3RU7AL

Do you have a more elegant or more precise explanation for variations in plants and animals?

No. It's all trivial in my opinion. Then again, I never sought to explain it.

The standard is efficacy.

Efficacious toward what?

We can say without a doubt that noumenon is not God, because God is not a mental object.

The Orthodox Catholic Church recognizes monophysitism as a heresy, and thus not orthodox(orthodox meaning correct belief).

http://www.native-languages.org/iaq13.htm

Yet to be discovered evidence of an order or pattern is not proof of the contrary. That would be an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium.)

Maybe because they eat each-other!Native Americans loved Columbus because they would have been FUCKING EATEN.

So you would be Okay if Iran gave military aid to the UK to reclaim their colony. That's an insanely retarded position.

Was Nazi Germany wrong for invading Poland? 

After all, Poland was taken away from Germany by force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_eastern_territories_of_Germany

Disgusting Nazi sympathizers.

Iran has promised to ramp up their uranium enrichment.

Well first, monism isn't necessarily true. 

Second, we have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality. So why is physicalism a better explanation than idealism when idealism is evidenced by a mental reality whereas physicalism, which posits a non-mental reality, has no evidence whatsoever?

What is a non-mental reality? Never heard of it?

If evolution was mathematically demonstrable, then it would be by all scientific standards and definitions, a scientific law.

with "no detectable or decipherable order or pattern"?

That is logically fallacious.

Then that leaves idealism..

Where is your proof that Iran does not supply military hardware to Hamas and Isis?

You can use any biased junk source you want if it has a shred of evidence.

Or is it dualism and physicalism that are in need of saving? We have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality.

And Man created a God in his own image. 

For Man needed answers when there were none.

But the answers now come thick and fast.

And a New God riseth from the minds of clever Men.

The validity of the kalam argument is debatable, but it is also moot because even if it is valid it doesn't prove anything about the god of any religion, let alone of a particualar religion.

It is intended to imply that intelliegence and teleology play no role in determining the what and when of mutations - they happen 'randomly'.

And "indistinguishable from randomness" would necessitate an ontological statement beyond epistemological limits. Have you observed randomness to an extent where you can relate it? 

However I would argue that a properly implemented junk food tax that is focused on citizen health instead of additional revenue. And this can be seen in the various soda taxes that do just that

That is the problem with arguing about idealism...  it's effectively irrefutable because it can just keep on retreating!

Clearly not, but I see that as evidence I am not in a solipsistic illusion.

But if I perceive a rock then anyone I am with will generally also preceive a rock.  That implies that what causes my perception of the rock and my companioins perception is something external to both of us.   

I am not sure what you mean.   But if,say, water is an illusion how reliable is it's bioing point being 100C?

So something independent does need to exist in order to be our shared reference point but that does not mean that this independent thing is non-mental. 

It's more that with CF I can't see what 'true' and 'false' mean.   

do you contest what the generals say, that if iran got nukes they would funnel them to terrorists?

if you did contest it, your position would at least be plausible. but, ive heard it multiple times, and from what i can see, iran supports terrorists that even goes against USA interests at times, like our troops.

i can acknowledge that there are two sides to every story, and iran has an argument to make at why it does what it does. but that doesn't mean we should give power to them when they've already establshed they are bad actors, and our military and government deem them to be a nuclear proliferation risk. if you see people in a bar fight, using bad tactics, both with some merit to why they're fighting, and that spills over to our people and interests.... do you let them both have guns? doesn't it make more sense to stop them and prevent things from getting out of hand? 

The opposite is 'assertoric'' which means neither self-evident nor proven.   For example, Fermat's last theorem was assertoric for 358 years but became apodictic in 1994.

I don't know what can't be proven with 'consciousness first'.

Even a "dirt first" hypothesis doesn't have anything at all to say about what "caused" the big bang.

Agreed. A primordial consciousness does.

also, iran supports terrorists.

should all the kids on the play ground get a gun, cause they are all soveriegn? even the kids who are bullies and show their willingness to use the guns to murder people? even if we can prevent it? 

get real. 

we can't stop people from killing with guns, but if they are bad guys with a past, we can try to stop them. you aren't making a legitimate point. 

military generals take it as a given that if iran gets nukes, they will funnel them to terrorists.

that's why evil people can't have guns.

where the talk of wiping out other countries? 

those other countries may be worse than i realize, but that doesn't mean iran should have nukes. if we could have stopped the other countries, we should have too, if they are bad actors. do you seriously think it's alright for evil countries should have nukes?

are those other countries known for supporting terrorism? if they do, i dont hear about it like i do with iran. 

do those other countries state that their goal is to wipe out other countries? iran did that while obama was president about israel. 

are those other countries religious fanatics? they seem more secular as far as i can tell. 

It certainly doesn't support those ideas either. A consciousness first hypothesis supports something similar to dualism.

Epistemological limits aside, "knowing" (hypothetically proven as a fact) that consciousness came before matter could mean the possibility of the existence of God, reincarnation or some type of existence after the physical body dies, etc. It wouldn't definitively answer any of those questions but it would be evidence that could sway minds to a more spiritual life and a conception of existence after death.

Yes, it does. Natural selection does this as well through a converse construction of the orthogenesis argument, but instead having "nature" as the designer--or as it's usually disguised, "randomness." Asserting randomness is also beyond the epistemological limits of science. 

From a personal perspective they could be extremely profound.

I am asking the justification of your belief, not saying you are ruling out being wrong. I also think there is a difference between faith and blind faith. You can have faith in something (I think faith = believing despite lack of justification) while still admitting you could be wrong and weighing evidence as it becomes available. But blind faith is with no regard to any evidence. It seems to me you have a belief without justification so faith, but are open to considering evidence if any were to appear, so assuredly not blind faith. That's my take at least. But as far as the thread goes, I have yet to see a decent argument for the existence of God/god(s) (not that this is your argument, you seem to be on the secular side).