Darwin's Illusion

[blü 2]

Neither myself nor the scientific sources I quoted deny the functions of the brain. Not at all, this is not the point.

The point is the allegation that consciousness is not generated by the brain, no? Yet consciousness is helpless in the face of various kinds of brain damage, whether alcohol, drugs, trauma, disease, hypoxia, &c.

And only hypothesis, unsupported by good evidence, supports the idea that consciousness exists independently of the brain.

Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)

Scientists say your “mind" isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body (qz.com)

What is it, exactly, that exists outside of the brain and can interact with the brain? Where is there evidence in brain research of such an interaction?

Or am I right in asserting that nothing of the kind has ever been observed?

The point is about the source of consciousness. A unique broadcast being manifested through the TV functions is analogous to a unique consciousness being manifested through the brain functions, even so the functions of the TV directly affect the viewing experience, but such functions can’t be taken as evidence that the TV is the source of the show. The source (the broadcast) is independent of the TV. The show is a manifestation of the source through the functions of the TV.

The broadcast signals of TV and radio are parts of physics.

Therefore you need evidence from physics of what you're talking about. Otherwise the analogy is false and misleading.

If all what you know is phase 1, how can you possibly tell with any level of certainty about phase 2? Phase 2 is "after death".

The amoeba dies. The ant dies. The grass seed dies. The sparrow (notoriously) dies. The family dog dies. But all of them have continued to exist, just not anywhere they can be detected, located, communicated with? Is that your claim?

The rule is that people don’t return from that phase to tell, but this rule has exceptions. NDE research sheds light on phase 2 and the relationship between consciousness and the physical body/brain.

I have a friend whose cousin crashed his light aircraft at night, crawled clear, and had an NDE, so he said, and so it seems quite possible to me that such experiences occur.

What doesn't seem possible to me is that they signify anything. As with NDEs, so with OBEs ─ no one returns from the experience with new remote information about reality. Grandpa stands among the shiny beings waving in greeting but neglects to say where to look for his lost will &c &c.

The research provided evidence that the phenomenon of “Qualia” is not physical.

I see nothing mysterious about qualia. As humans our genetics provide each of us with much the same equipment; the attempts to turn that into woo don't impress me at all.

when your TV irreversibly ceases to function, it’s dead but that has nothing to do with the broadcast.

You have no evidence of any such broadcast, no testable hypothesis as to what it might be, how it might work. The same goes for the way Superman can hover in the air.

When you say, “a sort of life-map built in”, implies “preprogramming”, which is evidently not possible.

Growth is pre-programmed. Learning to speak is pre-programmed. Adolescent is pre-programmed. Menopause is pre-programmed. Old age is pre-programmed. That's the frame the sense of a map is built on.

 

[LIIA]

I see that you are still ignorant and butt hurt. And you are still acting in a rather cowardly way. You could learn if you were not so afraid. Instead you post weak insults that only apply to you and run away.

Why are you so afraid? Am I really that frightening?

whether you accept it or not but the more we see of your pathetic reaction, the stronger the evidence points to how painful is the action. Obviously, it’s very painful for you to the point that you can barely keep your sanity but it’s also obvious that you’re the kind that enjoys pain.

Have fun or should I say have more of your enjoyable pain, whatever works for you. Just try to relax. Take it easy; it’s not good for your health.

Again, didn’t I just say relax and try to keep your sanity? Or at least whatever is left of it (If any). Now, go ahead and show everyone how insane you can get. It will always be a clear indication of how strong is your pain. Try to control it if you will, it’s just an advice, take it or leave it.

I really don’t have time to waste with your type and really sorry for causing you that much pain, it was not my goal. It’s totally useless.

I wish you the best.

Have fun.

 

[LIIA]

What a simplistic view of genetics you have. Not to mention uneducated.

Not at all. In essence, a gene is indeed a unique code for a function. Again, what is a gene if not a function? Please don’t tell me it’s a sequence of nucleotides in DNA. That would be really pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

There's nothing in evolution theory that predicts humans would, or could, grow an extra set of limbs and have them become wings able to fly.

Nothing.

This again just you being disengenous and borderline dishonest.
It's completely ridiculous.

Not at all. It’s just your empty assertions not the predictions of the theory itself.

Again, the theory assumes that all transformations of all kinds are not only possible but did take effect even the transformation of microorganisms into elephants, provided you give the process time, random changes and selection pressures.

If the alleged transformation of LUCA (single-celled organism) into elephants is possible, then why not the human wings? All what you need is a random replication changes in the arrangement of DNA that causes a gene to express itself differently, so simple, right? Just get stuck in traffic every day, wish for wings and leave the rest to random mutations and natural selection. Should the random advantageous change happens, selection would keep it. Right?

But if human wings appear so ridiculous (and it is), then let me ask you a simpler question. Monkeys may jump from tree to tree everyday all the time. Monkeys with some sort of membranes would glide longer and could jump farther, such adaptation would be advantageous, and it may even save their lives by giving them better chance to escape predators. Now, let's forget about humans, can monkeys grow wings and fly through an evolutionary process?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The pre-coded function (citrate transporter) did exist before the mutation, but it was silent. see the link.

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

It’s neither new nor randomly evolved info. It's not an accumulation of random change but rather a cell-mediated adaptive process (not merely DNA replication error) and most importantly the ability to consume citrate didn’t give rise to a new species, it was a variant of the same species which is exactly the case with the phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). I.e., a cell mediated adaptive process.

The problem here is your inability to understand the difference between random DNA replication error/damage and the cell mediated adaptive changes, which are neither random nor gradual. Gradual accumulation of errors doesn’t lead to new meaningful functions.

The notion that just because the trait is new, then it must be due to the accumulation of random errors, is totally false and illogical. There is no evidence for such nonsense. It’s totally against the new scientific finds (adaptive changes are neither random nor gradual), See # 1245. This is exactly why the Modern Synthesis is false.

Also “New traits” doesn’t equal “new species”. If you consider the new traits that give rise to variants of dogs, all of these different traits previously exist (pre-coded) in the DNA of the species, it’s not new traits that emerged due to random accumulation of DNA replication errors. That is why no matter how the variants are very very different, it will never be a new species. Do you understand?

You are likely misunderstanding that article because you can only read the abstract. Lucky for us some of the authors that wrote the Wikipedia article on the Long Term E coli Experiment had read that article and understood it. It is a new trait. the article introduces a new concept of their. It is called "potentiating". And earlier mutation, did occur that made this later mutation possible. Same paper but from the Wiki article:

"Cit+ evolves in the LTEE[edit]
In 2008, Lenski's team, led by Zachary D. Blount, reported that the ability to grow aerobically on citrate had evolved in one population. "

Please note, this was rather early in the research and was a preliminary hypothesis. Those, since they are often made with limited information, or often incorrect. The same worker later on:

"In 2012, Lenski and his team reported the results of a genomic analysis of the Cit+ trait that shed light on the genetic basis and evolutionary history of the trait. The researchers had sequenced the entire genomes of twenty-nine clones isolated from various time points in the Ara-3 population's history. They used these sequences to reconstruct the phylogenetic history of the population; this reconstruction showed that the population had diversified into three clades by 20,000 generations. The Cit+ variants had evolved in one of these, which they called Clade 3. Clones that had been found to be potentiated in earlier research were distributed among all three clades, but were over-represented in Clade 3. This led the researchers to conclude that there had been at least two potentiating mutations involved in Cit+ evolution.[9]"

The link at the end is to the same paper that you linked. The potentiation appears to have been an earlier mutation in the study. Not all of the clades had it. So it does follow that it arose during the experiment. It was not one mutation it was at least two and more likely three.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones had mutations in which a 2933-base-pair segment of DNA was duplicated or amplified. The duplicated segment contained the gene citT for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate. The duplication is tandem, and resulted in copies that were head-to-tail with respect to each other. This new configuration placed a copy of the previously silent, unexpressed citT under the control of the adjacent rnk gene's promoter, which directs expression when oxygen is present. This new rnk-citT module produced a novel regulatory pattern for citT, activating expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen was present, and thereby enabled aerobic growth on citrate.[9]

Movement of this rnk-citT module into the genome of a potentiated Cit− clone was shown to be sufficient to produce a Cit+ phenotype. However, the initial Cit+ phenotype conferred by the duplication was very weak, and only granted a ~1% fitness benefit. The researchers found that the number of copies of the rnk-citT module had to be increased to strengthen the Cit+ trait sufficiently to permit the bacteria to grow well on the citrate. Further mutations after the Cit+ bacteria became dominant in the population continued to accumulate improved growth on citrate.[citation needed]

The researchers concluded that the evolution of the Cit+ trait occurred in three distinct phases: (1) mutations accumulated that increased the rate of mutation to Cit+, (2) the trait itself appeared in a weak form, and (3) the trait was improved by later mutations. Blount et al. suggested that this pattern might be typical of how novel traits in general evolve, and proposed a three-step model of evolutionary innovation:

1. Potentiation: a genetic background evolves in which a trait is mutationally accessible, making the trait's evolution possible.
2. Actualization: a mutation occurs that produces the trait, making it manifest, albeit likely in a weak form.
3. Refinement: Once the trait exists, if it provides selective benefit, mutations will accumulate that improve the trait, making it effective. This phase is open-ended, and will continue so long as refining mutations arise and the trait remains beneficial.[9][16]

This model has seen acceptance in evolutionary biology. In 2015 paleontologist Douglas Erwin suggested a modification to a four-step model to better reflect a possible distinction between evolutionary novelty and evolutionary innovation, and to highlight the importance of environmental conditions: potentiation, generation of novel phenotypes (actualization), adaptive refinement, and exploitation (conversion of a novelty to an innovation as it becomes important for the ecological establishment of possessing organisms).[44]"

Sorry, but it is a new trait. It just took more mutations than they first thought.

 

[LIIA]

"Changes" would have been a better more neutral term than "errors". They use the word error in the context of thinking of life as having an ultimate purpose.

No, “error” in a scientific context means a deviation from the specific original DNA sequence being replicated, specifically when the error escapes the proofreading mechanisms of the cell.

They write these articles for honest lay people. They did not intend for the language that they used to be abused as you have done.

Nonsense, the same language (errors) is repeatedly used in all relevant scientific sources. See the quotes below.

a) “The replisome quickly and accurately copies billions of DNA bases each cell division cycle. However, it can make errors especially when the template DNA is damaged. In these cases, replication-coupled repair mechanisms remove the mistake or repair the template lesions to ensure high fidelity and complete copying of the genome. Failures in these genome maintenance activities generate MUTATIONS, rearrangements, and chromosome segregation problems that cause many human diseases”

Replication-coupled DNA Repair - PMC (nih.gov)

b) “While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent MUTATIONS”

Errors in DNA Replication

c) “ERRORS made during replication are typically repaired. If they are not, MUTATIONS can result.”

6.3 DNA Replication and Repair Mechanisms – Human Biology

d) “DNA, like any other molecule, can undergo a variety of chemical reactions. Because DNA uniquely serves as a permanent copy of the cell genome, however, changes in its structure are of much greater consequence than are alterations in other cell components, such as RNAs or proteins. Mutations can result from the incorporation of incorrect bases during DNA replication. In addition, various chemical changes occur in DNA either spontaneously (Figure 5.19) or as a result of exposure to chemicals or radiation (Figure 5.20). Such damage to DNA can block replication or transcription, and can result in a high frequency of mutations”

DNA Repair - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Again, the sources that confirm the same about errors/damages that result mutations are endless. These articles are neither written for the layman nor it actually intended anything other than the true meaning of “errors/damages” within the scientific context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

whether you accept it or not but the more we see of your pathetic reaction, the stronger the evidence points to how painful is the action. Obviously, it’s very painful for you to the point that you can barely keep your sanity but it’s also obvious that you’re the kind that enjoys pain.

Have fun or should I say have more of your enjoyable pain, whatever works for you. Just try to relax. Take it easy; it’s not good for your health.

Again, didn’t I just say relax and try to keep your sanity? Or at least whatever is left of it (If any). Now, go ahead and show everyone how insane you can get. It will always be a clear indication of how strong is your pain. Try to control it if you will, it’s just an advice, take it or leave it.

I really don’t have time to waste with your type and really sorry for causing you that much pain, it was not my goal. It’s totally useless.

I wish you the best.

Have fun.

I am not the one running away from a reasonable offer. All of your false claims apply only to you. Why are you so afraid? Yes, you would have to openly lie if you learned what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence. But then you might actually learn something instead of relying on your inability to understand the articles that you cite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, “error” in a scientific context means a deviation from the specific original DNA sequence being replicated, specifically when the error escapes the proofreading mechanisms of the cell.

No, that still does no excuse your abuse of terminology. A big part of the problem is that you have been relying on articles about mutations in somatic cells, not gamete cells. In a somatic cell you can imply a purpose, since that is all that cell can do. But changes in gametes affect how the organism is put together. They are not the same in the sense of mutations. Granted, most mutations in coding DNA are deleterious. But not all of them are. It only takes a few for evolution to advance.

Nonsense, the same language (errors) is repeatedly used in all relevant scientific sources. See the quotes below.

a) “The replisome quickly and accurately copies billions of DNA bases each cell division cycle. However, it can make errors especially when the template DNA is damaged. In these cases, replication-coupled repair mechanisms remove the mistake or repair the template lesions to ensure high fidelity and complete copying of the genome. Failures in these genome maintenance activities generate MUTATIONS, rearrangements, and chromosome segregation problems that cause many human diseases”

Replication-coupled DNA Repair - PMC (nih.gov)

Again, that refers to somatic cells. You are just repeating your errors.

b) “While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent MUTATIONS”

Errors in DNA Replication

c) “ERRORS made during replication are typically repaired. If they are not, MUTATIONS can result.”

6.3 DNA Replication and Repair Mechanisms – Human Biology

d) “DNA, like any other molecule, can undergo a variety of chemical reactions. Because DNA uniquely serves as a permanent copy of the cell genome, however, changes in its structure are of much greater consequence than are alterations in other cell components, such as RNAs or proteins. Mutations can result from the incorporation of incorrect bases during DNA replication. In addition, various chemical changes occur in DNA either spontaneously (Figure 5.19) or as a result of exposure to chemicals or radiation (Figure 5.20). Such damage to DNA can block replication or transcription, and can result in a high frequency of mutations”

DNA Repair - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Again, the sources that confirm the same about errors/damages that result mutations are endless. These articles are neither written for the layman nor it actually intended anything other than the true meaning of “errors/damages” within the scientific context.

And more articles on somatic cells. There is some repair in gamete cells, more in the ovum than in the sperm cells And sometimes the term "damage" is used, but since there can be and have been positive the word "damage" is misleading and should be avoided.

If you want to claim that it is always damage, which it would have to be, the burden of proof is upon you. Quoting articles that you did not understand is not good enough.

You can try again.

By the way, here is a clue. You should realize that you are probably wrong if your interpretation would mean that evolution is possible since almost all (and very possibly all) of the authors that you rely upon accept the fact of evolution. That should tell you that you are likely misunderstanding their work.

 

[LIIA]

This new configuration placed a copy of the previously silent, unexpressed citT under the control of the adjacent rnk gene's promoter, which directs expression when oxygen is present.

Exactly. But a description of the process, it’s steps and what the scientists learned has nothing to do with the fact that a cell-mediated event placed a copy of the previously silent, unexpressed citT under the control of the adjacent rnk gene's promoter, which directs expression when oxygen is present. It was neither an accident nor random damage to the DNA.

As James A. Shapiro said, “genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA”.

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

 

[LIIA]

I am not the one running away from a reasonable offer. All of your false claims apply only to you. Why are you so afraid? Yes, you would have to openly lie if you learned what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence. But then you might actually learn something instead of relying on your inability to understand the articles that you cite.

ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. But a description of the process, it’s steps and what the scientists learned has nothing to do with the fact that a cell-mediated event placed a copy of the previously silent, unexpressed citT under the control of the adjacent rnk gene's promoter, which directs expression when oxygen is present. It was neither an accident nor random damage to the DNA.

As James A. Shapiro said, “genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA”.

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

So what? Another article that you do not understand. By the way, why use authors that you disagree with? How does that prove anything? Unless you accept their work, and in this case it would be that evolution is a fact, then why use them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok

You could always take me up on my offer. At any rate good night. It is very late here.

 

[LIIA]

No, that still does no excuse your abuse of terminology. A big part of the problem is that you have been relying on articles about mutations in somatic cells, not gamete cells. In a somatic cell you can imply a purpose, since that is all that cell can do. But changes in gametes affect how the organism is put together. They are not the same in the sense of mutations. Granted, most mutations in coding DNA are deleterious. But not all of them are. It only takes a few for evolution to advance.


Again, that refers to somatic cells. You are just repeating your errors.

And more articles on somatic cells. There is some repair in gamete cells, more in the ovum than in the sperm cells And sometimes the term "damage" is used, but since there can be and have been positive the word "damage" is misleading and should be avoided.

