Sometimes I feel sorry for the DI. They try so hard to pretend that ID is not creationism.
3 Likes
Maybe they should include large stickers on all Meyer’s books saying “Warning: Intelligent Design is not Creationism”. That might help get the message out. 
2 Likes
How is intelligent design not indicative of a creator or at least an intelligent designer?
2 Likes
It is, but the DI, including Stephen Meyer, as well as many other Intelligent Design proponents, refuses to admit that ID is Creationism.
3 Likes
I’m a mystic logician and a theist.
Does that pay well?
I’m a number cruncher in Wisconsin, but originally from on of the big square states.
1 Like
Not at all and that’s why I love it. I’m not into material things nor materialistic explanations that make no logical sense. Empiricism is great but just because it’s something can’t be quantified doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a quality. Oftentimes those things that you have a quality but not a quantity are much more real than anything that can be measured or Quantified.
I think I understand what you mean. I refer to it as “value” rather than quantity or quality. For example, a person may place value on a concept (courage, loyalty, God?) which has no physical quantity or quality. People will have varying degrees of value for the same concepts (ignoring the possibility of different concepts with the same name! 
) I think in this context quality seems to be the same thing as value. Is that a fair description?
1 Like
I would say it sounds pretty fair but my point is that some things have a quantitative nature it means that they can be measured therefore they’re empirical and other things have a qualitative nature which means they cannot be measured but they are subjective experiences or viewpoints or values as you state
- There is no empirical evidence for God for example that is correct the problem is empirical evidence only relies upon sensory input and as the film the matrix has elucidated quite clearly that can be very false we could be a brain in a vat, a computer program, a hallucination of the universal mind, or a character in someone’s dream, or a simulation.
- Either way this proves that empirical or sensory evidence which is what most materialists and naturalists such as Richard Dawkins rely on primarily to be a lower form of intelligence after all even animals have empirical senses which they rely upon
- rationality and logic which is higher than an empiricism allows us to have thoughts such as “wow I’m actually thinking right now!” to have the awareness of thoughts and consciousness in addition we have inductive and deductive reasoning and rationality
For example love exists and it’s much more than just a neurochemical state in the brain.
however how do I measure love if I am a materialist naturalist atheistic scientist
am I going to measure it in joules? grams ? perhaps liters? No it cannot be empirically verified measured yet it does exist it’s real it’s more meaningful and purposeful than any of the materialistic things that can be measured that’s my point
I’m not sure it matters what type of scientist you are. Whether a “naturalist atheist” or “theist” or “christian”, we don’t have good ways of measuring love. Don’t we all agree, any ways, that science is not an account of everything?
2 Likes
I would hope that most rational people would agree to that statement. However, the vast majority of naturalists and atheistic materialists I’ve talked to cannot accept it. They seem to be more dogmatically chained to their version of empirical-only and that which is verifiably tested through the scientific method. Therefore it creates a sort of false dichotomy between that which only has a quantitative nature and that which has a qualitative nature.
Try an fMRI machine.
1 Like
It’s very sad that anybody would really think that love is just merely a neuro chemical state but if that’s your position so be it
I have a lot of respect for agnostics as they are willing to admit that they don’t know either way they are inclusive to both possibilities. Whereas theists and atheists are adamantly sure in their mutually exclusive beliefs.
Have you ever found it interesting that atheists like to think about God more than most theists? Especially considering that the definition of atheism lies in its secondary relation to theism. If there wasn’t a belief in God they could never be a non-belief in God. Therefore they are relative to subjective to and dependent upon theism existing in the first place by the nature of their definition.
What’s this “just merely”? Love is an emotion, and can be one of the things that make life worth living. But it is also, or is caused by a “neuro chemical state”. The realization that this is the case does not entail any diminishment in the worth or value of that experience, or the value of the bond between sentient beings. It can be both a “neuro chemical state” and have value and significance to those who experience it. These are not mutually exclusive properties.
2 Likes
I agree with you they’re not mutually exclusive but as I stated in an earlier post most materialists and naturalists discard discount and discredit that which only has a qualitative nature and not a quantitative nature. As you have clearly elucidated now most but not all.
I disagree with your assessment that it’s caused by a neurochemical state. The neurochemical state simply measures and explains what the levels of particular neurochemical such as endorphine and dopamine are in the brain of the experiencier at any particular moment. That does not explain what love is or why love is BUT only how love is maybe who love is(only as far as the experiencers concerned and not who or what he is in love with) and possibly where love is as far as the specific location in the brain.
If I cut out or damage certain parts of your brain you would lose the ability to love or be emphatic. Love is based on neurochemistry.
2 Likes