# Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [January 18, 2026, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641 "2026-01-18T20:01:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/1 "2026-01-18T20:01:42Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/156):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> 
> That’s a fine request, but can you grapple with the possibility that someone could sincerely offer that prayer and come away still not believing in God?
> 
> I’m a Christian too btw.

Glad to hear you have faith! And I would mention people seeing Jesus do miracles, and saying “It’s of the devil” (Mt. 12:24). Or Frank Turek challenging people by asking them “If Christianity was true, would you become a Christian?” He reports that some hesitate, and some say no! He then remarks that this shows that some are not on a truth quest, they are on a happiness quest. That “there is a God” is an unacceptable conclusion, they don’t want there to be a God, they want to be their own God.

So this is a known response, this does happen, sadly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/2 "2026-01-18T20:03:22Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/157):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/134):
> >
> > Yet we reject a quite logical argument that stems from paranoia, from unreasoning causes! If everyone is out to get you, you quite logically won’t call the police if something bad happens to you, because of course, they are out to get you too. **An argument coming from nonreason, we always reject it, we don’t consider that valid reasoning,** it’s part of a meritorious argument.
> 
> The paranoid is reasoning, albeit from incorrect information or mental aberration, but that is not “coming from nonreason”; it is reasoning to an incorrect conclusion.

No, I point out here that their logic is quite correct! The problem is not with their reasoning, instead it’s with their perception that everyone is out to get them, it’s with their premise.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/157):
>
> And FWIW, it is also possibly (but perhaps unlikely) to reach a correct conclusion from faulty reasoning.

Quite so! You have perhaps seen the FarSide cartoon where a mathematician has put up a proof on the blackboard, where one step reads “And then a miracle happens…”

Or once I put up a proof for my math teacher’s challenge, and as I was presenting it, he said “There! You divided by zero.” And I had! But the challenge was to prove a true statement, only my proof was faulty, even though it got the right result.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/3 "2026-01-18T20:03:53Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/158):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> 
> Genuinely doing this sincerely is among the reasons I stoppped believing in my mid-twenties. That is to say, though I always had doubts I was already a believer back then, but went through an extended period of analysing the basis for my faith. It sort of culminated with the realization I could never fully convince myself and stop doubting without something concrete and compelling.
> 
> Spoiler: nothing happened. God didn’t reveal himself.
> 
> Now it’s your turn to rationalize why it didn’t happen with some ad-hoc story you can’t substantiate and will almost certainly be false.

I’m sorry that happened, now I can’t claim to know your case well enough to describe it, but I can say I had the same wrestling with doubts, and reading apologetics, notable C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles, a Preliminary Study helped me a lot. But even after reading a lot of apologetics (I mean, a lot!), and even after experiencing a number of healings, some of them dramatic, and even after God answering my prayer for him to do X for me, if he cared for me, and X happened, my faith wasn’t growing like I had hoped. Very odd, and unexpected, I know.

But all that changed, when I stopped praying seeking insight and help, and instead started recently to pray “Who are you, Lord?” Kind of along the lines of “If you are real, reveal yourself to me,” I started seeking not to strengthen my faith directly, but indirectly, seeking to know God better.

The more you know someone, the more you will trust them, if they’re trustworthy. That’s what I recommend now, God is a person, not a set of propositions. Evidence for propositions can be helpful, but they’re no substitute for seeking and developing a relationship…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/4 "2026-01-18T20:05:03Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/160):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/142):
> >
> > I assume that both our perceptions and thoughts are connected to reality, and further, that you, I, and Darwin for that matter, reason based on nothing more.
> 
> Me: I’m making an assumption
> 
> Lee: But that’s an assumption
> 
> Me: Yes, I’m assuming that rationality is accounted for by reality
> 
> Lee: You are concluding your assumption
> 
> Me: It is an assumption, not a conclusion
> 
> Lee: But you cannot argue that way
> 
> Me: It’s not an argument, I just assume that we can ascertain external reality, you can do no better.
> 
> Lee: So what’s your argument?

Maybe let me present my own arguments? But you do present your assumption in response to the problem outlined by Darwin and Haldane and others, if you do that, you are obviously presenting your assumption as a conclusion. You are not merely presenting an assumption, from which you derive nothing.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/160):
>
> Yes. Reasoning is fallible, which is consistent with natural development, and not being derived from some ultimate, self sufficient source.

I’ve presented reasons that our reasoning should actually be imperfect, even if it’s derived from a perfect, self-existent reason. Perfect reasoning may well require omniscience, for one! I mentioned other reasons. Now you need to address my responses, and not just repeat your conclusion, as if I said nothing in reply.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/160):
>
> You may want, desire, demand, a more foundational assurance, but you can’t always get what you want just because you want it.

But you must show that the foundation I propose is not appropriate, or flawed, or something. For starters, how is what I propose, wish-fulfillment?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/161):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.
> 
> Stop right now telling me why I reject certain claims. You have been informed previously that my test of anyone’s statements is how they measure against reality, not the source.

But you all are not doing that, is my point! When people say I am only speculating, they are pointing to a source that my source is some need to speculate, such as wish-fulfillment, as you did just now. They are not measuring what I say against reality, my conclusions are actually being dismissed, not examined.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/5 "2026-01-18T20:15:59Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > How does this not address your challenges and questions?
> 
> That’s like asking how lime jello is not limestone. You just can’t list all the ways.

That was not my question, I wasn’t asking you to list all possible wrong answers, you were claiming my answer does not address your challenges and questions, I need you now to defend your claim.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Certainly, gifts are not earned, rewards are.
> 
> But “rewards” was your word. If not heaven, then what were you saying was the reward for endurance of suffering or for overcoming adversity? And it must be something other than “refining”, because that was a separate reason.

Well, lots of various rewards are listed for those who overcome, in Revelation 2-3, for example! Privileges, authority, and so on, too many to list here.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I could reply the same!
> 
> You could. But there we stop, still with none of my questions answered.

But you missed my question, somehow: How have I contradicted myself, for starters?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> Are you really in favor of torture? How is the rich man being refined?

No, torture is really pejorative, but the rich man was in torment, specifically because in his life, he received his good things. Presumably now he is getting what he should have been getting by denying himself.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > more like what Lewis described
> 
> Which is idiosyncratic and without scriptural support, wouldn’t you agree?

