Intelligence (Origins)

by dhw, Saturday, March 23, 2013, 15:13 (4052 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: [...] I have no issue with freely giving God all the time in eternity to think, learn, plot, plan, study, or anything else. [...]
 
No, this doesn't tackle the nature of what formed God, or how God came into existence. I am as ignorant on that as it is possible to be. But, as I said, it is infinitely more reasonable to me for a single entity to come into existence unaided and grow to organization before creating something new than for all of creation to come into existence unaided and organised. It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter.-Like David, I think something must have been here forever, and it seems all three of us are agreed that it is energy. We also agree that energy can transmute itself into matter, and that prior to "creation" or to "the big bang" (or whatever else you believe) there was "all the time in eternity" for that energy to operate. The first cause for all of us, then, is energy that has had forever to produce infinite combinations of matter. What follows on from that is pure conjecture. If by "single entity" you mean first-cause energy (what else could you mean?), either it was always conscious of itself, or it evolved consciousness, or it never had any consciousness of its own. "Grow to organization" is a wonderfully vague expression which could cover all three hypotheses we've been discussing: a materialist can just as easily claim that through an eternity and infinity of random combinations, matter "grew to organization".
 
"It is infinitely easier to organize energy than it is to organize matter" is another impressive pronouncement, but what does it mean? What is supposed to do the organizing? Do you mean it's easier for energy to organize energy than for energy to organize matter? What has energy organized itself into, other than the material universe we know? Or are you trying to say that it's easier for energy to become conscious of itself than it is for matter? If so, how do you know?
 
The only consciousness we know of is our own, and experience shows us that we can lose that consciousness when the materials of the brain are interfered with. A materialist will therefore argue that consciousness must be a product of materials. Others can point to psychic phenomena like NDEs and OBEs, which suggest that consciousness is independent of materials. Nobody in fact has a clue about the origin of consciousness or of life. If you opt for one hypothesis in preference to another, you can rationalize as much as you like, but you cannot exclude the objections raised by the other side. You can only say, as you have done, "I am as ignorant [...] as it is possible to be." I would say we are all equally ignorant about all these fundamental questions, which is why I find it so hard to emulate those who, to use your expression, are able to "fabricate their own reality."-******-David has quoted Fred Hoyle's argument in favour of design. It is as convincing as your own arguments, David, and should put anyone off being an atheist. You have also pointed out that Hoyle was a life-long agnostic. Why do you think he was an agnostic and not a theist?