AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R0wfGaEMoA&feature=youtube_gdata_player-~1:10:00-He never had much to say on that, but he takes a mighty swing here...-[Sorry, wrong time first post]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1806 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R0wfGaEMoA&feature=youtube_gdata_player&a... 
> ~1:10:00
> 
> He never had much to say on that, but he takes a mighty swing here...-
Thank you for the correct time. Hitchens makes the same points I do. The burning bush is religion and has nothing to do with a proof of a greater power. My point is to prove a universal intelligence exists without reference to religion. No religion knows more about God than I do, because we all have the same human limits and God is concealed. Use science, purely excluded from religious assertions, and the appearance of intelligence and information is found everywhere.

1819 views

MATT: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R0wfGaEMoA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
He never had much to say on that, but he takes a mighty swing here. -DAVID: Hitchens makes the same points I do. The burning bush is religion and has nothing to do with a proof of a greater power. My point is to prove a universal intelligence exists without reference to religion. No religion knows more about God than I do, because we all have the same human limits and God is concealed. Use science, purely excluded from religious assertions, and the appearance of intelligence and information is found everywhere.-I couldn't sit through an hour and a half of umming and erring, I'm afraid, and the main subject of religion and culture was not exactly inspiring. I tried to find the attack on Intelligent Design, but only got a sort of sideswipe at it when Hitchens was talking about the clash between science and religion. Might I have been watching the wrong tape? Perhaps you could summarize the argument, Matt, if you think it contains something worth the trouble. -I agree with David's comments on the established religions, and attacks on them are a very cheap way of wriggling out of the fundamental questions associated with design v. chance, the nature of consciousness, the origin of life ... all of which constitute insurmountable hurdles to theist and atheist alike. -It's good to have you back, Matt. I hope family life is living up to expectations.

1821 views


> I couldn't sit through an hour and a half of umming and erring, -
The previous entry from Matt tells us the quote is at one hour ten minutes. Just push the time slider to that point and it is there!

1815 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R0wfGaEMoA&feature=youtube_gdata_player&a... > 
> > ~1:10:00
> > 
> > He never had much to say on that, but he takes a mighty swing here...
> 
> 
> Thank you for the correct time. Hitchens makes the same points I do. The burning bush is religion and has nothing to do with a proof of a greater power. My point is to prove a universal intelligence exists without reference to religion. No religion knows more about God than I do, because we all have the same human limits and God is concealed. Use science, purely excluded from religious assertions, and the appearance of intelligence and information is found everywhere.-
Hitchens points at this: There is no epistemology inherent in the position. -I've often tried to find clumsy ways to ask questions about it. I've read your book, but the question still is to be asked, how you *know* intelligence when you see it? You always wave it away with that "I know pornography when I see it" but its precisely that handwaving that is irritating. -We should spend some time trying to attack this notion of intelligence directly.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1795 views


> 
> Hitchens points at this: There is no epistemology inherent in the position. 
> 
> I've often tried to find clumsy ways to ask questions about it. I've read your book, but the question still is to be asked, how you *know* intelligence when you see it? You always wave it away with that "I know pornography when I see it" but its precisely that handwaving that is irritating. -Wait and see the current book now at the printer. 
> 
> We should spend some time trying to attack this notion of intelligence directly.-How does a code appear? All codes we know have intelligence behind them, so why not DNA? -The living cell is extremely complex and obviously filled with information to guide it. Yes, in a way an argument from incredulity, but the complexity is incredulous. And the degree of complexity we recognize today is multiplied tomorrow, as if the complexity is a bottomless pit of more and more complexity, which of course it is. -Is it your position to wait until all the research is in, 50-100 years from now? The complexity at that point will obviously be mind-boggling. So why wait to make a decision? The information that runs the cell must come from somewhere. I find it impossible to assume chance can create a living system, now that we know that the original cells of 3.6 byo, according to current research had to be as complex as the cells we study today. -The rule is still life comes only from life. Miller-Urey lightning in a bottle is now 60 years old. All research into origin of life has told us only what does not work. Enormous information had to go into the first living cell, because the monumental jump from inorganic chemistry of early Earth to life on Earth has not submitted to all the recent intelligent lab work. -Obviously chance vs. intelligence are the two sides of the issue. Can you offer a third?

