Please answer my question:
In order to illustrate this notion, you should at least be able to give a few diverse examples. Give me a valid explanation of the following five phenomena in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations:
1.) A solar eclipse;
2.) An egg hatching;
3.) A tsunami;
4.) A cow eating grass;
5.) A global stock market crash.
I did, by using the cow example. Seriously, I don’t need to use ALL five examples for you to get the point do I? What is wrong with the cow example?
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3494099-Walking_among_cows-Netherlands.jpg
Muscle movement caused as of neurological stimuli
Neurological stimuli caused as a result opening and closing sodium and potassium channels in nerve fibres (conducts the signal)
Opening and closing of sodium and potassium channels caused by moving proteins and sodium ions as well as water.
Moving proteins and sodium ions as well as water caused by moving subatomic particles.
Doesn’t work. Try again.
Do you understand “supervenience”?
Mooo, nom nom nom is causally dependant on neurological stimuli
Neurological stimuli are causally dependant on opening and closing of sodium and potassium channels in nerve fibres (conducts the signal)
Opening and closing of sodium and potassium channels are causally dependant on moviement of proteins and sodium ions, water etc.
Moving proteins and sodium ions, water etc. are causally dependant on moving of subatomic particles.
Moving of subatomic particles are ultimately causally dependent on fundamental units in regularly changing relations.
Get it now?
Moo waffle waffle waffle is a way of sidestepping the issue.
You cannot demonstrate your claim that:
Valid explanations of phenomena must always be in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations
even in one of the five cases, leave alone that proving only one could be anecdotal. (The above is ironically a claim which you reject yourself, but try to pin on others.) What you are suggesting is that any explanation not based on small, elementary units in regularly changing relations must necessarily be invalid. Where on earth do you get that idea from?
You come up with a long list of questions which you expect others to answer. You accuse others of not answering questions. You accuse others of being vague. But what do you do? Look at yourself for a change, Teleological. You cannot even demonstrate the validity of your own statements.
Oh, and please, please, please don’t call me a troll if I fail to answer any further questions on this thread. I know it is the Christian thing to do, but it undermines my selfesteem and makes me feel very bad.
Hold on skippy. I am only asking whether people agree with the statements or not. Not pinning it on anyone. If you do not agree with the statement, so be it, no worries.
Like I said, you don’t have to agree with any of them, it is ok, relax. If you think you can demonstrate the statement to be true or false… fine. I was only trying to demonstrate what the statement implies. If you understand what it implies and disagree (or agree for that matter), no problem.
Actually, it is very un-Christian (but you knew that right), my bad, guilty as charged, sorry for that, I guess I am ultimately responsible for that lapse :P.
I am still really interested in your answer (I just want to make sure if you don’t mind). I am not sure if you answered “No” to the question of whether thoughts (which are immaterial according to you) can have an effect on material substances, objects, entities etc.
Thanks