takes place between OMS and the egg. If it is fertilized it becomes more than the sum of its parts and different from its parents. If not, transference again returns the life/energy back to OMS. The male sperm contains the essential biological ingredients necessary to development into a human being. Life/energy burns through us like an acid that eventually leads to biological breakdown. We die of old age. If not, we die of something else…a disease or accident or murder. But we all die. When this happens, what’s left of that essential life/energy returns to OMS. Like a drop of rain in the ocean we lose our SENSELF immediately and return to the sea of life from whence we came. And this would hold true across the spectrum of living organisms.

We all come from the same pool. No heaven, no after-life…just blissful emergence back into the ageless, timeless sea of all living energies where bits and pieces of what was once us returns again and again as different species of plants or animals. This may be why we sometimes experience deja vu. If not here on earth, then somewhere in some other world within this universe. If matter/energy exists in a constant state of transference/recycling there’s no good reason why humans should be privileged with an exemption from this Process Refinement.

Whynot
.

In response to your criticism that I am prejudiced against supernatural considerations I concur

No I observed you wrote you hate the word supernatural and asked you why it bothers you? Hate is such an emotive word and suggest to me a lack of reasoning on your part. I criticised your theory not you. I asked you to explain what you mean on some of the points. I then gave my opinion on it. You will get worse critics when you submit it. If you put it out here, expect a mixed reception and differing responses.

If what is meant by supernatural has anything to do with imagined deities and such I have no part.

Tell me, what qualifies you as the all knowing one to assert others imagine deities. Who can say they have all knowledge? Why discount what you don`t understand without at least listening to what they do understand? thats just irrational. Of course if all you want to do is rave on about how everything you don`t understand or think you have the right to claim is nonsense, then you will just go out of your way to ignore it and pretend to tolerate theists in the certainty that you are right and they are wrong and now some new theory in science will prove you correct. Okay, we will see. I say keep the door ajar, by slamming it, you shut out knowledge. A theist is no more interested in what science claims against their theism than a scientist is on what theists claim against his discipline in science. But both can discuss the meaning of life, discuss philosophical opinions politely without being condescending and use their imaginations and learn from each other.

I read your thesis part two, liked the wording, but as I dismissed biology as being anything but biology a living cell can`t come from non matter nature alone it has to have life to live. What is life? it includes nature, we see that in that trees grow and live and die and humans but no-one can say how they originated or what is life? no one can say what is after life, unless they have experiences and their own visionary experinces and see a ghost or know their god/spirit. This is the final frontier I am interested in and science hasn`t shown it, but theism has and does show it.

Death has always been, and remains for many people, the great mystery

No it isn`t eveyone knows they die. Its no mystery, what is the mystery for most is that they can`t die, except to the physical world and that their spirit lives on after death. It isn`t fear that holds man back from discovery its his blinkeredness to only believing in the physical.

Whynot
.

In response to your criticism that I am prejudiced against supernatural considerations I concur

No I observed you wrote you hate the word supernatural and asked you why it bothers you? Hate is such an emotive word and suggest to me a lack of reasoning on your part. I criticised your theory not you. I asked you to explain what you mean on some of the points. I then gave my opinion on it. You will get worse critics when you submit it. If you put it out here, expect a mixed reception and differing responses.


Please show where I used the term "hate". Someone is gathering straw.

If what is meant by supernatural has anything to do with imagined deities and such I have no part.

Tell me, what qualifies you as the all knowing one to assert others imagine deities. Who can say they have all knowledge? Why discount what you don`t understand without at least listening to what they do understand? thats just irrational. Of course if all you want to do is rave on about how everything you don`t understand or think you have the right to claim is nonsense, then you will just go out of your way to ignore it and pretend to tolerate theists in the certainty that you are right and they are wrong and now some new theory in science will prove you correct. Okay, we will see. I say keep the door ajar, by slamming it, you shut out knowledge. A theist is no more interested in what science claims against their theism than a scientist is on what theists claim against his discipline in science. But both can discuss the meaning of life, discuss philosophical opinions politely without being condescending and use their imaginations and learn from each other.

