(October 26, 2011 at 9:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's determined by evidence. In this case, the evidence says bullshit, next?
Fallacy of reification, evidence doesn’t “say” anything. You are too easy.
(October 26, 2011 at 9:21 pm)IATIA Wrote: This is where I am still on the bench. We are either 100% biochemical robots without free will or control or we are not. If we have an ability that is not controlled by our biochemical makeup, then it must be external to the body. If it is external to the body, then there is the problem of the integration of this will/mind to the physical body. On the other hand, the body does not exist except in our minds (quasi 'dream state') which solves the issue of attachment. This, of course, presents a whole new set of problems. And the god thing cannot work in these scenarios either. (No preaching.)
Not to mention you have the whole quandary where physical processes can affect mental processes, but mental processes can also affect physical processes.
The God of scripture does solve the problem I would contend. However, if you are a true consistent naturalist I believe you would have to be a determinist on this issue. Which would raise an even bigger question, why are you even having this discussion with me? If our thoughts are merely the result of physical processes in the brain, then why do your physical processes care about what thoughts and beliefs my physical processes are producing in my brain? Interesting stuff.
(October 27, 2011 at 1:14 am)IATIA Wrote: Unfortunately, to a certain extent, it is. Just ask the folks before the Wright brothers took off. Sometimes what is perceived as a fact may be revealed to be otherwise with new information.
Not really, what we perceive as facts may be demonstrated to no longer be facts in the future, hence why majority and consensus have never determined what is and is not scientific fact. If it really worked the opposite way we would never progress because nobody could “buck the system” with a new idea.
(October 27, 2011 at 11:01 am)Rhythm Wrote: If new information could be provided to turn his bad science into good science we wouldn't be having this discussion. Until such a time, I call epic BS.
Again, this is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to popularity. The majority does not determine what science is, nor does it determine what is and is not fact. The sooner you drop that canard the sooner you will be on your way to a better understanding of how the world works.