[Here](http://lee-notes.org/2021/02/28/purgatory/) are my thoughts on purgatory, if you are interested, lots of Scripture, by the way! I agree that that my view is unusual, though.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Because it’s healthy to acknowledge that we need help, that we are not omnipotent, that we are not God. That’s one reason.
> 
> This is like a guy who trips you because it’s good for you to ask him for help in getting up.

Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said. “We are not omnipotent, we are not God” explains “we need help.”

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Actually, he’s pointing to reasoning we all do subscribe to, we reject reasoning when we see it comes from nonreasoning causes, and this is not circular.
> 
> You keep repeating this even though nobody has ever agreed with you and in most cases have pointed out to you why it isn’t true

I repeat this because it’s true! I even point out people applying this principle to what I say, in this thread. And nobody has demonstrated how what I say is untrue, instead they keep repeating their view, and I then try and address their view. But nobody actually has refuted my view, instead they give a flat denial, and then give a substitute.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> And Lewis is out to lunch. there is no such tacit request.

Well, there is, people are being asked to treat the materialist’s argument as an argument like what people normally think they are doing themselves, where people consider that they are originating their argument, and they are not being moved around like a puppet.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> A cause doesn’t have to share the same properties as its effect.

Certainly, Henry Ford was not a car, I remarked to someone accusing me of being an essentialist.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> If arguments are caused by reasoning processes, what causes the reasoning processes?

A self-existent reason, is the answer that is the response that has been given by many. Which prevents an infinite regress.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.
> 
> No, still backwards. I claim your statements are due to non-reason because they aren’t reasonable statements. And sheer speculation isn’t a cause, it’s a description of the statement.

Well, as I just mentioned in another reply, saying I’m speculating means I have a motive to speculate, such as wish-fulfillment, which someone accused me of here just recently. That would be pointing to a nonreasoning cause, as would saying I have an unthinking commitment to intelligent design, or that I’m stupid (someone did say that), and so on, I could present many examples of people dismissing what I say by pointing to an unreasoning cause.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> But we have to distinguish questions of observable facts from questions of unsupported opinion.

Sure, we have to pick authorities to believe, with care.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> Caesar’s authorship is a claim made in his book, and other contemporary sources agree that he was the author, as well as agreeing that he existed.

How can you know Caesar wrote the book which he claimed to write, though? On authority, someone told you he wrote it, and it’s not pseudopigraphy. How do you know contemporary sources were not lying, and that he existed? You trust them as reliable authorities. I can do this with almost every claim of you examining evidence, I can get eventually to some appeal to authority.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> You have to learn to distinguish unsupported opinion from claims of fact.

I do distinguish them, I look for evidence that the person making a statement is reliable, and has training in the area of interest, and so on.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> Note that your various quotes are not claims of fact and are not evidence that the opinions expressed are correct, just evidence that some people held those opinions.

Really? When I quote people, I intend that to be evidence that their statements should be given serious consideration, for the reasons such as those mentioned above.

I’m tempted to apply your standard to your own statements, and call them just evidence that you hold this or that opinion.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random! Oops, I think you just did all that.
> 
> If you don’t know what “ad hominem fallacy” means, just say so and then go look it up. I’ll wait here. But it’s clear from that reply that you don’t know.

Well, let’s go [to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem): “_ **Ad hominem** _ ([Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language "Latin language") for ‘to the person’), short for _ **argumentum ad hominem** _, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.”

“Obfuscation” would be attacking my character, people usually have an intent to obscure an issue when they do that, “contradicting myself” would be saying I am an oblivious person, who can’t see what he is doing, attacking a supposed attribute I have, and “wandering around at random” would be saying I am aimless, bereft of any good purpose, attacking my motives. And none of these statements address any actual arguments I have made.

I could point to many such examples directed at me in this forum…

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > But a want does not imply a need.
> 
> Very well. Why does he want us to depend on him?

Because it’s healthy for us to acknowledge we are not omniscient, and so on, we are not God, it’s sanity.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/151):
> >
> > It’s the statements of the delirious person that are illogical, contrary to Chesterton.
> 
> So you are saying the causes of delirium are somehow logical?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> No. I’m saying nothing even slightly like that. At this point, do you even know what you’re trying to say?

Your statement directly implies that the view that the causes of the delirious thoughts are illogical, is mistaken. And if they are not illogical, then they are logical.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > My view is that natural selection could possibly produce a brain that has valid reasoning, just like a tornado could assemble my laptop! I think I used that example.
> 
> You did, and I pointed out the important difference, which you continually ignore.

I try and respond to your points, actually, and I don’t recall your response here. There is a lot of water under the bridge, here! And I can’t keep all the responses in my head.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > A rational creator might have more purposes than just making perfect machinery.
> 
> Of course, the appeal to mysterious ways is a get-out-of-problems-free card. But what purposes?

A perfect machine might be unnecessarily complex, for example, in many applications, a three-wheel vehicle will do, or even a two-wheeler, four wheels may be more than is needed. But if you can afford it, buy a four-wheel ATM! So there may be tradeoffs we are unaware of in, say, making a particular flagellum or a cilium. Of which, may it be said, there are many types!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And it’s good if we need help, as I have argued.
> 
> Because it keeps us humble, not uppity?

That’s a good reason, I hadn’t thought of that one!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> And yet that training and correction apparently results in a lot of people going to long-lasting, perhaps eternal torment.

Well, my view on that is a little different, I see three threads in scripture, eternal punishment, destruction of the wicked, and God “all in all”. Now how all these can be true, I don’t know, but there does seem to be good warrant in scripture for all three, and I don’t want to do what most people do, and pick one, and erase the others. I will additionally mention what I heard of one professor saying, “The people in Jesus’ day thought they had the first coming all figured out, and they were all wrong!” And they were.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> For one thing, if he could create the best possible world, it wouldn’t need training and correction. No reason for this temporary imperfect world when he could go straight to the goal.

One verse in reply, “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Rom.11:32) That’s one reason.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > In a puppet show, the puppets aren’t initiating anything in and of themselves, so I think the analogy is apt.
> 
> Sure, until you ask yourself what’s initiating the actions of the puppetmaster, and we’re back to the homunculus theory, and infinite regress.

But I was applying that to the materialist view! So it applies to your view, not mine.

I could mention in passing Dawkins, in a debate with Lennox, presenting his prime objection to a Creator, asking “Who created your creator?” Lennox, in addition to replying that Christians believe in a self-existent, eternal God, turned the tables, and mentioned that Dawkins believed that the universe created him. So, Lennox asked, who created your creator? Still waiting for a response on that one…

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I am saying I am the author of my thoughts. That is actually what people think, they don’t think this is a delusion.
> 
> But do they think about what that actually means? What is “I”?

They consider themselves real agents, though there is disagreement about metaphysics, such as a soul, or a mind outside the brain, and so on.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Not to mention that people who think their thoughts are being controlled, get steered to an asylum.
> 
> You still have this caricature view of consciousness that prevents you from thinking about it at all. Ironic, really.

Are you saying now your thoughts are not generated ultimately just by the motions of atoms in your brain? Causes imply control. And I believe I mentioned to you to try telling a judge “my brain atoms did it!” and seeing how far that gets you.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And the man in delirium is reasoning quite soundly,
> 
> I see no indication of that in your little stories.

He quite logically concludes there are snakes in the room, because he sees them. It’s logical to generally trust your perceptions. And the paranoid man is quite logical in not calling the police to help him, because of course, they are out to get him, too. Quite logical!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > But you just did that with me! You say I am confused, for instance, and thus you imply that you can reject what I say, you point to the cause of my incorrect reasoning and conclusions.
> 
> That’s not at all what I do. Again, I reject what you say because it makes no sense, and on a case by case basis. I do hypothesize about the causes of your incorrect statements, but I reject them because they’re incorrect, not because you’re an irrational person.

But you’re not pointing to my reasoning, or examining it at all! You’re pointing to the cause, I’m starting out confused, and because of that you dismiss what I say.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > There is data if I have medical records, which I do.
> 
> Still just one case.

But as I mentioned, one arguably supernatural event undoes the whole materialist view.

“… if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.” (Chesterton)

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > But one really supernatural answer is all that is required here, to prove there is something supernatural going on.
> 
> True. But how do you know it’s really supernatural? This is why quantity has a quality all its own. Perhaps you were initially misdiagnosed. Perhaps there are rare, spontaneous recoveries that your doctor didn’t know about.

Well, they did a bunch of tests, one of which was a treadmill test, where the doctor kept saying “Save that!” Evidently something unusual was being observed. So I think it unlikely that I was misdiagnosed, as mentioned, any time I wanted, I could check my pulse and detect extra beats. Now I can’t, and the doctor firmly announced “You do not have mitral valve prolapse.” And an appeal to unknown recovery paths is dubious at best. I agree that any miracle can be dismissed as a confluence of extraordinary, or even unknown, natural causes. But it seems you are willing to take any escape route, no matter how improbable. So restoring limbs can be explained in the same sort of way, “Salamanders do it!” for example.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I have had a number of such dramatic healings!
> 
> This makes you less credible, if anything. Why are you so special? Most people who pray for miracles don’t get them, yet you do repeatedly.

That’s a weird kind of refutation, especially after saying more miracles would be more convincing. But in Jesus’ day, people got healed a lot! And they weren’t some kind of special people. I know I’m not, so I recommend asking, I do know God can heal.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> 
> Sure. Which god should I start with? And why?

Well, [Richard Lorenzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBypK3LRyAE) just prayed for the higher power to reveal himself! He didn’t put an address on the envelope. [Keith Green](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8x-jrOHj0) pointed out that in his examination of different religions, everyone seemed to say Jesus was a way, and Jesus said he was _the_ way. So he said, I think I’ll go with trying Jesus first. Just a couple of pointers…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/6 "2026-01-18T20:16:13Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/163):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> 
> Tried that when I was younger. Didn’t work. Now what?

Well, you could check my response to Rumraket on that…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/7 "2026-01-18T20:16:37Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/164):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> 
> And another thing. I don’t believe it’s possible for me to do this sincerely. Ask yourself whether you could sincerely address such a prayer to Santa Claus, or Zeus, or Thor.

Well, I would refer you to my response to John Harshman!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/8 "2026-01-18T20:16:56Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/166):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > No, again, that is not the Christian view, faith is not something that is meritorious, it is also a gift, God is the source of it, not us (Heb. 12:2)
> 
> Is that why you avoid the evidence, then?

But I look for evidence for belief, while also expecting it needs to be given as well, by God. God can start up our faith, with evidence!

“If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:37-38)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/9 "2026-01-18T20:17:17Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.
> 
> Well, you provide a perfect example of that!

Are you admitting that people here are applying the principle of rejecting reasoning if they perceive it’s cause by nonreasoning causes?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random!
> 
> None of those are _ad hominem_. Why not just admit that you don’t know what it means?

Well, indeed they are, see my response on this to John Harshman.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > My view is that natural selection could possibly produce a brain that has valid reasoning, just like a tornado could assemble my laptop!
> 
> That’s just regurgitation of an invalid analogy:
> 
> 1. Your laptop is not alive. It does not replicate.
> 2. Natural selection is not random.

But all aspects do not have to agree, to have a valid analogy. The objects must be different, actually, to even be an analogy. And the claim was that evolution, and tornados, are mindless, unguided processes.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I think I used that example.
> 
> It’s an example of your inability to engage in basic reasoning.

Another example of rejecting my reasoning, because it is viewed as coming from an unreasoning cause! Not to mention an ad hominem…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/10 "2026-01-18T20:17:32Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/169):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/163):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> > >
> > > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> > 
> > Tried that when I was younger. Didn’t work. Now what?
> 
> So did I. No answer.
> 
> The usual ‘response’ is that I didn’t really mean it. Which is just insulting.

No, I don’t say that, and as I mentioned to someone else, please see my response to Rumraket on this…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/11 "2026-01-18T20:22:15Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> >
> > Well, you provide a perfect example of that!
> 
> Are you admitting that people here are applying the principle of rejecting reasoning if they perceive it’s cause by nonreasoning causes?

No, you automatically reject the reasoning of anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of their expertise in the subject of discussion. You do not use reason to do that.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> > >
> > > And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random!
> > 
> > None of those are _ad hominem_. Why not just admit that you don’t know what it means?
> 
> Well, indeed they are,

Indeed they aren’t. This provides insight into your lack of reading comprehension.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But all aspects do not have to agree, to have a valid analogy.

The primary aspects do, and an analogy isn’t an argument anyway.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 1:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/12 "2026-01-19T01:11:25Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/158):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/158):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> > >
> > > I believe I recommended a prayer to start with, “God, if you’re real, would you reveal yourself to me?”
> > 
> > Genuinely doing this sincerely is among the reasons I stoppped believing in my mid-twenties. That is to say, though I always had doubts I was already a believer back then, but went through an extended period of analysing the basis for my faith. It sort of culminated with the realization I could never fully convince myself and stop doubting without something concrete and compelling.
> > 
> > Spoiler: nothing happened. God didn’t reveal himself.
> > 
> > Now it’s your turn to rationalize why it didn’t happen with some ad-hoc story you can’t substantiate and will almost certainly be false.
> 
> I’m sorry that happened, now I can’t claim to know your case well enough to describe it, but I can say I had the same wrestling with doubts, and reading apologetics, notable C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles, a Preliminary Study helped me a lot. But even after reading a lot of apologetics (I mean, a lot!), and even after experiencing a number of healings, some of them dramatic, and even after God answering my prayer for him to do X for me, if he cared for me, and X happened, my faith wasn’t growing like I had hoped. Very odd, and unexpected, I know.
> 
> But all that changed, when I stopped praying seeking insight and help, and instead started recently to pray “Who are you, Lord?” Kind of along the lines of “If you are real, reveal yourself to me,” I started seeking not to strengthen my faith directly, but indirectly, seeking to know God better.
> 
> The more you know someone, the more you will trust them, if they’re trustworthy. That’s what I recommend now, God is a person, not a set of propositions. Evidence for propositions can be helpful, but they’re no substitute for seeking and developing a relationship…

Those sorts of responses are just a second layer to the reasons why I stopped believing. This is basically saying I just gotta believe and keep talking to God as if he is real, even when what I am saying is that _this doesn’t do it for me_ and I couldn’t keep engaging in these sorts of one-way communications where I forever tried to give myself rationalizations for why nothing ever came back.

Bro you just got to ask the _right_ questions. You just got to believe. You have to keep looking for signs and message. You have to keep trying. You just got to be worthy, act in the right way, be patient, etc. etc.

They were all just stories I told myself, and the fact that all I got back when I explained this to other Christians was just _more takes_ on _new ways to tell myself stories_ was the final nail in the coffin.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 1:12am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/13 "2026-01-19T01:12:53Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But you do present your assumption in response to the problem outlined by Darwin and Haldane and others

My response to the problem as stated by Darwin is not a conclusion; in fact I accept its premise. I’m not arguing against that. Our reasoning, the product of evolution, is fallible. You keep hammering at “what is your response? when I have stated that I fully agree that there is nobody whose reasoning cannot be subject to error and thus not to taken merely on trust. If I agree, what more response can I make? You seem to think that should be disturbing, and I should come up with some argument to save rationality. It does not particularly bother me that rationality is fallible, and in fact, that is good to know.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 1:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/14 "2026-01-19T01:13:34Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> So this is a known response, this does happen, sadly.

So you allege that somebody else claims. Third-hand gotcha questions are not an effective argument.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/173):
>
> Quite so! You have perhaps seen the FarSide cartoon where a mathematician has put up a proof on the blackboard, where one step reads “And then a miracle happens…”

It’s not the Far Side, it’s Sidney Harris.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/175):
>
> Perfect reasoning may well require omniscience

No reason to suppose it would. Why do you think so? And if I recall the “other reasons” were to make us rely on God. Why would he want that?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> you were claiming my answer does not address your challenges and questions, I need you now to defend your claim.

How would I do that? It’s like proving a negative.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Privileges, authority, and so on, too many to list here.

Ah, so the rewards are in this world, not the next? God gives you little presents when you suffer? That doesn’t accord with observations.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> No, torture is really pejorative, but the rich man was in torment, specifically because in his life, he received his good things. Presumably now he is getting what he should have been getting by
> 
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said.

I’m supposing that “torment” is another word you have a different meaning for. Isn’t the rich man in a fire? How is that not torture? And why should one be tormented/tortured because in life he received good things? Does that mean that those who get rewarded for overcoming also go to hell?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> [Here](http://lee-notes.org/2021/02/28/purgatory/) are my thoughts on purgatory, if you are interested, lots of Scripture, by the way! I agree that that my view is unusual, though.

The question wasn’t about purgatory but about Lewis’s idea of hell.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said.

You have to remember that the original topic was God being asked for release from suffering that he himself has caused.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> I repeat this because it’s true!

In fact it’s more or less an ad hominem argument: what X says is false because X is insane. It doesn’t even matter whether people do it, though in fact you’re the only one here who’s doing it. Everyone else, when accused, has explained that you have it backwards.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Well, there is, people are being asked to treat the materialist’s argument as an argument like what people normally think they are doing themselves, where people consider that they are originating their argument, and they are not being moved around like a puppet.

This whole “moved around like a puppet” think is yours and yours alone. It doesn’t describe anything that materialists think. And there’s no tacit request.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> A self-existent reason, is the answer that is the response that has been given by many. Which prevents an infinite regress.

What is the self-existent reason that causes the reasoning process in your mind, specifically? If it’s God, doesn’t that make you a puppet?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Well, as I just mentioned in another reply, saying I’m speculating means I have a motive to speculate

Sure. Saying anything means you have a motive to say it. But saying you’re speculating doesn’t say what that motive is. Your logic is nonsensical.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> That would be pointing to a nonreasoning cause, as would saying I have an unthinking commitment to intelligent design, or that I’m stupid (someone did say that), and so on, I could present many examples of people dismissing what I say by pointing to an unreasoning cause.

Still backwards. People dismiss what you say because it’s wrong. One could go further to express an opinion on why you say wrong things, but what you’re claiming is the reverse of that. You are trying to claim that an ad hominem argument is valid, though apparently you eon’t think the ad hominem arguments you suppose people are making to you are not valid. Go figure.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Sure, we have to pick authorities to believe, with care.

But you don’t believe authorities. You believe some things some authorities say, but not others. How are you picking?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> How can you know Caesar wrote the book which he claimed to write, though?

Sure, based on a host of other sources that say he did, often criticizing his prose style. What I trust is the repeated claim from independent, contemporary sources about matters of simple facts they could reasonably know.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> I do distinguish them, I look for evidence that the person making a statement is reliable, and has training in the area of interest, and so on.

And yet you reject your reliable sources when they say things you don’t like.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Really? When I quote people, I intend that to be evidence that their statements should be given serious consideration, for the reasons such as those mentioned above.

Yes, and the quotes are not evidence for that. They’re only evidence that the quoted people said, perhaps believed, that.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> I’m tempted to apply your standard to your own statements, and call them just evidence that you hold this or that opinion.

