Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on July 31, 2010 at 10:02am

As I understant the affair Dr.Paul Kurtz called into questin certain resutls for which he was wrongly vilified. I had to Google to find out that he was indeed in the right just as we skeptics are when condiering any woo.
Why do the credulous when we skeptics put them to test that they then blame our presence for the failed tests as supernaturalists do with unanswered prayer [Oh, and with answered prayer, they do the ad hoc- find coincidences.
Yes, scientists are studying the pareidolias that people see. The argument from pareidolia is that just as some see Marian apparitions when the dead woman is still dead that people see agency -intent-teleology and design when there are only teleonomy and patterns. We inhabit a teleonomical world- one without any divine input whatsoever!
That does not lead to that absured non-sequitur that therefore we have no purpose and then what is the use of living as we find and make our own purposes. We are not clay shaped willy-nilly by some divine potter, Paul that sophist, notwithstanding!
And the atelic or teleonomic argument is that the weight of evidence portrays a teleomic- no pre-tetermined outcomes- rather than a teleological -no predetermined ones. Indeed, to postulate divine teleology would to contradict science rather than complementig it as the evolutionist creationists or creation evolutonists prattle!
One supernaturalist argues that God hides Himself such that we do not discern HIs teleological manners! That makes for the new Omphalos argument that we discern apparent teleonomy and patterns rather than telelogy and design.That is just as silly as the old one where people argue He made things look million of years older!
Yes, Kenneth Miller Karl Giberson and Francisco Jose Ayala are indeed obscurantists trying to conflate evolution and religion1

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on August 30, 2010 at 3:35pm

I've tried it, but it didn't work. I'm quite disappointed, so I guess I'll try it again soon. I used bottle caps to cover my eyes and I made sure I wasn't able to see anything, not even shadows. And I sat there, with my headset on, listening to white noise... and nothing. No images, no sounds. I sat like 10 minutes and, at some point, I even tried to imagine things, thinking it would help.

Perhaps the fact that I have very poor visual memory or accessing visual memories makes me unfit for this experiment. For example, I can draw pretty good, but only by looking at what I'm drawing, not by imagining it. Also, I have trouble remembering people's faces. I don't know what it is, but I really wanted to see something.

Anyway, I'll report back if I manage to have a vision or something.

EDIT: Oh, and I also can't fall asleep quickly. The transition between being conscious and unconscious is pretty difficult for me to make. Maybe these visions appear in a state of the brain that occurs during this transition, so maybe that has something to do with my inability to complete this experiment.

Permalink Reply by Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth on December 25, 2010 at 11:31pm

Scientists are investigating  how people see agency-intent-teleology-when none is there: thus arises another scientfic argument along with the atelic -without purpose- argument that people see intent and design when only teleonomy- no planned outcomes and patterns exist. Therefore, Lamberth's two arguments keel haul teleology. Furthermore, all teleological arguments- fine-tuning, probability, to design and from reason- the self-refutation of naturalism- beg the question of planned outcomes.

 And, thus He has no referents as the atelic alone and the other naturalist arguments affirm, He cannot exist, and as He has incoherent,contradictory attributes, He cannot exist!

One whammy after another against Him!