Canis,
As polite and as well mannered as you are, you are pretty much telling me
you are a critical and scientific thinker that out of respect for my beliefs
does not want to "debunk me" I am on the other hand a believer, all my
views are subjective judgements that console me. The irony here, this
judgement of yours is a belief itself.
The biggest assumption a skeptic makes is that they do not have beliefs,
but that is false. I will refer to Winston's treatise on this web site:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page12.htm
In your case there are many beliefs I can surmise from just two posts:
1) You are a critical and scientific thinker.
2) Relativism - "We see things differently"
3) Evolution is blind
4) There is no metaphysical reality
1. I do not see evidence of you being critical and scientific virtue by
the sheer fact that you have not evaluated your own beliefs. These
are not your beliefs either, you have borrowed them from secularism
and materialisam.
If you really are a critical thinker than how you deny that really are higher
states of being and life. Is it not true that some people are joyful, loving and
compassionate and some people are not. Does that not itself establish my point
that there are higher states of being and life?
2. If everything is relative, how can you know for a fact that there is no evidence
for the 4 statements I made? This relativism is not consistent, because in making
this statement you've set-up a position that your position is objective, valid.
Relativism is just sophisty, it never works in principle. The biggest refutation
was by Plato and Aristotle of this position, which showed that everything is subject
to logic and all claims can be tested. Just as I have tested your claim of being relative
and shown it to be false.
3. How can evolution be blind when you have said yourself that an apriori condition of
evolution is the survival instinct. It is not blind then, but determined by a priori teleology
- to preserve life. Your views rely on centuries old theories, new views in evolution such
as epigenetics do not support the blind evolution thesis. Moreover, you did not answer my
question on how a complex intricate system could arise by chance, where every part is
dependent on everything else to function. It is already clear if you think critically, that
evolution is not random, because it is driven by a predisposition for life. There are already
certain a priori structures in evolution which work better than others. Moreover, we know
for a fact that evolution is governed by actual laws, for example atoms will only combine
under certain conditions and at the sub-atomic level all conditions must be absolutely fine
-tuned to the nth degree for any complexity to arise. Once again here is revealed that evolution
has an priori organization without which the universe with its multitude of complexieties could
not arise.
4. Then what is mind, consciousness and experience? They are certainly not physical because
they cannot be measured and have no locality. Then by definition they are metaphysical. Are
you denying they do not exist?
One of the defining characteristics of critical and scientific thinker is the ability to differentiate
between the various nuances of something and examine it more precisely. I am doing that, and you
are not. I think you should not worry about "debunking" my "beliefs" As a critical thinker, I only go
where the evidence is pointing. If it so happens something I held to be true is in fact demonstrably false
I will not bat an eye lid in dropping that notion. However, you must be able to demonstrate it, and this
means engaging my statements. Your reluctance to do that reveals an insecurity in your own beliefs, than it
does care for mine. Moroever, you have already entered this discussion, and made many claims, so you
have the burden of proof now to back up your claims.