First: Its impressive. You like to write and read. Especially the second is optimistic.
Secondly: you are getting nowhere. Different worldviews. No common ground. Example:
Clownboat wrote:
This argumentation is valid only inside the scientific (materialistic) worldview. Clownboat is unable to get outside of his way of thinking. For him evolution and a super accelerated form of it MUST be BOTH materialistic processes. Period. So, if the first is false, the second cannot be true. But this logic does not hold outside physicalism. To discuss with someone, who does not share your beliefs, you need to be able to leave your cozy intellectual shelter and move to some common ground. You need to be able to find this ground.How can a person logically reject evolution while at the same time argue for a super accelerated form of it?
Consider this:
Evolution is false. However, 2 beetles on a boat evolved into 400,000 species of beetle over the course of about 6,000 years.
It makes no sense
Third, you should care more for your argumentation. Less haste and fever. Otherwise, we get things like that:
Athetotheist wrote:
Am I the only one to smile while reading it? If so, let me explain: we know only ONE planet with vegetation. So, any attempts to draw any general conclusions about planets with life on them is ridiculous.Vegetation on a planet not orbiting a star has never been scientifically observed.
Moreover, someone bold enough could, for instance, say that the source of energy needed to sustain life on a planet could be its internal heat.
You can have many similar discussions. And they all will have to end with nothing. Why? Because, as I said already, you have different worldviews. And you tend to discuss things, for which your worldviews give different answers. The only way that one of you could accept the opponents point of view is changing ones worldview. And such change cannot be a result of (even many) discussions on things that are details (in comparison to a worldview).
How someone like Clownboat or Athetotheist could change worldview? First, you need to show them that their current " scientific worldview is false. How? One can start with showing that economics is not a science. How? By presenting what the applied economics looks like. By presenting how ridiculous is the academic defense of economics as a science. And by showing the ideological bias and deception present in encyclopedic definitions of science. All to defend the claim that science can explain everything, which is the base for materialism (= physicalism = modern scientific worldview). But thats not enough.
Artificial intelligence is another good example. Modern computers passed the threshold of the human brain computational power years ago. And nothing. No skynet was born. Its even worse. For people, who understand what a computer is and how does it work, the belief that some day we can create a human like AI is an absurd.
And so, we have another materialistic failure, which impedes our progress. The autonomous vehicles. Who remembers the claims that fully autonomous vehicles will hit the market in 2023? Mass produced? Having a correct worldview we could find a feasible solution. Otherwise, we try the (nearly) impossible.
The final blow could be the truth about materialism (physicalism). Physicalism is a statement of faith. A blind faith, which contradicts reality. It is not hard to show this truth.
For those, who still hesitate, I have a news. The supernatural reality exists. Nearly anyone can experience it. But it needs time and effort. The real knowledge does not come easy.
Finally, there is nothing left as to present the true worldview. With physical science explaining the material part of reality and Christianity explaining the spiritual part of reality. A dualistic worldview. And you know what? There is no Bible in it! It is all a journey of a rational mind. Facts, logic and reason in search for truth. Unbiased observation of reality. Drawing conclusion from easily available knowledge. It is for a contemporary citizen of the Western world.
It is not about choosing from many available worldviews. It is about choosing a worldview that is full, consistent, non-contradictory. Or sticking to a worldview which is inconsistent, contains contradictions, requires faith. Usually blind faith. The truth about reality is one. So, there is only one true worldview. Do you disagree? Prove me wrong by presenting another full, consistent, non-contradictory worldview where every question about reality is reasonably answered. Cause the post-Enlightenment, scientific worldview is wrong.
