Intuitive chemicals are already here… Watch out!
A friend recently sent me a couple of books to help me with my researches into the truth about ghosts.
So far I've discovered, among several other things, that the reason Big Science doesn't recognise the existence of anything remotely paranormal, is that Big Science has done a Bad Thing, and has adopted a dogma.
This dogma is the Hypothesis of Materialism, which claims, as one quite famous scientist once patiently explained to me, that 'everything is mineral'. 'Even this conversation? Mineral?' I asked, but he was not to be tricked like that. I was dismissed.
This enormous blind spot in 'scientific' logic has a long history (which I'll be addressing in the book), but it largely derives from Darwin's day.
It hinges upon confusion between Evolution and Origination. No serious person doubts that the Evolution of bodily forms is pretty much of a certainty. But development is absolutely different from origination. This fact is what Richard Dawkins and co seem to have wiped from their minds.
By adopting Materialism as a Truth, ie, as a dogma, scientists like RD have painted themselves into a series of corners, all similar to the 'Mineral conversation' above. Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination, can a conversation be called 'mineral', except by someone preferring dogma to reason. It really is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes… and nobody seems to have noticed. Quite extraordinary.
Materialism claims that everything has derived from the mineral world: ie, from chemicals: from 'mud and lightning', if you like. Therefore, as this is taken as an axiomatic truth, it stands to 'reason' for Materialists that everything non-mineral we see and hear and feel must have derived from minerals. That's the 'logic' they follow. Thus Life, Mind, Consciousness must have 'evolved' from chemicals, with no external input of any kind. Ask them 'Do the chemicals contain Life Mind and Consciousness in the first place, then? Or not?' and you won't get a straight answer. Lots of waffle and fancy verbiage, but no straight answer. And the answer must be 'yes' or 'no' must it not? 'Emergence' is no answer: it's just ducking the issue, because for something to 'emerge' it must have been there in the first place. That's what the word means. Try it on a scientific friend... all good (mineral) fun. Gets the (mineral) mind working…
Which brings me back to the book my friend sent. It's called What We Believe But Cannot Prove and so far it seems to be a list of Materialist propaganda. I suspect we won't be seeing any entries from anyone of a religious bent, or even a non-Materialist scientist (and there are quite a few, but they are more or less bullied into silence by Mr Dawkins and co).
Here's the quote from the book I'd like to pass on which illustrates another of the corners that Materialism has painted itself into:
Unlike religious dogma, no matter how fervently a scientist may believe that something is true, his or her belief is not accepted as a true description of reality until it passes every executable test. Nature is the final arbiter, and great minds are great only insofar as they can intuit the way nature works and are shown by subsequent examination and proof to be right.
Carolyn Porco, Ex-Nasa.
An excellent description of the scientific method and process, I'm sure you'll agree. Apart from one thing…
Where does that most un-mineral of entities, 'intuition' derive from? Science has no answer, except ultimately… 'minerals'.
Over to you, dear reader…
Have a lovely day (mineral)Chas
Incidentally, if you are a Materialist-by-default, as most Materialists are, having never properly debated the matter, you may well have written me off as some sort of mad fundamentalist-creationist. I'm not. My faith lies in logic, and nothing more.
If you are genuinely interested in what makes the universe tick, as opposed to defending an unconsidered dogma, please consider that because something is not black, it does not therefore have to be white. It might be grey or striped, or multicoloured. Think Plato; think cave...
You might also like to dig out for yourself, as I have done, whatever evidence you can find for the Hypothesis of Materialism. You might be surprised by what you find. I certainly was.
So far I've discovered, among several other things, that the reason Big Science doesn't recognise the existence of anything remotely paranormal, is that Big Science has done a Bad Thing, and has adopted a dogma.
This dogma is the Hypothesis of Materialism, which claims, as one quite famous scientist once patiently explained to me, that 'everything is mineral'. 'Even this conversation? Mineral?' I asked, but he was not to be tricked like that. I was dismissed.
This enormous blind spot in 'scientific' logic has a long history (which I'll be addressing in the book), but it largely derives from Darwin's day.
It hinges upon confusion between Evolution and Origination. No serious person doubts that the Evolution of bodily forms is pretty much of a certainty. But development is absolutely different from origination. This fact is what Richard Dawkins and co seem to have wiped from their minds.
By adopting Materialism as a Truth, ie, as a dogma, scientists like RD have painted themselves into a series of corners, all similar to the 'Mineral conversation' above. Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination, can a conversation be called 'mineral', except by someone preferring dogma to reason. It really is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes… and nobody seems to have noticed. Quite extraordinary.
Materialism claims that everything has derived from the mineral world: ie, from chemicals: from 'mud and lightning', if you like. Therefore, as this is taken as an axiomatic truth, it stands to 'reason' for Materialists that everything non-mineral we see and hear and feel must have derived from minerals. That's the 'logic' they follow. Thus Life, Mind, Consciousness must have 'evolved' from chemicals, with no external input of any kind. Ask them 'Do the chemicals contain Life Mind and Consciousness in the first place, then? Or not?' and you won't get a straight answer. Lots of waffle and fancy verbiage, but no straight answer. And the answer must be 'yes' or 'no' must it not? 'Emergence' is no answer: it's just ducking the issue, because for something to 'emerge' it must have been there in the first place. That's what the word means. Try it on a scientific friend... all good (mineral) fun. Gets the (mineral) mind working…
Which brings me back to the book my friend sent. It's called What We Believe But Cannot Prove and so far it seems to be a list of Materialist propaganda. I suspect we won't be seeing any entries from anyone of a religious bent, or even a non-Materialist scientist (and there are quite a few, but they are more or less bullied into silence by Mr Dawkins and co).
Here's the quote from the book I'd like to pass on which illustrates another of the corners that Materialism has painted itself into:
Unlike religious dogma, no matter how fervently a scientist may believe that something is true, his or her belief is not accepted as a true description of reality until it passes every executable test. Nature is the final arbiter, and great minds are great only insofar as they can intuit the way nature works and are shown by subsequent examination and proof to be right.
Carolyn Porco, Ex-Nasa.
An excellent description of the scientific method and process, I'm sure you'll agree. Apart from one thing…
Where does that most un-mineral of entities, 'intuition' derive from? Science has no answer, except ultimately… 'minerals'.
Over to you, dear reader…
Have a lovely day (mineral)Chas
Incidentally, if you are a Materialist-by-default, as most Materialists are, having never properly debated the matter, you may well have written me off as some sort of mad fundamentalist-creationist. I'm not. My faith lies in logic, and nothing more.
If you are genuinely interested in what makes the universe tick, as opposed to defending an unconsidered dogma, please consider that because something is not black, it does not therefore have to be white. It might be grey or striped, or multicoloured. Think Plato; think cave...
You might also like to dig out for yourself, as I have done, whatever evidence you can find for the Hypothesis of Materialism. You might be surprised by what you find. I certainly was.
posted by Chas Griffin at 10:45 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home