If you want to claim that it is always damage, which it would have to be, the burden of proof is upon you. Quoting articles that you did not understand is not good enough.

You can try again.

By the way, here is a clue. You should realize that you are probably wrong if your interpretation would mean that evolution is possible since almost all (and very possibly all) of the authors that you rely upon accept the fact of evolution. That should tell you that you are likely misunderstanding their work.

As usual, you make up some empty claims merely because you said so without any demonstration and try to confuse the uninformed reader.

But NO, “error” in the scientific context of DNA replication means a deviation from the specific original DNA sequence being replicated, specifically when the error or damage escapes the proofreading mechanisms of the cell.”

DNA repair | Enzymes, Pathways & Benefits | Britannica

 

[LIIA]

why use authors that you disagree with? How does that prove anything? Unless you accept their work, and in this case it would be that evolution is a fact, then why use them?

It’s a naive generalization/oversimplification. It’s totally the other way around. The argument is way stronger when I quote prominent scientists from your side. You wouldn’t accept otherwise. Would you?

The real irony is when prominent scientists disprove all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis yet accept evolution but in this case such acceptance is not an acceptance of a scientific theory (which they disproved) but rather a hypothesis that was unduly elevated to the level of an axiom.

 

[LIIA]

Evolutionary science is based on objectively verifiable evidence based on scientific methods supported by 95%+of ALL the scientists of the world in Biology, Geology, and related fields, and ALL the Major academic universities of the world,

Simply an “Ad Populum” fallacy, it matters not how many didn’t catch up with the latest in the felid or simply being blind followers of outdated textbooks. See #7947

Darwin's Illusion | Page 398 | Religious Forums

ID and IC very very few fundamentalist Christian and Islamic Scientists

You call them “fundamentalists” but whether you accept it or not, the fact is that they are scientists who exposed legitimate scientific challenges to the theory.

I repeat the challenge is on you to present just one

It’s really simple and I already did before, but your denial mode doesn’t allow you to listen or understand.

Again, no eye can evolve without the brain functions that can transform the data from the eye to visual experiences, in addition to data processing mechanism to make meaningful decisions (with respect to survival) based on the awareness of such visual experiences. Otherwise, the eye would be totally useless. Go ahead and refute it if you can.

Mayr does not support ID

No, he doesn’t, I never made such claim. I said Mayr is one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists.

My point was his specific distinction between “functional biology” as an exact science and “evolutionary biology” as the “Geisteswissenschaften.”

You do not even understand the citation provided. It has nothing to do with endorsing ID

No, you don’t understand what I said. I never said that Mayr endorsed ID. As far as I know, He absolutely doesn’t l. See the point above.

Please note that I always support my arguments by providing the opinions of prominent scientists from your side of the argument. Do you understand?

Your ancient tribal beliefs are upfront in this thread and WILL remain so along with Fundamentalist Christians because it is ONLY a very few fundamentalist Christian and Islamic scientists that support ID out of tens of thousands of scientists.

An irrelevant claim/accusations of “fundamentalism” being right or wrong is not in any way a rational counterargument. We discussed that before many times. Do you understand?

Not fallacious nor nonsensical sense I have documented the fact that only a very very few fundamentalist Christian and Islamic scientists support ID. Mayr DOES NOT support ID,

No, you didn’t document it and even if you did, it’s still irrelevant. And again Mayr DOES NOT support ID. I never claimed that he did. see above.

I am a rational geologist with over fifty years of education and experience, What are your qualifications in the sciences of evolution? You obviously have a problem since you have misrepresented Mayr and do not understand his writings.

My argument has nothing to do with your job or level of knowledge and again I never misrepresented Mayr. If you still think that I did, go back and read my previous posts again.

 

[LIIA]

Local spacetime began with the big bang. If there is more to reality than that, then our universe's space time began and proceeded at a time and place in a meta spacetime.

Empty claims, there are no evidence of time or space beyond our spacetime that emerged after the Big Bang.

Yes, thank you. I've taken a few science classes and read an article or two. Yes, it's a hypothesis like God, only more parsimonious, since it isn't described as conscious or aware of our universe.