What makes you think I don't understand theism? It is precisely because I do understand it that I adhere to a strong atheism.

I read your thesis part two, liked the wording, but as I dismissed biology as being anything but biology a living cell can`t come from non matter nature alone it has to have life to live. What is life? it includes nature, we see that in that trees grow and live and die and humans but no-one can say how they originated or what is life? no one can say what is after life, unless they have experiences and their own visionary experinces and see a ghost or know their god/spirit. This is the final frontier I am interested in and science hasn`t shown it, but theism has and does show it.

Theism makes many assertions. Anecdotal claims are not equivalent to physical evidence.

Death has always been, and remains for many people, the great mystery

No it isn`t eveyone knows they die. Its no mystery, what is the mystery for most is that they can`t die, except to the physical world and that their spirit lives on after death. It isn`t fear that holds man back from discovery its his blinkeredness to only believing in the physical.

What you call "spirit" I call a unique refined energy that manifests only in biological settings.

How are you defining intelligence, because learning requires low level intelligence. We are talking about rote retrieval, basic comprehension and some application.

High order thinking is not achieved by more then 10 percent of the population and I am being liberal.

It makes no difference what level of intelligence is present because the basic point is that intended activities that are intelligently planned are of a type different than caused events. Someone choosing to stop eating candy because they have learned that it is not good for them is still acting intelligently rather than causally, even if it didn't take an Einstein to have those thoughts.

How are you defining intelligence, because learning requires low level intelligence. We are talking about rote retrieval, basic comprehension and some application.

High order thinking is not achieved by more then 10 percent of the population and I am being liberal.

It makes no difference what level of intelligence is present because the basic point is that intended activities that are intelligently planned are of a type different than caused events. Someone choosing to stop eating candy because they have learned that it is not good for them is still acting intelligently rather than causally, even if it didn't take an Einstein to have those thoughts.

Every launching of another space flight is a caused event that was intelligently planned. Can you provide an example of an intelligently planned event that is uncaused? Isn't it true that ID proposes that existence of all natural events are the result of intelligent design? If so, then the introduction of a type of caused event that was not intelligently designed is anti-thetical to the theistic position of ID...yes?

Whynot

What makes you think I don't understand theism? It is precisely because I do understand it that I adhere to a strong atheism.

That isn`t what I said. I said the theist (not strong atheist) understands theism the scientist understands his science discipline, neither require validation from each other, both don`t really care if the other doesn`t believe what they believe or know what they know. Both can choose to communicate and learn from each other without condescensions. Leaving the door ajar lends itself to knowledge unrevealed being revealed, slamming it shut leads to blinkered thinking. Its up to you, I am saying I don`t slam doors to knowledge even if I can only see nonsense, it could be a lack in my understanding, not theirs, I find some maths illogical, nonsense, i don`t slam the door on its teachings, it could be my misunderstanding, then again I could be proven true that maths is nothing but nonsense when it gets to assert infinity exists but can`t show me it does physically. My question to you is what caused evolution? If a big bang happened what cause the big bang. we could keep going round in circles as you are using the circular logic of what caused god, I presently think that both theists and atheists use circular logic.

Another thing engineering isn`t as complex as you assert, some of the best engineers say it isn`t complex, but life is complex, an Amoeba is more complex than a computer, or anything you can build and the best scientists can`t reproduce life from non life from inorganic inanimate matter physically in test lab. My point is that both science and theism has the rational and the irrational. All human endeavor has the irrational and rational, logical and illogical and their facts and fictions. All deserve consideration. All have a truth and a wisdom to find within and that is what rational philosophers seek out.

Every launching of another space flight is a caused event that was intelligently planned. Can you provide an example of an intelligently planned event that is uncaused? Isn't it true that ID proposes that existence of all natural events are the result of intelligent design? If so, then the introduction of a type of caused event that was not intelligently designed is anti-thetical to the theistic position of ID...yes?

The launching of a space flight may have some caused elements and some that are intentional. These are two different spheres of existence that impinge on each other without a necessary connection. Strictly material causal connections are deterministic in type. The effect necessarily follows given a set of specific causal antecedents. However where conscious intent is involved any or all of the antecedent conditions may be altered to bring about a slightly different or completely different effect.

In other words, intention adds into the causal chain a factor or many that can alter a causally determined outcome so that the outcome may not follow from strictly physical antecedents. The effects continue to be determined by all the factors, but the causal antecedents to the effects are not determined solely by physical conditions. Intention has a role to play - either on part or to a degree which may include complete control over the effect. The antecedents need not be physical in origin. The causal chain can be interrupted and altered by transcendent influences which are not causal in origin, even though the effects are.

OTavern wrote

Intention has a role to play ...The antecedents need not be physical in origin.

Need not be physical??? then you must Define this "intention" outside of humans is it alien or non alien is it robotic or non robotic is it what you call God if so define god is this god non physical and not a part of or creation of humanity? is it good or bad or indifferent? Is this what you think is the originator of life which isn`t shown by evolution or theism or humans in repeatable methodological physical science? If it is its the first I have heard of this and have read on it.

BTW this point is to Whynot and OTavern ---there is no evidence scientifically or in theism of a God outside of man or of evolution springing life matter from non matter or of cause or effect. Thats all your hypothesis without the empirical evidence you say you adhere to.

(Sorry if that seems like a lot of questions at once, but I have been reading an endless amount of threads from you both without answers. I don`t mind if you both say its your hypothesis but when you state as a fact something that is in essence only your independant opinion well then I will call you on it )

OTavern wrote

In other words, intention adds into the causal chain a factor or many that can alter a causally determined outcome so that the outcome may not follow from strictly physical antecedents.

If intention has no physical correlate how can intention exert a physical effect upon physical neurons which are within the physical processes of causation.?

Whynot

What makes you think I don't understand theism? It is precisely because I do understand it that I adhere to a strong atheism.

That isn`t what I said. I said the theist (not strong atheist) understands theism the scientist understands his science discipline, neither require validation from each other, both don`t really care if the other doesn`t believe what they believe or know what they know. Both can choose to communicate and learn from each other without condescensions.


I am not convinced believers understand theism. I am impressed by the fact that a scientist will tell you when he doesn't understand something. There is no pretense and no incomprehensibility corner to run to when the questions get difficult. I prefer theory over dogma. The scientist can live without theism but how many theists are willing to jettison all the comforts and conveniences provided by science and engineering?

Leaving the door ajar lends itself to knowledge unrevealed being revealed, slamming it shut leads to blinkered thinking. Its up to you, I am saying I don`t slam doors to knowledge even if I can only see nonsense, it could be a lack in my understanding, not theirs, I find some maths illogical, nonsense, i don`t slam the door on its teachings, it could be my misunderstanding, then again I could be proven true that maths is nothing but nonsense when it gets to assert infinity exists but can`t show me it does physically.



There are many aspects of reality beyond mathematical certainty. That's partly why science deals in probabilities.



My question to you is what caused evolution?



1. Process refinement. All existent aspects of our universe exist in a constant state of change...hence process theories, on the macro level, offer a better explanation than causal chains because they account for emergent patterns in nature from which we derive such concepts as evolution.

2. Theoretical laws that also appear to change depending on the scale of the processes involved.

3. Polar opposition to complete stasis. Originally man believed in creation by divine fiat...across the board. Now some believe in creation by divine evolution but science just posits evolution without divinity. Evolution is just a description of processes that refine from simple to more complex over time and under specific conditions.


If a big bang happened what cause the big bang.


This one is still open for debate. Many astronomers and physicists do not embrace a BB cosmology, in fact, it has been falsified on numerous occasions.


we could keep going round in circles as you are using the circular logic of what caused god, I presently think that both theists and atheists use circular logic.


Unfortunately, when addressing questions on a cosmological scale, we have only two options: Circularity or Infinite regress. I prefer infinite regress and I interpret many theoretics to be more consistent to infinite regress than circularity. Now this necessitates we deal with unpleasant things like infinities and modalities but so what? Do we always follow the path of least resistance to get at truth?

Another thing engineering isn`t as complex as you assert, some of the best engineers say it isn`t complex, but life is complex, an Amoeba is more complex than a computer, or anything you can build and the best scientists can`t reproduce life from non life from inorganic inanimate matter physically in test lab. My point is that both science and theism has the rational and the irrational. All human endeavor has the irrational and rational, logical and illogical and their facts and fictions. All deserve consideration. All have a truth and a wisdom to find within and that is what rational philosophers seek out.

I see...and what do irrational philosophers seek out? If you think I am being irrational in delimiting theism as having any epistemic value, then so be it. You are entitled to think what you will. I could care less. Sentient life was inevitable. Its continued existence as such is not. Humans are the only species capable of experiencing and expressing tremendous compassion/sympathy and cruelty in the same breath. The intern who, after a 16 hour day at the hospital, returns home to find his house and family utterly decimated by the indescriminate bombing launched by warships two hundred miles offshore...collateral damage. And we wonder why hatred is so difficult to assuage. Yet the lioness who returns to her den with the remnants of a baby gazelle to discover her cubs have been killed and eaten by hyenas appears to have no recourse to justice nor seeks it. Such is the reality evolution has produced...unless you would prefer to blame it on God.

OTavern wrote:


The launching of a space flight may have some caused elements and some that are intentional. These are two different spheres of existence that impinge on each other without a necessary connection.

Could you elaborate on these "caused elements" that are without a necessary connection to the intention of launching a space flight?

OTavern wrote: Strictly material causal connections are deterministic in type. The effect necessarily follows given a set of specific causal antecedents. However where conscious intent is involved any or all of the antecedent conditions may be altered to bring about a slightly different or completely different effect.

But this isn't true when the launching of a space flight is the intended goal unless there are other conscious intentions at play to thwart the goal of launching a space flight. A sabatoure for instance.

OTavern wrote: In other words, intention adds into the causal chain a factor or many that can alter a causally determined outcome so that the outcome may not follow from strictly physical antecedents.

Then you are proposing the ole "ghost in the machine"?

OTavern wrote: The effects continue to be determined by all the factors, but the causal antecedents to the effects are not determined solely by physical conditions. Intention has a role to play - either on part or to a degree which may include complete control over the effect. The antecedents need not be physical in origin. The causal chain can be interrupted and altered by transcendent influences which are not causal in origin, even though the effects are.

When you say "physical in origin" then where do you propose these non-physical intentions originated? Are you playing on the brain/mind false dichotomy or just hinting at some sort of spirit world with a factor of intentionality that affects science and its physical determinants? Acts of God?
For instance, what would you recommend to a physicist at CERN doing complex particle research, to antecedently allow for the possibility of an uncaused effect producing unanticipated results in his experiments? By what epistemic means would said physicist prepare for such a contingency? Should he take with him into the lab a rabbits foot, or bible, or Quran, or a copy of the Vedras?

And what if his experiments uncover something strange like sub-atomic particles that appear to select existence in a state of matter vs. anti-matter a greater percentage of the time? Another ghost in the machine? Quantum particles with a primitive sort of volition? Capable of self determining the state of their own existence? How would you recommend he interpret such data? Godittit? Or perhaps a different set of theoretical rules that would account for how matter complexifies to a state of animance? Would you recommend he fax off a copy of his findings to the Vatican or to the scientists doing research in abiogenesis?

Sorry if this sounds condescending but you do see the ludicrousity in your proposition...yes?

Belinda wrote: If intention has no physical correlate how can intention exert a physical effect upon physical neurons which are within the physical processes of causation.?

And I would add...what determines these non-physical intentions? Certainly intentions presuppose a will or purpose...yes? By what epistemic means do we ascertain what these non-physical intentions are in order to construct our research in such a way as to allow for their participation? Should we build a set of bleachers for the angels to have a place to sit during the next launching?

