A week from now it will be a year that I've repeatedly been asking atheists, materialists, those who assert that our minds are nothing but a phenomenon produced by the physical components of our brains to explain how that would work in a specific instance.
If our ideas are dependent on physical structures made by the brain, how do our brains know how to make exactly the right structure to, not only embody but to, in fact, BE that idea before the idea that it is to make is present in the brain to instruct it?
That question has been being asked every month for the past year and for almost a year, they have failed to come up with a way to even begin to address that absolutely important issue for their materialist mind to work.
The question leads to other problems for materialism in that not only would the brain not have any idea (literally) of what to make and how to make exactly that idea-structure, it wouldn't even have the information to know that it needed to make that idea-structure.
How would it know how to make a new idea-structure?
How would it do that for every idea we experience, including every partially formed idea, ideas which we come up with but discard or modify, how would it come up with ideas that we latch onto but which are not accurate representations of or even related to any experience we have of an external world?
And, perhaps most difficult of all, how would it do whatever the materialist proposes in the real time in which we experience all of those creations of new ideas?
How would it come up with just the right idea as a product of random precursor chemicals and other physical entities found in any particular brain? My guess would be that if it were possible to accurately calculate a probability that the entire human species could come up with just the right idea even once as a result of random processes, it would be more vanishingly small than many of the infinitesimally tiny probabilities associated with the fine-tunings of the physical universe. In order to make his point about monkey's typing out the contents of the British Museum, Eddington had to invent a theoretical infinity of monkeys to do it. If there is one thing we know about the numbers of humans necessary to produce the contents of the British Museum, it falls entirely short of infinity.
Since being goaded by the bigotry and obvious political damage that atheists did to the left to study the issues involved, I have come to the conclusion that the entire program of atheist-materialist assertion that the universe is undesigned is nothing more than their ideological preferences dressed up in a lab coat. There is no scientific basis to that, in every case I've looked at of a famous scientist making that assertion, the philosophical underpinnings of their argument are incompetent.
There is, actually, no scientific means of addressing that question. And when you rigorously look at the claims which such a thing would include, it looks no more ridiculous to believe that the universe is designed by God than that it is the product of entirely random events governed by the action of probability. The issue is one that belongs to philosophy and theology, not science. Only scientist are often so lacking in philosophical training that they don't understand that distinction and, so, they arrogantly presume to answer it with science which is not equipped to study it. There never was any scientific reason to claim that and when you consider things like the mind which thinks about such things, it looks like there are excellent reasons to reject the idea.
I would like to see some atheist do something other than invoke the words "natural selection" and "evolution" as if those answered the question. All that has done is point out how the atheists are as habitually prone to invoking magic as a means of producing what they can't account for as anyone they deride in that regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment