Your position here would mean that no calculator or computer could ever add two numbers together. Substitute "mathematically" for "logically" in what you wrote above, and you'll see that calculators and computers contradict that position. The question of how the computer, calculator, or brain was created, and who, if anyone, did the creating, is a separate issue.
No, if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as conclusions or true or false, brain activity is just chemical reactions and chemical reactions just ARE. There is no such thing as true and false chemical reactions or products of chemical reactions.
There are no such things as hot and cold molecules, or solid and liquid molecules, but molecules in combination can produce states that are hot or cold or solid or liquid. There are no such things as true or false chemical reactions, but (if naturalism is true) chemical reactions can produce states that are drawn towards true conclusions and away from false conclusions. You are not even attempting to explain why this can't be. Saying "the cause is one thing, and the result is a different thing" simply does not demonstrate that the process is impossible.
So we can interact with the physical realm.
The laws of physics produce physical things, the laws of logic can produce non-physical results like conclusions.
You stipulated earlier that laws of logic do not have any causal powers. (Post #311, "laws of logic are not cause and effect relations like the laws of physics.") How then can they "produce" any results, whether physical or non-physical?
It is the arrangement (broadly) of the physical items that produce logical conclusions, just like it is the arrangement (in terms of number and location with a volume of space) of atoms that produce heat when no single atom can be hot. You're committing the fallacy of composition, in which properties that emerge at a higher level (heat, logic) are not present at a lower level of analysis (atoms, atoms).
So again, why should anyone take this point seriously? You can't escape the possibility then that everything you've thought and written is just chemical reactions, and not true conclusions.
Well then you just refuted everything you have ever posted. If you dont think people have free will, then why do you post on this site trying to convince Christians that they are wrong? It makes no sense.
I didnt say that it is the most accurate, but in many cases it is correct.
Actually there is evidence that our minds are not totally tied to the physical, thereby allowing for free will.
Because I had no choice?.
Prove that it is correct when it tells us that we have free will, because common sense is not evidence.
How does our minds not being tied to the physical, entail that we have free will?
Can you explain why it makes no sense?
How do you determine what things are not possible?
No, it applies to any system like math and reasoning. Physicist David Wolpert said Godels theorem shows that "the entire physical universe cannot be fully understood by any single inference system that exists within it." IOW, you must go outside it.
While mainstream cosmology of course, will not acknowledge that. There are cosmologists that do say it points in that direction. Paul Davies, Keith Ward, Arno Penzias, and Hugh Ross to name a few.
No, all the reports I have seen from the experts say either they actually are violating the laws of physics or they are appearing to.Before I dig into that - which I will be happy to do - can you answer the question that I asked, which was, "have you researched any challenges or critiques to the conclusion that the incident in question actually violated the laws of physics?"El Cid said:
Recent UFO Encounters With Navy Pilots Occurred Constantly Across Multiple Squadrons
We have exclusive details about the incidents off the east coast in 2014 and 2015, including that the objects all looked exactly the same.
www.thedrive.com
Well we can also call it suspensions of the laws of physics. If the laws of physics appear to be violated or suspended, that is evidence that the event may be supernatural. I am not saying it proves it, but it is evidence.
Both are abstract.
Interesting... did he prove it?
You explore if they are possible, and when you continually find that your explorations come up empty, you conclude that they are not possible. Now, it might always be possible to find a black swan, but, it's still rational to make a conclusion based on the evidence you have.
One physicist saying something doesn't mean much. Is his conclusion generally accepted by physicists? If so, do you have a citation?
That is a claim independent and separate from whether the supernatural exists, so can you now support this new claim? That modern cosmology *does not* recognize the supernatural does not mean that it *will* not.
I think you mean, "Yes, but all the reports . . . ." but in any event, moving on: so if I do a web search about that specific UFO incident I should find *no* expert who challenges the conclusion that something has violating the laws of physics? OK . . . .
A few issues here: (1) if something "appears" to indicate X, we don't say that it is evidence for X. In order to be evidence for X, it needs to *actually* indicate X; (2) I suppose there are certain laws of physics that, if violated, it would be useful to label that "supernatural," like, if something could be in two places at once, or travel fast than light, etc. I think. (3) I acknowledge your proper hesitancy to move from any evidence at all to accepting a claim. Some evidence may not be sufficient, so any one piece of evidence may not prove something. I agree.
Because with logic you come to conclusions which are non-physical, the laws of physics produce only physical things.
There is pretty strong evidence that points to it.
Actually there are scientific studies that have shown strong evidence for the supernatural such as unexplained healings, the studies of UFOs that I mentioned above, and the BB theory. Also, the origin of the blueprint for life, DNA. DNA is a complex linguistic code, we know from empirical observation for hundreds of years that such codes are only created by an intelligence.
If you say "this healing was supernatural", you have explained it.
All of this is your interpretation of the above. For example, you have nothing that shows DNA is a code, you just infer it is. That's not strong evidence.
If a healing is unexplained, then you can't say it's supernatural, because we've already said it's unexplained. Saying it's supernatural would be part of the explanation for it, but we've already said it is unexplained. If something is unexplained, we have to just leave it at that and get comfortable saying, "we don't know." Period.
I'm working on the UFO incident you mentioned, stay tuned. AFAIK, BB theory does not include anything supernatural. Do you have source for otherwise?
DNA is not a linguistic code - no mind is reading DNA and understanding a message. DNA is merely chemicals doing what chemicals do. It's only a convenience that we use letters to stand for certain chemicals - it allows us to convenience refer to the chemicals.