Furthermore, when scientists like Einstein were busy constructing the first nuclear warhead, to later be deployed against Japan, AFTER they had surrendered, wouldn't this have been a perfect opportunity for these uncaused intentions to have intervened and prevented this science from flourishing? Yet I also notice that theists must have grown tired of waiting for this uncaused intention to intervene in the case of stem cell research and organized a lobby that persuaded Bush to enact a ban on this research for 8 years. Funny that...but everytime science dabbles in things that ultimately lead to catastrophe, I see no evidence of this uncaused intention displaying any intention of interfering in man's follies. I do see plenty of self proclaimed mouth pieces working up a mob mentality to interfere on its behalf, so there must be some truth to what you say about these uncaused intentions having an effect on intelligent planning. It's just not going to intervene directly when its got all these faithful followers available...yes?

And while I'm on the subject, I have also noticed that a large number of theists appear to be adamantly against homosexuality. Now that many of them also accept some form of divine evolution and most psychologists hold that homosexuality is the result of a specific genetic configuration, one has to wonder why a deity would intentionally include this genetic configuration in his creative acts and then proclaim it morally reprehensible.

Whynot you didn`t address my analogy that you can physically show me there is evidence scientifically from evolution springing life matter from non matter or of cause or effect. Who or what would evolutionists claim are the cause and effect? this would lead to me asking you What was the first cause? Rationally speaking there would need to be a first cause to make an effect? its the same as theism saying without physical evidence that god is first cause or a prime mover.

Now I will address your post you say

I am impressed by the fact that a scientist will tell you when he doesn't understand something.

I don`t think scientists deny they know their science, why would they? it would make them look inept, some pretend they know things they don`t to cover this problem up. that doesn`t mean they know theism as they admit they don`t understand anything outside of their field. I haven`t heard a theist tell me they always understand everything about science either so what is your point exactly?

Whynot wrote the cause of evolution was

Process change

But that isn`t what I asked, I asked the first cause of non life becoming life I asked why life? I said a chemical or big bang explosion or any test under science lab conditions cannot produce living cells from non living matter or non living cells yet whynot trusts that evolution asserts it as true.

Whynot you didn`t address my analogy


What analogy? I read several unsupported assertions about what evolution cannot do. Abiogenesis is the science of chemical reactions leading up to specific biologic processes.

Kapra wrote: that you can physically show me there is evidence scientifically from evolution springing life matter from non matter or of cause or effect.


What is non matter? Do you mean anti-matter? Because there is an article in the Scientific American online ozine about a recent discovery of quantum particles that prefer to exist in a state of matter over anti-matter a greater percentage of the time. Reality is very strange on the quantum level.

Kapra wrote: Who or what would evolutionists claim are the cause and effect? this would lead to me asking you What was the first cause? Rationally speaking there would need to be a first cause to make an effect? its the same as theism saying without physical evidence that god is first cause or a prime mover.



First cause is a moot issue in an infinitely regressive universe. There would be no such animal.

I am impressed by the fact that a scientist will tell you when he doesn't understand something.

Kapra wrote: I don`t think scientists deny they know their science,


I suggest you reread my statement. Nowhere in the above did I even remotely hint at a claim that scientists deny they know science.


Kapra wrote: why would they? it would make them look inept, some pretend they know things they don`t to cover this problem up. that doesn`t mean they know theism as they admit they don`t understand anything outside of their field.

This straw gathering fest is amusing. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I only ask because this is not the first time you've made this blatant of a mistake about what I said.

Kapra wrote: I haven`t heard a theist tell me they always understand everything about science either so what is your point exactly?

You've so twisted my point now that it no longer matters.



Kapra wrote: Whynot wrote the cause of evolution was
Process change

Process refinement. Try not to butcher it in the restatement. Words have specific meanings.

Kapra wrote: But that isn`t what I asked, I asked the first cause of non life becoming life I asked why life? I said a chemical or big bang explosion or any test under science lab conditions cannot produce living cells from non living matter or non living cells yet whynot trusts that evolution asserts it as true.


I assert that it has a much higher probability of being the correct explanation than godittit. I also provided a theoretical replacement for godittit as the driver of these processes that totally eliminates the question of first causes, creation stories, telelogical rationalizations, etc...along with an extremely credible cosmological model of the universe. Now, what have YOU done to resolve these questions? If they are so important to you then why wait on some appeal to authority for a resolution? You have a few functioning brain cells left. Use them!