Good, that you understand that multiverse is a hypothesis (that can neither be proven or falsified) but regardless, why is a conscious first cause is a problem to you. I previously demonstrated how the "distinct source” is unique and why he must be conscious (his actions only depends on him in the sense that it’s not triggered by external influences beyond his being). Demonstrate your reasons for the contrary rather than a subjective inclination towards the hypothesis of multiverse that multiplies the same problem instead of providing answers.

So what's your point? That makes it not worthy of consideration? Your god belief is also a hypothesis, and it's good enough for you. Why the double standard (rhetorical question)?

the double standard is yours. You are the one who implies that the “existence of God” not worthy of consideration. I demonstrated the case for God. You didn’t demonstrate any case for multiverse. If science postulates that nothing physical exist beyond the Big Bang, on what basis you make a claim otherwise?

I define multiverse as any unconscious source for our universe. We don't know that it had a source.

Demonstrate why the source must be unconscious. You’re trying to impose the characteristics of “all physical things” on the “distinct source”. IOW, impose what you know on what you don’t. It’s illogical. After all, if consciousness doesn’t have its roots in the “district source”, then consciousness is false in the absolute sense.

Multiple universes only multiply the same problem. It doesn’t provide answers. Every universe needs a source, just like ours and if you claim that they explain each other, then it’s a fallacious circular reasoning in the sense that A explains B and B explains A. the question remains “what explains A & B?

Entities A, B, C, etc. of similar nature (contingent entities) must depend on a cause. The distinct source (non-contingent) is unique in the sense that it exists by virtue of its mere essence (absolute) without any dependency on any entity of any kind.

But if it had a source, that source also had to have existed infinitely int the past or arisen de no and uncaused.

Exactly, you’re back to square one. The beginning must be a source that have existed infinitely/uncaused.

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.

A contingent entity with a specific beginning must be caused.

[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

An empty claim that contradicts science.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.

multiverse is merely a repetition of the problem not an answer as previously explained.

[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

Every single universe (within multiverse) needs an explanation just like ours.

If you claim that no explanation is required for each universe within multiverse, then why do you need to invoke multiverse to explain our universe to begin with?

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.

Yes, but “came to existence” contradicts “uncaused”. God always exists, with no beginning. God is the cause for time itself to exist.

[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

God has no beginning or end. His being is not subject to change. God changes entities down the causality chain, but he doesn’t change.

My guess is that you have chosen [6]. I haven't chosen any but put the multiverse hypothesis at the top of my list of candidate hypotheses, since it obviates the fine-tuning objection and is more parsimonious than a conscious multiverse (a god). I think that the correct answer must be on that list, as a creationist, I presume you agree.

You have no reason to put multiverse at the top. Again, multiverse is no more than some circular reasoning that doesn’t provide any root answers.

For the sake of argument, if option 6 is true, you have put your eternal life on the line (can you afford such a gamble?). If multiverse is true, we all equally end to nothing. (rhetorical argument)

untestability doesn't disqualify or even weaken the position of any candidate hypothesis.

Yet, you don’t equally consider your candidate hypothesis (1 to 6). Do you?

But regardless, I demonstrated the case for the first distinct source. You’re merely making a subjective inclination towards an assumption that contradicts logic as explained above. It’s up to you but at least you should know that “untestability” is the very reason that multiverse will never be a scientific theory.

You believe in a god with no distinct source, or do you believe that your god had a source?

The two categories of existence are “the distinct source” and “ everything else”. The rules that apply to the second category have no relevance to the first.

Here's where the theist jumps the shark. Now you're on a flight of religious fancy. There is no apparent purpose to reality, and no reason to believe in gods or to listen to self-proclaimed messengers of them.

There are reasons but it’s up to you if you wish to claim otherwise.

My life falsifies that claim. I abandoned gods decades ago and have relied only on reason, skepticism, and empiricism to decide what is true about the world, and I have used that knowledge to navigate it. I reached my intended destination long ago (which includes comfortable and has been comforting) and intend to enjoy the fruits of that journey for as long as I can. I ask for nothing more from a world view.

I guess our understanding of “comfort” is quite different. You may understand it as the journey and you may think you had it while you really didn’t (how can you judge what you don’t know). On my end, it’s not only the journey but also and more importantly the final destination.

