The theory of intelligent design video (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 17, 2017, 23:50 (38 days ago)

The theory of intelligent design video

by dhw, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 09:43 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Two minutes:

https://youtu.be/hwWgJi5lb58

I have made the same point in the "brief guide", and we all seem to agree there has to be a first cause. That does not mean the first cause has to be a universal intelligence called "God". A far more pertinent question is the origin of consciousness. Did it always exist in the most extreme, top-down form imaginable (i.e. with the built-in knowledge to create a universe and life out of nothing), or did it evolve bottom upwards from eternal interaction between matter and energy producing an infinite number of combinations?

The statement that the universe had a beginning depends on the big bang theory. Not only is this suspect, but even if it is true, it does not tell us what happened before the big bang - hence the possibility of eternal matter/energy etc.

The theory of intelligent design video

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 15:30 (37 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Two minutes:

https://youtu.be/hwWgJi5lb58


dhw: I have made the same point in the "brief guide", and we all seem to agree there has to be a first cause. That does not mean the first cause has to be a universal intelligence called "God". A far more pertinent question is the origin of consciousness. Did it always exist in the most extreme, top-down form imaginable (i.e. with the built-in knowledge to create a universe and life out of nothing), or did it evolve bottom upwards from eternal interaction between matter and energy producing an infinite number of combinations?

The statement that the universe had a beginning depends on the big bang theory. Not only is this suspect, but even if it is true, it does not tell us what happened before the big bang - hence the possibility of eternal matter/energy etc.

You cling to an infinity of chances that energy matter can form consciousness. Monkeys typing Shakespeare! Defies logic.

The theory of intelligent design video

by dhw, Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 12:17 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Two minutes:
https://youtu.be/hwWgJi5lb58

dhw: I have made the same point in the "brief guide", and we all seem to agree there has to be a first cause. That does not mean the first cause has to be a universal intelligence called "God". A far more pertinent question is the origin of consciousness. Did it always exist in the most extreme, top-down form imaginable (i.e. with the built-in knowledge to create a universe and life out of nothing), or did it evolve bottom upwards from eternal interaction between matter and energy producing an infinite number of combinations?
The statement that the universe had a beginning depends on the big bang theory. Not only is this suspect, but even if it is true, it does not tell us what happened before the big bang - hence the possibility of eternal matter/energy etc.

DAVID: You cling to an infinity of chances that energy matter can form consciousness. Monkeys typing Shakespeare! Defies logic.

Yes, it defies logic, as does the concept of an eternal consciousness that has no source but has the knowledge to design a material universe and material life out of its own immateriality. I find myself unable to “cling to” either hypothesis. That is why I am an agnostic. I should add, as usual, that this means I am wrong one way or the other, which is why I continue to ask questions and to come up with "conjectures".

The theory of intelligent design video

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 16:01 (36 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You cling to an infinity of chances that energy matter can form consciousness. Monkeys typing Shakespeare! Defies logic.

dhw: Yes, it defies logic, as does the concept of an eternal consciousness that has no source but has the knowledge to design a material universe and material life out of its own immateriality. I find myself unable to “cling to” either hypothesis. That is why I am an agnostic. I should add, as usual, that this means I am wrong one way or the other, which is why I continue to ask questions and to come up with "conjectures".

Please continue.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum