Why Anti-Supernaturalists Really Aren’t After All

SUBTITLE: Why are many scientists so opposed to investigating Immaterial Intelligence? (I.e. Theology, which used to be called the ‘Queen of Sciences’)
SUB-SUBTITLE: Will the ‘Queen’ regain her rightful throne in academia? (Picture credit: Wiki “atom” which means “unsplittable” … what a misnomer that turned out to be! So don’t let today’s physicists tell you we will EVER arrive at a truly elementary particle.)

ANTI-SUPERNATURALISM
I have always said that anti-supernaturalists … or materialists if you like … those who either deny the supernatural or say it’s unscientific to explore it … truly are NOT. That is, they are not anti-supernaturalists at all upon close inspection. They actually believe in many supernatural things. The spontaneous assembly of life from non-living chemicals that supposedly occurred several billion years ago is a prime example. It’s never been observed in the lab … just like I’ve never observed my supernatural God creating anything in the lab … so it’s a supernatural belief, although adherents will deny this. The spontaneous origin of new proteins, new cell types, and new organs is another example. No one’s ever observed it. They just assume it can happen on faith in the supernatural. Now some may come back and say, “I beg your pardon, new proteins are formed spontaneously all the time.” Yes, I say, this happens in the same twisted way that I could say my dented up, rusted out Ford Mustang is a “new car.” Click here for that discussion. UPDATE 9/3/07: I just read an interesting article about a recent book by Canadaian neurosurgeon Mario Beauregard (Denyse O’Leary coauthor) called “The Spiritual Brain.” Read the article HERE.

THE ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE OF MATTER
Now with that background … The other day, we were discussing Cellular Machinery in this thread … http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4742902#post4742902

Many people did not agree that cells contain real machines, but a few people do …

We begin with a comment from Jet Black who responded to me as follows …

AFDAVE: No. My argument is “They are both motors. REAL motors. Therefore, we should investigate the possibility of design.”

JET BLACK: why? the electric motor was designed by an intelligence that is made of molecular motors. therefore we say that intelligences require motors to run. only intelligences can design things, so motors need to exist before anything can be designed and thus there must be some primordial motors that existed before intelligence – an undesigned motor (extrapolate motor to all other cellular machinery) – so cells need to exist before you can have intelligence.

I think JB meant to say “molecular machines” not molecular motors, but in any case I think I understand his meaning. He is basically critiquing my reasoning by noting that I say molecular machines require intelligence, which in turn requires molecular machines in order to be intelligent in the first place. So JB seems to think I have a “chicken and egg” situation. Which came first? But what he didn’t realize is that I DO NOT postulate material intelligence as the original source of other material (biological) intelligence. I postulate Immaterial Intelligence.

Here was my post … http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4743511#post4743511

Oooo … you bring up some very good points.

1) “Atoms are made of ‘stuff’ ” … really? How do you know? Split an atom and you get protons, neutrons, electrons, etc, right? What do you get when you split those? A proton, for example? Well, I don’t know, but you get some smaller particle and you give it a name. And so on it goes. Now here’s the real kicker … What IS the most basic, fundamental particle? You cannot answer that, can you, because when you try you face an infinitely long job of splitting particles into ever smaller components, don’t you?

So what’s really at the bottom of matter? ANSWER: We really don’t know. Could the answer go full circle and come back to being “It’s immaterial”? I think it could and that is my answer. Can’t prove it in the lab of course. It’s simply my belief at the moment, but you gotta admit, that it’s a pretty interesting proposition.

2) I HAVE addressed your second point. I already agree with you that human intelligence requires machines to function. But I don’t think you have addressed mine. Why is it so crazy to investigate whether there is such a thing as IMMATERIAL INTELLIGENCE or not? After all, from (1) above, we see that matter may not really be made of ‘stuff’ after all. What is ‘stuff’ anyway? The Ultimate Reality in the universe just may turn out to be IMMATERIAL. Seems like Tipler concluded this and he didn’t start out as a fundy like me.

So my point was that splitting atoms is a job that will never end. In theory, you should be able to keep splitting indefinitely and you never will reach a truly elementary particle. This fact in itself is a SUPERNATURAL concept. We cannot conceive of this in our finite brains. Just as we cannot conceive of how big the universe is. Just as we cannot conceive how an Invisible God could supposedly speak the universe into existence.

But since when did not being able to conceive of something be a good reason to not investigate it fully? Why do so many scientists not like the idea of looking for evidence of an Immaterial Intelligence? Why is there such a strong opposition in science to any mention of the God of the Bible when studying things like the Origin of Matter and the Origin of Life?

This seems odd to me.

Now people may come back and say, “Dave, we only study material things. That’s what science is about.” Really? Did you read the latest issue of Science?

Science 24 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5841, pp. 1020 – 1021
DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5841.1020a

PSYCHOLOGY: Out-of-Body Experiences Enter the Laboratory

Greg Miller

Out-of-body experiences are associated more with tabloid newspapers, New Age Web sites, and large doses of hallucinogenic drugs than serious scientific discussion. Yet they’re often reported by reputable people who suffer from migraine headaches, epilepsy, and other neurological conditions. Intrigued by such accounts, some researchers are trying to figure out how the brain creates an aspect of human consciousness so fundamental that we take it for granted: the perception that the “self” conforms to the borders of the physical body.

Well, if out-of-body experiences can be investigated in the lab and reported in Science magazine, then trying to detect and describe Immaterial Intelligence as a postulated Cause for the Origin of Biological Intelligence and of Matter itself … may not be so outlandish after all !!!

What say you?

**************************************************************************

UNCOMFORTABLE TOPIC MOVED
I put this discussion in the Evolution/Creation Forum at IIDB … http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=219239

Notice the subtitle of the Evolution/Creation Forum …

Evolution/Creation (69 Viewing)
The origins and diversity of life–divine fiat or product of natural forces?–and the sociopolitical ramifications of the answer.

Notice the title of my thread I started this morning …

Moved: The Origin and Structure of Matter
afdave – Today
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=219239

Please tell me how the “Origin of Matter” does not fit in the E/C forum. Is life not composed of matter? Is a discussion of Immaterial Intelligence as a possible cause of matter not a direct attempt to answer the question in the E/C Forum subtitle?

Could it be that we have an instance of people getting uncomfortable with what creationists like me are saying? Could it be that they are beginning to see that they cannot win arguments … so it is better to try to pretend they don’t exist by ‘flushing’ the threads into some obscure place? Wesley Elsberry is well known for this technique. See my article on this … https://afdave.wordpress.com/2007/01/06/wesley-elsberry-bans-creationists/

Advertisements

One Response to “Why Anti-Supernaturalists Really Aren’t After All”

  1. […] if you like ?? those who either deny the supernatural or say it??s unscientific to explore it …http://truthmatters.info/2007/09/01/why-anti-supernaturalists-really-arent-after-all/Appeasement and CensorsshipI am, like Christopher Hitchens and very much like Shalini, an […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: