Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Jal 




Since gravitational attraction was detected and measured more than two centuries ago, how can it be ‘intangible’?

Boru

Does it behave just like tangible matter?

Oh that's right, it's defined as immaterial/ intangible in the science world.  

Enjoy your delusions.

No, gravity is not defined as intangible in the science world.

Enjoy your denialism.

Boru

[Jal]

Please don't lie about my position. 

Sadly, if I leave this thread, looks like people are going to fill it up with lies. Shame on them.

If we promise not to fill it up with lies, will you promise to leave?

Boru

Why should I take such promises at face value? Having seen people lie already?

[Jal]

Does it behave just like tangible matter?

Oh that's right, it's defined as immaterial/ intangible in the science world.  

Enjoy your delusions.

No, gravity is not defined as intangible in the science world.

Enjoy your denialism.

Boru

So gravity is regular tangible matter. Got it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, gravity is not defined as intangible in the science world.

Enjoy your denialism.

Boru

So gravity is regular tangible matter. Got it.

No, it’s a tangible force. And you don’t ‘got it’ (and I fear you never will).

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If we promise not to fill it up with lies, will you promise to leave?

Boru

Why should I take such promises at face value? Having seen people lie already?

You can trust me. I’m a blacksmith.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

According to you, we detect it all the time.  Goes back to that question I had for you why you would select or create one set of problems over another.  This undetectability business is a burden pan psychism can’t bear.  It is supposed to be in the seeming evidence and potency of souls interactions in the world that you believe it to be a credible worldview in the first place.  All of those eggheads with their lab coats studying things like sekection and neural networks are discovering -how- soul interacts in the world as a heritable trait with material force.

We detect it all the time? I don't think so. Instruments can detect punches but won't know what percentage of the momentum was due to ATP, on the one hand, and the soul's self-propulsion on the other.

If throwing a punch is something that a soul is doing…then I’d say yes. Every time you throw a punch we’re detecting the action of soul on and in the material world. Presumably and specifically, the soul is interacting with nervous tissues whose purpose is to organize and direct even more action further down the causal chain. Feedback loops like hunger provide your soul with the information it needs to be effective as a free willing decision maker….and all of this being thoroughly material and of obvious survival benefit, in addition to both the structures and the souls being a heritable trait……then far from seeming insufficient, atrial selection (or any other bit of science which threatens your religiosity) is actually a demonstration of these operating principles -and- an explanation of -how- they work. How it all interacts.

Now….all of that is internal. It’s at least a way to make the things you say logically consistent and avoid loading them down with issues a thinking person ought to be embarrassed with. It will still have all sorts of evidentiary issues, and at least one logical issue. Parsimony.

If even you believe that all this stuff would -seem- like it doesn’t need a soul to work. That none of this suffices as soul detection….then I’d say I agree here in mere reality….but that’s not really my problem.

[Jal]

So gravity is regular tangible matter. Got it.

No, it’s a tangible force. And you don’t ‘got it’ (and I fear you never will).

Boru

Oxymoron.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, it’s a tangible force. And you don’t ‘got it’ (and I fear you never will).

Boru

Oxymoron.

No, you just don’t understand that words mean different things in science than they do in everyday life.

Boru

[Angrboda]

My dismissal of it was justified by Hume's reasoning in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, already given.  It was many things, hand-waving wasn't one of them.  It was fully justified.  You are simply telling lies now.

The only reason philosophers will try to exempt the brain from billiard-ball collision is because it contradicts their assumptions.

I've shown plenty example of idiocy in traditional theology, among brilliant scholars. Now here you're just showing me an example of idiocy among professional philosophers.

Sorry I ain't buying this nonsense. I don't believe in magic - a material object can be impacted only in a billiard-ball collision.

Enjoy your delusions

None of this is showing an argument for a specific belief. It is showing how your analogy, the only support you've given, is flawed. Complaints about philosophers don't fix that. You provided one support for your principle, an analogy. I've shown that the analogy that you've used is insufficient. That leaves your principle with no defense other than a litany of appeals to the stone. That means that your principle about intangible forces, as it sits, is no better off than something you pulled from your ass. It can be dismissed without support until and unless you provide some support for it. Until you do so, you have given me just reason to dismiss your whole set of beliefs based upon parsimony and the fact that they are just speculation that is, from the point of evidence, no better off than the standard story.

You can either think up better support for this principle of yours, or keep making fallacious appeals to the stone in a vain attempt to deny your lost argument.

[Jal]

The only reason philosophers will try to exempt the brain from billiard-ball collision is because it contradicts their assumptions.

I've shown plenty example of idiocy in traditional theology, among brilliant scholars. Now here you're just showing me an example of idiocy among professional philosophers.

Sorry I ain't buying this nonsense. I don't believe in magic - a material object can be impacted only in a billiard-ball collision.

Enjoy your delusions

None of this is showing an argument for a specific belief.  It is showing how your analogy, the only support you've given, is flawed.  Complaints about philosophers don't fix that.  You provided one support for your principle, an analogy.  I've shown that the analogy that you've used is insufficient.  That leaves your principle with no defense other than a litany of appeals to the stone.  That means that your principle about intangible forces, as it sits, is no better off than something you pulled from your ass.  It can be dismissed without support until and unless you provide some support for it.  Until you do so, you have given me just reason to dismiss your whole set of beliefs based upon parsimony and the fact that they are just speculation that is, from the point of evidence, no better off than the standard story.

You can either think up better support for this principle of yours, or keep making fallacious appeals to the stone in a vain attempt to deny your lost argument.

You can keep believing in magical/supernatural effects on matter. You'd fit in quite well with any group of medieval theologians.

I'll stick to believing a dynamic I can see with my own eyes and reproduce, called billiard-ball collisions.