It’s difficult to describe the comfort of the journey (our life) but I can say it’s the “peace of mind”. You can’t find “peace of mind” through materialistic means, if you think you do, I think you’re deceiving yourself. You would always want more, you will always see others who got more than you, what you didn’t get will always be a source of dissatisfaction. You can never have it all and you will never be at ease. And even at the point/time when you think that you had it all, it would no longer have the same value in your eyes as before. Even at the time you think you really got all that matters to you, the declination of your own health would ruin your comfort or ability to enjoy your materialistic collections. Even if you can keep your materialistic collections intact and don’t lose it or lose some of it for one reason or another, then you will definitely leave it behind when your times comes and sure it will come. At this point, you may wonder "what is the meaning of the whole thing", and you wouldn’t find an answer tell the final point when all the facts will be revealed to you beyond any doubt. At this point, your time is up, there is no going back.

Maybe you should be taking life advice from me rather than giving it. How's your life? Have you found and secured love, beauty, comfort, and happiness for yourself? Or maybe those aren't your goals

Sure, those are parts of my goal. I really think anyone that claims that he got it all is lying or deceiving himself. “Enough” is always a relative term. But again, the argument has to be apple to apple. Our understanding of comfort is different. For me, comfort is “peace of mind”. Am I at total peace of mind? No, but I’m satisfied with my level of it and life always continue to be a struggle towards self-betterment. It’s an endeavor that doesn’t end till the end of life itself.

You wrote, "you get to believe whatever you want but you do not get to “set the rules" of what is true or false" and I answered, "We all decide such things for ourselves.

It’s a basic fact that we shouldn’t argue about. Your subjective rules cannot be the measure for the objective reality/truth.

[1] Materialism - asserts that everything that exists is physical including mind, which would be an epiphenomenon of brains. That is, matter can exist without minds, but minds only exist in matter.

That would be an empty assertions that are rather meaningless. But what is materialism? We discussed that before. Regardless, expert scientists have different opinion than yours. I previously provided the sources.

[2] Idealism postulates the reverse: mind is the primordial substance and is the source of the physical world, which is an epiphenomenon of thought, like a dreamscape.

It’s not Idealism but rather quantum physics, Quantum reality left the door wide open for a total new perspective of mind/consciousness as it relates/interacts with matter and the entire universe.

John Archibald Wheeler suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed. Consciousness and the quantum state of the universe are interrelated; the entire universe would be in a superposition of states that only collapses to the realm of classical reality through the observation of the conscious mind. See #3086

Darwin's Illusion | Page 155 | Religious Forums

[3] Cartesian dualism - both mind and matter are fundamental.

a competing duality doesn’t resolve the matter.

[4] Neutral monism - both are derivative of something that is the source of both, like space and time relative to spacetime).

The various kinds of monism return all existing things to a single source that is distinct from them.

 

[LIIA]

No, that hasn't been established. That's your religious intuition speaking. It wants idealism to be correct, declares it so, and then employes this Texas Sharpshooter fallacy where supporting evidence is given undue priority over contradictory evidence.

Not at all. Physical explanation of mind was never established while NDE research did establish that consciousness is not dependent on the functions of the brain.

But it does mean that they aren't receiving the same common signal as this idea of our brains being receivers of some external source implies.

I never claimed a common signal, but rather a unique one. Every consciousness is unique. You cannot even know how the specific Qualia of another consciousness are like.

The signal you receive is the experience of physical reality whether that be of the external world or the body and brain.

An empty claim. You make claims of what you don’t know. You try to impose your own limits on the absolute reality.

Consciousness is a theater of qualia of assorted types reporting on the objects and processes comprising physical reality including the neocortex, which electrochemical machinations we experience as higher order symbolic thought, and this includes what is called free will, which is also generated in the neural circuits and reported to the "self," which sees itself as their original source ('the illusion of free will').

There is no physical process that gives rise to Qualia. Free will is a fact not an illusion. Sure, it works within a limited domain, yet it’s real within that domain.

You chose a compass to illustrate that it's response to a source doesn't indicate that source's location?

A local physical manifestation is not evidence of the source’s nature of origin.

But I get your point. The original source is underfoot in the planet's liquid metal outer core, and the compass won't reveal that.

Sure. The limitations of what we can directly observe or understand is not a limitation to what the absolute reality that is independent of our perception can be.

 

[LIIA]

do not consider the multiverse is hypothetical that many. As far as what 'caused our universe, and the possible multiverse is simply by the evidence of Natural Laws and natural processes we see through the study of Quantum Mechanics. Any outside 'cause' would be very hypothetical and based on 'the subjective belief as to what the 'cause' of 'Natural Laws and the natural originating source is.

Empty claims. There is no evidence of multiverse nor it can be falsified. That’s why it will never be a scientific theory, merely a hypothesis.

You have the habit of throwing in some terminology to imply an explanatory merit without any demonstration of how such terminology supports your view.

Again, there is no evidence for multiverse, not through Natural Laws/ Processes or through the study of Quantum Mechanics. If you don’t agree, demonstrate.

The process is natural for the formation and expansion of the singularity.

Beyond space, time, physical matter and natural laws, i.e., beyond the Big Bang, nothing that belongs to that domain is natural.

Our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and math models supports the above scenario.

Don’t just throw in some terminology, demonstrate.

Regardless, of any argument, we can agree that multiverse is not a scientific theory for a reason. Right?

The reason is simply “the lack of evidence” in addition to the fact that the hypothesis is “not falsifiable". That is why it will never be a scientific theory.

 

[LIIA]

You bring out an important point (to me). While there is no temple for Israelites today where they used to offer sacrifices, there surely are sins we commit that we don't even understand or realize. The older I get the more able I am to understand but it's very little, however a lot more than when I was young-er. That is one reason I look forward to everlasting life (on earth) so I can see along with otheres so many important things resolved. Take care. (P.S. Your use of the English language is excellent, in my opinion.)

The point is about fairness/justice/mercy.

Can you hold your 7-year-old kid responsible for the finances of your house? If you do and he fails, is that a surprise to you? Is that his fault? You cannot hold him accountable except for things within his capacity and when you do, (such as holding the kid responsible for washing his hands before eating or being nice to his siblings), you do it for his own benefit not for your direct benefit, and even when he sometimes makes a mistake, your are not eagerly waiting for this mistake to get revenge or kick him out of your house. You give him as many chances as he needs. And whenever he comes back to you and say “I’m sorry”. You absolutely forgive him.

If this is you, what are your thoughts of God?

 

[LIIA]

As you'll know from your reading of modern research into brainmapping, self-editing occurs in the forebrain

Yes, self-editing occurs in the forebrain. Quran touched upon this fact in “Al-Alaq, 16” and associated the act of “lying and sinning” with the forehead.

“Have you seen if he denies and turns away. Knows he not that Allāh sees? Nay! If he ceases not, We will surely castigate the forehead (forebrain). A lying, sinning forehead! (forebrain).” [Al-Alaq, 13-16]

The second part of my reasoning is, what's the point? Most critters, certainly mammals, are born with a sort of life-map built in─ for us, be raised, learn a language, the customs of your family and group, learn about your world, reach puberty, marry, have kids, grow old and (maybe) provide wisdom and be useful. The End. As a poet put it,

HEAVEN
One hundredbillionyears onwhat will you sayto your true love?
To which we can add, 'and why?'

Life has a purpose otherwise “survival” itself would be meaningless, why should you or any living system struggle to survive, if survival has no purpose?

You don’t get to the choose the beginning or end of your live, only between these two points, you get to exercise the free will that was given to you. That is the purpose of life. The free will boils down to your choice to submit to God or deny God. If you choose God, you do it because you want to not because you have to. The evidence for God is designed to be enough to show you the way, yet not compelling in a manner that takes away your freedom to deny God if so, you wish.

Beyond this temporary period (life), you're no longer free to disobey God and your choices will have eternal consequences. Your choices reflect, “Who you are". "Who you are” is permanent, and that is why the consequences of your choices are permanent.

That is really all what I had to say. Beyond that, it’s on you and you are all free.

Those who deny God would continue in their denial and they are free to do so.

Those who want to open their heart and mind to God are also free to do so.

Every accountable individual shall bear the consequences of his own choices/actions (not the actions of anyone else) and every action counts.

“Every soul is held in pledge for its deeds” [Al-Muddaththir, 38]

“So, whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it. And whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” [Az-Zalzalah, 7 & 8]

“Allah does not burden a soul except [with that within] its capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned.” [Al-Baqarah, 286]

“Say, Should I seek a lord other than Allah while He is the Lord of everything? Each soul earns only on its own account, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." [Al-An'am, 164]

“Nay! Verily, man does transgress (in disbelief and evil deed). Due to his view (illusion) of himself as self-sufficient. Indeed, to your Lord is the return” [Al-Alaq, 6-8]

Peace