Paul Nelson on Freeing Minds Trapped in a Framework of Naturalism

[@tedmadu5383]

Refreshing conversation. I feel for my parents that were trying to bring up our family in the 50's till the late 70's , amidst the height of materialism era. Dad's words often were "Where did we go wrong" Taught in school, the evolution model, with all its bells and whistle's. Thankfully, some of us are able to absorb the prospect and value of the alternative world view. Thanks for presenting these concepts.

[@janetbaker1945]

I'm surprised there are no comments yet. Perhaps people are a bit confounded by the introduction to the main point, heavy on the technical vocabulary. But I think the point is actually easy to grasp. I am reminded of the endless discussions online about the Catholic belief that Mary, the mother of Christ, retained her virginity and was--and is--exactly like any other Jewish girl, no better or worse. Or whether Christ actually meant the words changing the bread and wine into His body and blood? It's better to just point out how wonderful it is for Catholics to have Christ there in the tabernacle waiting for them in the rough times, how great to have that pure and holy Mother He gave us from His cross! And it's better, by leaps, to view the grand world around us with appreciation for the Mind capable of conceiving it and us, for us,, than to see it indifferently, as an expression of chaos and conversely, indifference to us.

[@poliincredible770]

Thank you for freeing our minds with intelligence!

[@PDL4747]

Gosh I wish I could find Part 1.

[@johnglad5]

Blessings

[@Wretchedrenegade]

Well that's pretty dark

[@dagwould]

I get the impression that materialists might decry the idea of 'ID' because they misunderstand it. We claim that biological systems give evidence of ID: that is in the very concept of systems: a multiplicity of components interfacing for an output that has nothing to do with any of the components in isolation. This conclusion gives us confidence that biological (and all other systems with a material expression) are explicable in rational propositions. That is, there is knowledge to be had reliably in the study of them. I expect materialists may think that we have the view that ID ends the mission of science: we know its designed, so no more experiments or observations to gain knowledge. Yet this as far from the truth as is possible. After all, as per Plantinga's naturalistic argument against evolution, materialism does not provide arational basis per se for science. It can at best provide a type of occasionalistic/instrumental basis as it is simply chance working randomly. But why have faith in the chance brain to produce any knowledge? Yet, our (I expect) common faith in the words of scripture gives us confidence that the propositional rationality of the creation set in history, as Genesis 1 tells us, provides the basis for our 'faith' for the reliability of our investigation of the creation and its 'reduction' to propositional explication producing knowledge. God spoke in words, with rational causal effect (he said 'stars' and got 'stars'). Thus, we explore designed systems, because we need to find the functional basis, its inter-connections, and learn from them to...invent drugs, understand our physical world and gain understanding of the delicate parsimony of life. Above all, to gain knowledge for the sheer joy of it. We might in fact wonder why doctrinaire materialists/naturalists would bother. After all why would one bother to seek knowledge from mere chance collocations of particles? So rather than science being denoted as an exercise in methodological naturalism, it is in fact an exercise in methodological Christian theism! We are confident of real knowledge being expressed in design, and so seek to understand the design to gain knowledge. Proverbs 3:19-20 spring to mind.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Dialectics has its limits, just like food and many other things. One might assume that by combining different types of food, a good meal can be achieved. However, this is not true in all cases. Mixing food that lacks nutrients or is spoiled with appropriate food does not produce a nutritious meal. To assume that one can find a useful and intermediate dialectical synthesis when dialoguing with a fanatic, a psychopath, a narcissist, a fool, etc., is mistaken. Philosophy can only produce hypotheses. This is important. Philosophy does not produce knowledge. For a hypothesis to become knowledge, it must be verified in reality. Constructing hypotheses is very useful, but it is not true that they can replace knowledge. They serve to focus the search for knowledge in a specific area of reality.

[@jamesmiller7457]

Constructing new hypothesis is how we solve problems, especially when we have been arguing in circles over the same problems forever, or when the same problems of physics have hounded us for a century with little progress.

[@jamesmiller7457]

The parabola reminds me of a paradox i was reading about of the singularty at the beginning of the universe. It was infinitesimally small. So, if u picture 📸 going back in time through this singularity, which is ♾️ small. That means it goes on for eternity. If u were to be knocking over dominoes as u went back through, u would never run out of dominoes. U would just keep going, and going, and going... And the dominoes would keep falling, and falling, and falling... forever! That is how these naturalists keep coming up with their whacky ideas! I

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great video! Followers of Christ accept observable science and documented history. Scripture deniers grasp at imaginary straws.

[@cleonzerkle3081]

You two are beutiful! Thanks for being good to us members. The street preacher's have the opposite intended effect.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Here's the answer: The Levinthal paradox of the interactome Peter Tompa1,* and George D Rose2 Read that. That's the death of abiogenesis nonsense.

[@kenfalloon3186]

When you claim to be an adherant of dialectic and then only put one side of the argument, you lose credibility in my opinion.

[@jamesmiller7457]

That is what the dialect is for. He was advocating for it.