Not my standards. You are quoting claims, not arguments or evidence. Those are different things.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Well, let’s go [to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

You have to read a little further into the paragraph, where the basic structure is explained. Briefly, person A has a bad quality, therefore his statements are untrue. That’s your thing. What other people are doing is saying that your statment is untrue, and that’s evidence for some bad quality of yours.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> I could point to many such examples directed at me in this forum…

Only if you misunderstand what’s being said.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Because it’s healthy for us to acknowledge we are not omniscient, and so on, we are not God, it’s sanity.

But I already acknowledge that I’m not omniscient, and so on, and that I’m not God. And I do it without depending on God. So what does depending on God have to do with that? And again, why does God want us to depend on him? What you say can’t be it.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Your statement directly implies that the view that the causes of the delirious thoughts are illogical, is mistaken.

Sorry, but it doesn’t. No idea where you got that.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> I try and respond to your points, actually, and I don’t recall your response here.

I’ve done this several times. Please try to remember at least the core of the argument. Here we are again: natural selection isn’t random.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> A perfect machine might be unnecessarily complex

No, an unnecessarily complex machine wouldn’t be perfect. And then you appeal to mysterious, unknown reasons. Just more ways to avoid having to defend a claim.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> That’s a good reason, I hadn’t thought of that one!

What had you thought of? And why is it good for us not to be uppity?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Now how all these can be true, I don’t know, but there does seem to be good warrant in scripture for all three, and I don’t want to do what most people do, and pick one, and erase the others.

So what about the rich man in the fire? And what about C.S. Lewis? Anyway, if you can’t know what to believe, why are you making claims?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

That’s creepy. That’s tripping people so you can help them up again.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> But I was applying that to the materialist view! So it applies to your view, not mine.

Ah, but that isn’t the materialist view. It’s your caricature. I was just showing that your caricature was silly. Still, it applies nicely to your idea, if you put the soul in the position of the puppeteer.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> I could mention in passing Dawkins, in a debate with Lennox

Ah, another likely apocryphal, third-hand gotcha. This isn’t helping you.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> They consider themselves real agents, though there is disagreement about metaphysics, such as a soul, or a mind outside the brain, and so on.

What is the soul, and how does it work? This is not something you have thought about, and you need to.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> Are you saying now your thoughts are not generated ultimately just by the motions of atoms in your brain? Causes imply control.

No, I’m not saying that. And causes don’t imply control, whatever you think that means. Causes are causes. My thoughts are the result of things happening in my brain. Sure. How is that different from your thoughts supposedly being the result of things happening in your soul? At least I can point to my brain, and we know that things happen in it, even something about what sorts of things. But you can do none of that for your supposed soul. Again, what in your soul causes your thoughts, and how does that work?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> He quite logically concludes there are snakes in the room, because he sees them.

Doubtful that he does a lot of thinking about that. The process is likely just automatic. See a snake, yell “snake!” Calling that “reason” is stretching a point.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> But you’re not pointing to my reasoning, or examining it at all!

I always do. Just did, in fact. I showed your reasoning in this particular case to be wrong because it’s exactly backwards.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> You’re pointing to the cause, I’m starting out confused, and because of that you dismiss what I say.

I did nothing of the sort. Backwards again. How can you not see this?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> But as I mentioned, one arguably supernatural event undoes the whole materialist view.

No, one unmistakably, irrefutably supernatural event would. “Arguably” is not close to sufficient. Chesterton isn’t helping you at all.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> So restoring limbs can be explained in the same sort of way,

Find one and we’ll see.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> That’s a weird kind of refutation, especially after saying more miracles would be more convincing.

More miracles from independent sources would. More miracles from you personally just makes your credibility lower.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> But in Jesus’ day, people got healed a lot!

How do you know? The only sources for these healings were written many years after the supposed fact by people who had not witnessed them. Anyway, we’re talking about the present. Most people who pray for healing are not healed, and yet it happens to you many times. Statistically unlikely.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
> >
> > Sure. Which god should I start with? And why?

You didn’t answer the second question, and I already knew what your answer to the first would be.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/178):
>
> Well, I would refer you to my response to John Harshman!

So I should sincerely address a prayer to “whoever might be there”? Can’t do that either. I think it’s necessary to start by half-believing, which I can’t do.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/179):
>
> But I look for evidence for belief, while also expecting it needs to be given as well, by God. God can start up our faith, with evidence!

Then why doesn’t he? Why didn’t he give most of the world faith? (I presume faith in Krishna or Allah doesn’t count.)

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/180):
>
> Well, indeed they are, see my response on this to John Harshman.

No, they are not. Your response was just a repetition of your backwards claims. “We don’t believe you because you’re nuts” is ad hominem. “We think you’re nuts because you say absurd things” is not. See the difference?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 4:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/15 "2026-01-19T16:31:09Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/182):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> > >
> > > Well, you provide a perfect example of that!
> > 
> > Are you admitting that people here are applying the principle of rejecting reasoning if they perceive it’s cause by nonreasoning causes?
> 
> No, you automatically reject the reasoning of anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of their expertise in the subject of discussion. You do not use reason to do that.

Well, exactly! I’m not using reason, so you must be saying the cause of my thoughts is unreasoning.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/182):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> > >
> > > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> > > >
> > > > And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random!
> > > 
> > > None of those are _ad hominem_. Why not just admit that you don’t know what it means?
> > 
> > Well, indeed they are,
> 
> Indeed they aren’t. This provides insight into your lack of reading comprehension.

Wow. Let’s leave it at that, I’ll continue to point out ad hominems, and you can try and explain why they are actually addressing what I say, instead of pointing to me and defects in me.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/182):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But all aspects do not have to agree, to have a valid analogy.
> 
> The primary aspects do, and an analogy isn’t an argument anyway.

No, just the pertinent aspects in view have to agree, a car is not an elephant, but both can be ways of getting somewhere. And a valid analogy can indeed be used in an argument, that’s the main reason for making them, to illustrate and support a point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 4:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/16 "2026-01-19T16:32:19Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Perfect reasoning may well require omniscience
> 
> No reason to suppose it would. Why do you think so? And if I recall the “other reasons” were to make us rely on God. Why would he want that?

People never make mistakes, because their premises are incorrect, or because they’ve misunderstood something they thought was evidence? Well, if we are not God, we are not omniscient, omnipotent, and so on, this would imply we have needs that God can supply. And “it’s more blessed to give than to receive”, parents know that, it’s good to give to your child, it’s in fact part of the relationship.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > you were claiming my answer does not address your challenges and questions, I need you now to defend your claim.
> 
> How would I do that? It’s like proving a negative.

Well, yes, negatives can be proved, “A car is not an elephant”, lots of reasons can be given to support that.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Privileges, authority, and so on, too many to list here.
> 
> Ah, so the rewards are in this world, not the next? God gives you little presents when you suffer? That doesn’t accord with observations.

The rewards mentioned here are in the next world, but there is refinement in this life, and also the ability to encourage people who also are going through difficulty. And knowing God, that is one result of suffering, too, it’s actually participating, fellowship in his suffering (Phil. 3:10). That accords with my experience, Hannah Smith tells of a woman she knew who had had a remarkably pain-free life, even giving birth wasn’t very difficult. And she had no clue about what to say to people in difficulty, nothing to say to people who were suffering.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> I’m supposing that “torment” is another word you have a different meaning for. Isn’t the rich man in a fire? How is that not torture?

“Torture” implies a malicious intent.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> And why should one be tormented/tortured because in life he received good things?

He received “his good things” is the text. So they were his, just not to be received totally at the time Lazarus was in need at his gate. So self-denial was required, resulting in purification, and if not now, then later, is my view, “everyone will be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49).

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> Does that mean that those who get rewarded for overcoming also go to hell?

No, “he one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev. 2:11). That implies that those who do not conquer, who do not overcome, will be.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> The question wasn’t about purgatory but about Lewis’s idea of hell.

Well, you can read his book “The Great Divorce” for his depiction of both.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said.
> 
> You have to remember that the original topic was God being asked for release from suffering that he himself has caused.

Here is the full exchange:

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> > >
> > > Because it’s healthy to acknowledge that we need help, that we are not omnipotent, that we are not God. That’s one reason.
> > 
> > This is like a guy who trips you because it’s good for you to ask him for help in getting up.
> 
> Your example is quite different than my reasons, it is not a good analogy for what I said. “We are not omnipotent, we are not God” explains “we need help.”

So “God being asked for release from suffering that he himself has caused” is a different topic, I was talking about our abilities, or lack of them, not about release from suffering. The goalposts have moved, this was not the original topic, so I objected. And what you say is not a reason I believe God wants us to ask for help.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > I repeat this because it’s true!
> 
> In fact it’s more or less an ad hominem argument: what X says is false because X is insane. It doesn’t even matter whether people do it, though in fact you’re the only one here who’s doing it. Everyone else, when accused, has explained that you have it backwards.

Actually, they don’t all say that. Some say they don’t focus on causes at all, when evaluating reasoning. And what I hold is that what X says is not to be taken seriously because X is insane, or delirious. Though there might actually be snakes in the room! But we don’t go look for them, once we know the man is delirious, and this is not an ad hominem argument. Of course we feel sorry for the man, and try and comfort or distract him, but not believing him is not some sort of attack on his character. And again I challenge you to find one psychiatrist who doesn’t keep in mind that his or her client’s complaints may be due to irrational causes!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Well, there is, people are being asked to treat the materialist’s argument as an argument like what people normally think they are doing themselves, where people consider that they are originating their argument, and they are not being moved around like a puppet.
> 
> This whole “moved around like a puppet” think is yours and yours alone. It doesn’t describe anything that materialists think. And there’s no tacit request.

Oh, what a refutation! Such solid evidence, and examples. But in your view, people are being moved around by the movement of atoms in their head, which is indeed aptly described by being puppets.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > A self-existent reason, is the answer that is the response that has been given by many. Which prevents an infinite regress.
> 
> What is the self-existent reason that causes the reasoning process in your mind, specifically? If it’s God, doesn’t that make you a puppet?

But you just used the puppet argument! So it’s not just me using it. And my view is that our reason comes from a self-existent reason, not that God causes our thoughts, which you seem to be asking if that’s my view.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Well, as I just mentioned in another reply, saying I’m speculating means I have a motive to speculate
> 
> Sure. Saying anything means you have a motive to say it. But saying you’re speculating doesn’t say what that motive is. Your logic is nonsensical.

But speculation is not using logic! And what makes no sense is saying I have a logical reason to engage in mere speculation. Unless someone points a gun at my head, and says, “Speculate!” Or something like that.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > That would be pointing to a nonreasoning cause, as would saying I have an unthinking commitment to intelligent design, or that I’m stupid (someone did say that), and so on, I could present many examples of people dismissing what I say by pointing to an unreasoning cause.
> 
> Still backwards. People dismiss what you say because it’s wrong.

But they don’t examine my reasoning, when they say such things. They point to the supposed cause, and then reject what I say. This is not backwards.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Sure, we have to pick authorities to believe, with care.
> 
> But you don’t believe authorities. You believe some things some authorities say, but not others. How are you picking?

I do believe some authorities, though I like to examine evidence for what they say, too, and I try and find people whom I have reason to believe are trustworthy, and have training and other qualifications in the relevant area.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > How can you know Caesar wrote the book which he claimed to write, though?
> 
> Sure, based on a host of other sources that say he did, often criticizing his prose style. What I trust is the repeated claim from independent, contemporary sources about matters of simple facts they could reasonably know.

But you still believe them on authority! We were just discussing how to pick good authorities, yes?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > I do distinguish them, I look for evidence that the person making a statement is reliable, and has training in the area of interest, and so on.
> 
> And yet you reject your reliable sources when they say things you don’t like.

Sure, but I don’t pick statements just because I like them! And nobody believes in infallible human authorities, and every sensible person tries to evaluate further what they hear.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > When I quote people, I intend that to be evidence that their statements should be given serious consideration, for the reasons such as those mentioned above.
> 
> Yes, and the quotes are not evidence for that. They’re only evidence that the quoted people said, perhaps believed, that.

So why bother with picking good authorities, if all we can conclude from them is that somebody said or believed this or that?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > I’m tempted to apply your standard to your own statements, and call them just evidence that you hold this or that opinion.
> 
> Not my standards. You are quoting claims, not arguments or evidence. Those are different things.

So I’ll do what I said! This is only evidence that you believe these are not your standards. This is only evidence that you believe I am quoting claims, not arguments or evidence. This is only evidence that you believe these are different things.

I think I might keep this up, this is kind of fun. And it requires no effort at all.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Well, let’s go [to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
> 
> You have to read a little further into the paragraph, where the basic structure is explained. Briefly, person A has a bad quality, therefore his statements are untrue. That’s your thing. What other people are doing is saying that your statment is untrue, and that’s evidence for some bad quality of yours.