1808 views

MATT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R0wfGaEMoA&feature=youtube_gdata_player-~1:10:00-He never had much to say on that, but he takes a mighty swing here...-I hadn't cottoned onto the significance of 1:10:00. Thank you, David. I could have saved myself 45 minutes of hunting! I have now heard the relevant section, and all Hitchens says on the subject is: -"It's so complex it could only have been done by God. Thanks a lot....It's just a catch-up."-This is not a mighty swing or a reasoned argument, and I don't think he even uses the word design. David's post from last night is as rational a defence of ID as you will find. One wonders if Hitchens has really grasped the complexity of the living cell, and the silly sneer perhaps explains why "he never had much to say on that."-DAVID (in answer to Matt): Yes, in a way an argument from incredulity, but the complexity is incredulous.-The complexity is incredible (apologies for my pedantry). I agree. The complexity is such that I cannot believe in chance. But if one cannot believe in a non-created transient form of life and consciousness, how can one believe in a non-created, eternal and universal form of life and consciousness? Round and round we go!-DAVID: So why wait to make a decision?
DAVID: Obviously chance vs. intelligence are the two sides of the issue. Can you offer a third?-No, but that does not mean one has to take a decision. Neither my life nor my happiness nor my future nor my present nor the people I love nor the people I know nor the people I don't know are in any way dependent on my making a decision. I cannot force myself to believe something I don't believe. So why NOT wait to make a decision?

1776 views

that does not mean one has to take a decision. Neither my life nor my happiness nor my future nor my present nor the people I love nor the people I know nor the people I don't know are in any way dependent on my making a decision. I cannot force myself to believe something I don't believe. So why NOT wait to make a decision?-The last stop on the road of life is either an afterlife or nothing, and we all find out. But we all have to wait, because no one really knows until he gets to that final station. I'm more comfortable having chosen.

1775 views

Dhw: ...that does not mean one has to take a decision. Neither my life nor my happiness nor my future nor my present nor the people I love nor the people I know nor the people I don't know are in any way dependent on my making a decision. I cannot force myself to believe something I don't believe. So why NOT wait to make a decision?-DAVID: The last stop on the road of life is either an afterlife or nothing, and we all find out. But we all have to wait, because no one really knows until he gets to that final station. I'm more comfortable having chosen.-An admirable summary, and I have nothing but respect for your choice. However it would be interesting to know exactly what you have chosen. Some religions offer a pretty terrifying concept of the afterlife (see below), but since you are comfortable with your choice, I can only assume you visualize peace and love. And so despite your often repeated warnings about attributing qualities to the Universal Intelligence, this suggests that you do have particular qualities in mind.
 
If there is no afterlife, we shan't "find out". We shall simply never know the truth about life's origin, evolutionary teleology, the nature of consciousness, NDEs etc. And if there is no afterlife, the existence or non-existence of God will have been a vast irrelevance, except for all the good and the bad that has resulted from human speculation on the subject. Even if there is a conscious afterlife, we may still not find out those truths, as your God may continue to remain hidden.-Yes indeed, we all have to wait "because no one really knows", and there is nothing wrong with that. If death is the end, so be it. We shan't feel anything. If it's not, maybe there are exciting times ahead! Either way, there is nothing to fear. (I really can't think of "hell" as anything but the invention of power-hungry humans to scare their flocks into obedience ... but I could be wrong!) What I do fear is suffering in this life ... my own and that of others. But that must be endured whether there is an afterlife or not. And so while you are more comfortable having chosen, I am very comfortable with my choice not to choose. After all, it's not knowing that makes the subject so endlessly fascinating.

1765 views


> DAVID: The last stop on the road of life is either an afterlife or nothing, and we all find out. But we all have to wait, because no one really knows until he gets to that final station. I'm more comfortable having chosen.
> 
> dhw: An admirable summary, and I have nothing but respect for your choice. However it would be interesting to know exactly what you have chosen. Some religions offer a pretty terrifying concept of the afterlife (see below),-You forget, I don't use religious concepts. Religions are part of the problem.-> dhw: And so despite your often repeated warnings about attributing qualities to the Universal Intelligence, this suggests that you do have particular qualities in mind.-I use the descriptions found in near to death experiences. Everyone on the other side seems happy.-> dhw: Even if there is a conscious afterlife, we may still not find out those truths, as your God may continue to remain hidden.-The ultimate truth appears to be revealed in the NDE tales 
> 
> dhw: (I really can't think of "hell" as anything but the invention of power-hungry humans to scare their flocks into obedience ... but I could be wrong!)-You are not wrong. I have always (see past entries) characterized the heaven/hell approach in religion as a childish invention. Candy if you are good, and punishment if you are bad. Hillel and Jesus preached goodness for goodness sake. -> dhw: I am very comfortable with my choice not to choose. After all, it's not knowing that makes the subject so endlessly fascinating.-You started this website because of a desired response to Dawkins. He was so positively atheistic. Was this site to provide a measured agnostic stance on the fence, or did you hope to see answers that might lead to a choice? What I have provdied has balanced the rantings of Dawkins and others, and I think proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an underlying greater power, a universal mind. And yes it is inconceivable if approached out of thin air. But you have admitted chance is not an option, so my UI wins.