You’re the one who’s getting this backwards, they don’t say I’m stupid because of this argument I made, or that I want to be important, because of this reasoning. Point me to one example of that! They say I’m stupid, or I want to be important, and so on, and that is why they can reject my statements. That’s ad hominem.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Because it’s healthy for us to acknowledge we are not omniscient, and so on, we are not God, it’s sanity.
> 
> But I already acknowledge that I’m not omniscient, and so on, and that I’m not God. And I do it without depending on God.

You claim to be an atheist, right? Your position is that there are no gods? So you have looked in every possible place, all at once, and you haven’t found any gods? This is a virtual claim of omniscience, as well as omnipresence, even.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> So what does depending on God have to do with that? And again, why does God want us to depend on him?

Well, it’s good if you acknowledge being limited, I can go a step further, then, and say that self-sufficiency is bad, too. Even corporate self-sufficiency, together, we can do it. Well, sometimes, we can’t. So that would bring us to God, which is indeed, good for us, if God is good, and has resources we don’t, and that we need. And if coming to him and receiving develops a relationship, so this is more than about just getting stuff.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Your statement directly implies that the view that the causes of the delirious thoughts are illogical, is mistaken.
> 
> Sorry, but it doesn’t. No idea where you got that.

How does your statement not imply that, though? I need more than a mere assertion.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > I try and respond to your points, actually, and I don’t recall your response here.
> 
> I’ve done this several times. Please try to remember at least the core of the argument. Here we are again: natural selection isn’t random.

But I don’t say that it is. Now I’m really confused, I have no idea how this can be the core of your argument, if I don’t hold this view.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > A perfect machine might be unnecessarily complex
> 
> No, an unnecessarily complex machine wouldn’t be perfect.

Well, a perfect machine might be required to be suitable in all possible environments. I expect there are tradeoffs in any design.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > That’s a good reason, I hadn’t thought of that one!
> 
> What had you thought of? And why is it good for us not to be uppity?

Well, I’ve given other reasons, and being uppity, well, if you’re looking down all the time, you’re not going to see something, or Someone who’s above you. C.S. Lewis’ point, on pride.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Now how all these can be true, I don’t know, but there does seem to be good warrant in scripture for all three, and I don’t want to do what most people do, and pick one, and erase the others.
> 
> So what about the rich man in the fire? And what about C.S. Lewis? Anyway, if you can’t know what to believe, why are you making claims?

The rich man in the fire I believe is purgatory, so this isn’t part of the three threads I mentioned. And I disagree with C.S. Lewis, when he says (through a character in a book) that “the door of hell is locked on the inside.” I don’t see this in scripture, Jesus says he has those keys (Rev. 1:18). And I believe all three threads will be true, and accomplished, the statement of a professor I heard about comes to mind, “The people in Jesus’ day thought they had his first coming all figured out, and they were all wrong!” Well, they were, and God did what he had been telling us, all along, but in a very unexpected way.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
> 
> That’s creepy. That’s tripping people so you can help them up again.

Not if you bear suffering, though. People usually miss that, but it’s shown in the cross, that’s God, bearing suffering, showing mercy. And as has been discussed, there are other purposes for suffering, too.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > But I was applying that to the materialist view! So it applies to your view, not mine.
> 
> Ah, but that isn’t the materialist view. It’s your caricature. I was just showing that your caricature was silly. Still, it applies nicely to your idea, if you put the soul in the position of the puppeteer.

But I seemed to have missed the part where you explain how my application is a misunderstanding. Could you start posting more context, so I don’t have to continually be trying to remember it, or keep scrolling back and forth to get it? But from what you say, I don’t believe the soul is like a puppeteer of my thoughts, I say the soul is the source of them.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > They consider themselves real agents, though there is disagreement about metaphysics, such as a soul, or a mind outside the brain, and so on.
> 
> What is the soul, and how does it work?

Nobody claims to know the mechanics of thinking, exactly how that works, though this does not somehow disprove the conclusion, either yours or mine.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > Are you saying now your thoughts are not generated ultimately just by the motions of atoms in your brain? Causes imply control.
> 
> No, I’m not saying that. And causes don’t imply control, whatever you think that means. Causes are causes. My thoughts are the result of things happening in my brain. Sure. How is that different from your thoughts supposedly being the result of things happening in your soul? At least I can point to my brain, and we know that things happen in it, even something about what sorts of things. But you can do none of that for your supposed soul. Again, what in your soul causes your thoughts, and how does that work?

But saying “My thoughts are the result of things happening in my brain” clearly means they are caused, and your view also entails believing what happens in your brain is all motions of atoms there, correct? So I don’t see how you avoid the conclusion.

And pointing to your brain still leaves us clueless about the mechanics of thought, which neither you nor I claim to understand. So asking this question gets us nowhere. And I can point to evidence for the soul, I’ve done so.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > He quite logically concludes there are snakes in the room, because he sees them.
> 
> Doubtful that he does a lot of thinking about that. The process is likely just automatic. See a snake, yell “snake!” Calling that “reason” is stretching a point.

But if you ask why he claims there are snakes, he will give you a reason, no doubt. And similarly with the man in paranoia, who doesn’t call the police when something bad happens to him, because of course, they are out to get him, too. So he is even more clearly doing reasoning, and being quite logical, given his premises.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > But you’re not pointing to my reasoning, or examining it at all!
> 
> I always do. Just did, in fact.

How so? I must ask. I don’t see how you did.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > You’re pointing to the cause, I’m starting out confused, and because of that you dismiss what I say.
> 
> I did nothing of the sort. Backwards again. How can you not see this?

Because all you mention is the cause! This is very straightforward.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > But as I mentioned, one arguably supernatural event undoes the whole materialist view.
> 
> No, one unmistakably, irrefutably supernatural event would. “Arguably” is not close to sufficient.

But now you are requiring 100% proof! But no evidence of anything of importance is like that. Existence of God, no, you can’t get a mathematical proof of that. Similarly, the courts require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For that very reason.

If you insist on 100% proof all the time, you won’t believe much of importance. One more example, you won’t trust anyone, and you certainly won’t get married! I guess that’s two examples.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > So restoring limbs can be explained in the same sort of way,
> 
> Find one and we’ll see.

I can certainly point to salamanders as examples of limbs being regenerated! So someone might well point to this as evidence that this could possibly happen in humans, too. People do take refuge in remote possibilities, when they don’t like a conclusion. As in your explanation of my being healed from mitral valve prolapse, taking refuge in the unlikely chance that I was misdiagnosed. And what I could feel in extra beats, whenever I took my pulse, was some sort of misperception, which mysteriously cleared up along with getting a clean bill of health. Occam and his razor might help, here.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > That’s a weird kind of refutation, especially after saying more miracles would be more convincing.
> 
> More miracles from independent sources would. More miracles from you personally just makes your credibility lower.

I do have medical records for another healing, though. So I think multiple documented events are credible, and don’t affect my credibility. And there are indeed reports of miracles from many sources! See Craig Keeners two-volume set on “Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts”, which also covers accounts of miracles happening today, for instance, or his smaller book entitled “Miracles Today”. Are you willing to investigate evidence for them? And C.S. Lewis’ book, “Miracles, a Preliminary Study” deals with a number of objections to them that people do make.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > But in Jesus’ day, people got healed a lot!
> 
> How do you know? The only sources for these healings were written many years after the supposed fact by people who had not witnessed them.

But children were healed, who probably could be consulted! And a claim is made that many were raised at the time of Jesus’ death, who “appeared to many”, which would be an odd claim to make, if this story was way after the fact, and could not be verified. This appears to be a claim of a verifiable event, as was Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to more than 500 after his resurrection, most of whom he said were still living (1 Cor. 15:6). Paul is saying you can check this out! Writing around AD 55, it seems, which is within the lifetimes of people who could have been at the resurrection, about AD 33. Not to mention Paul claiming to have seen Jesus! His eyewitness account is in his letters and in Acts, so this is not some account written via hearsay after many years.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> Most people who pray for healing are not healed, and yet it happens to you many times. Statistically unlikely.

I heard from someone that they had gotten through seven bouts with cancer, he didn’t mention miracles, so I expect this was through medical treatment. Seven! That seems unlikely, so it didn’t happen?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/176):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/162):
> > >
> > > Sure. Which god should I start with? And why?
> 
> You didn’t answer the second question, and I already knew what your answer to the first would be.

Well, fine, if there is a god, I would like to know! That seems eminently sensible. Or if you mean why should we start with a given god, such as the Christian one, I may have mentioned Keith Green, who surveyed religions when he was searching, and found that they all had good things to say about Jesus, and many of them said Jesus was a way. Only Jesus said he was _the_ way. So this was kind of a no-brainer for him, he started with Jesus. Or I could mention the resurrection, there is nothing like this in any other religion, and there are several books, Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel could be mentioned, who set out to disprove the resurrection, and would up believing it!

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/178):
> >
> > Well, I would refer you to my response to John Harshman!
> 
> So I should sincerely address a prayer to “whoever might be there”? Can’t do that either. I think it’s necessary to start by half-believing, which I can’t do.

Well [Richard Lorenzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBypK3LRyAE&t=5s) did this, you might have seen me mention him, but “God if you’re real, please reveal yourself to me” doesn’t even require half-believing. Or starting with investigating the resurrection might be good, as I mentioned several atheists doing, setting out actually to disprove it! So again, no faith is required.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/179):
> >
> > But I look for evidence for belief, while also expecting it needs to be given as well, by God. God can start up our faith, with evidence!
> 
> Then why doesn’t he? Why didn’t he give most of the world faith? (I presume faith in Krishna or Allah doesn’t count.)

Yes, there certainly must wrong answers to the question of a real God, since religions don’t actually agree, they can’t all be true, as some will claim. And the Christian claim is that he does give evidence for himself to everyone: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Rom 1:18-20)

And this has been made plainer, as science advances, as in most people now believing the universe had a beginning, see Stephen Meyers’ book “The Return of the God Hypothesis” for more along these lines.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/185):
>
> Your response was just a repetition of your backwards claims. “We don’t believe you because you’re nuts” is ad hominem. “We think you’re nuts because you say absurd things” is not. See the difference?

Right, that is my view, I’m not sure what the problem is, or how that is backwards.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 4:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/17 "2026-01-19T16:32:36Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/170):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/169):
> >
> > The usual ‘response’ is that I didn’t really mean it. Which is just insulting.
> 
> I dunno. I think it’s impossible for me to mean it. You have to believe, at least a little bit, that you might actually be addressing somebody in order to really mean it. Have you ever tried praying to Marduk?

Technically yes, since I wasn’t specific as to which god I was hoping for an answer for.

Marduk didn’t respond either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 6:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/18 "2026-01-19T18:26:49Z")

</div>

This is spiralling way out from what I originally responded to, and it keeps moving further off. And you also show no sign of progress in understanding what anyone is saying. So rather than reply further, I’ll bow out. If we ever get back onto the topics that interest me, I’ll come back too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/19 "2026-01-19T18:27:23Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/182):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/182):
> >
> > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> > >
> > > > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
> > > >
> > > > None of those are _ad hominem_. Why not just admit that you don’t know what it means?
> > > 
> > > Well, indeed they are,
> > 
> > Indeed they aren’t. This provides insight into your lack of reading comprehension.
> 
> Wow. Let’s leave it at that…

But you didn’t leave it. You went on to reiterate your lack of understanding of the _ad hominem_ fallacy. Do you typically contradict yourself in consecutive sentences?

Here’s an example of _ad hominem_:

> [@Did Douglas Axe Disprove Evolution? Spoiler: No](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/775):
>
> Like an atheist saying “I know there are no gods!” You know this, exactly, how? You have looked everywhere God might be, if he existed, everywhere, and all at once, and haven’t found him? That’s a claim of virtual omniscience, and omnipresence. You really should be worshipped, you supernatural being, you.

Addressed to me. Moreover, it’s a twofer: your _ad hominem_ fallacy was based on a blatant lie.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> And a valid analogy can indeed be used in an argument, that’s the main reason for making them, to illustrate and support a point.

The former, not the latter. Analogies are explanatory devices. Your use of the Hoyle analogy tells me that you don’t understand that natural selection is nonrandom.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2026, 8:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/20 "2026-01-19T20:36:51Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> But you didn’t leave it. You went on to reiterate your lack of understanding of the _ad hominem_ fallacy. Do you typically contradict yourself in consecutive sentences?

Yes. Sometimes even in the same sentence.  
IIRC Lee was nicknamed ‘Dory’ after he was referring to dice probabilities at the start of a sentence, but finished it with a full house.

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641.md?page=2)