1764 views

Dhw and David:-There is a riddle in David's choice to choose, at least from an outsiders perspective. -He claims to on some level, be at the same base: we start at nothing, observe and think.-Yet he is different than us, in that he admits in his book, he feels compelled to choose. Attempting to enter the thoughts of any man--much less a dear friend--is always dangerous.-But I can't divorce myself from the compulsory thought that there is a presumption of God from the beginning. If we started out as agnostics, and I mean from the first sentient caveman: the idea "god" could never take hold. In fact, the idea of skepticism is pretty recent in human history. The idea of agnosticism, younger yet.-This says, that it is immensely difficult to reach the point of an agnostic to begin with: we inherit the idea of "god" from our culture, society and parents. -That's why its *impossible* for me to make that jump: I can't help but presume that *any* judgment I have about God didn't come from some kind of social compunction.-Dhw's reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1770 views


> That's why its *impossible* for me to make that jump: I can't help but presume that *any* judgment I have about God didn't come from some kind of social compunction.
> 
> Dhw's reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2-As an evidentialist you will never have a complete answer. God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. You either jump across the chasm or you don't. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.

1770 views

DAVID: You started this website because of a desired response to Dawkins. He was so positively atheistic. Was this site to provide a measured agnostic stance on the fence, or did you hope to see answers that might lead to a choice? What I have provided has balanced the rantings of Dawkins and others...-The "brief guide" WAS a response to Dawkins, but I then expanded it to incorporate what I myself considered to be a balanced view. As for the purpose of the website itself, I have summed it up on the homepage: "The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights." Did I hope for answers that might lead to a choice? I didn't set out with the object of getting myself converted one way or the other, if that's what you mean. I just wanted to share the search for whatever truths are out there, but without the "rantings" of the fundamentalists, both religious and anti-religious. It's been my good fortune that people like yourself, Matt, BBella, Tony, and in earlier times George, Mark, Whitecraw and others have indeed joined in the search and taken me to places where I had never been before.-DAVID: ...and I think [I have provided] proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an underlying greater power, a universal mind. And yes it is inconceivable if approached out of thin air. But you have admitted chance is not an option, so my UI wins.-Words need to be chosen far more carefully here. What you have proved is the unlikelihood (not the impossibility) of chance creating life and consciousness, but you cannot prove the existence of an equally unlikely (not impossible), uncreated, eternal and universal form of life and consciousness. Despite the starkness of the choice, I find both explanations inconceivable, and so neither wins!-MATT: Dhw's reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2-Which of course it can never be, as you know from your own study of epistemology. The case of Eben Alexander shows that subjective experience can be enough to tip the balance (ditto many similar experiences), but that can never offer the objective level of proof that you demand. Perhaps it is the mystic side of your personality that holds you back from out-and-out materialism. My own agnostic balance is based: 1) on the complexity arguments that materialists try desperately to downgrade, and on a vivid awareness that the majority of my most profound experiences completely defy any materialist explanation; 2) on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.
 
DAVID (to Matt): God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. You either jump across the chasm or you don't. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.-He is either concealed, or he isn't there. I myself was not around when humans began to think, but David is older than me! If his statement is true, we then have to decide whether the assumption of divinity was the result of closeness to the true nature of things, or sheer ignorance. Science has certainly swept away vast swathes of early religious thinking, and yet the deeper it delves into the nature of life, consciousnness and the universe, the more mysterious these seem to become. David, I think your "wall of quantum uncertainty" is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.

1740 views

dhw: on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.-Can you avoid the idea that something has to be eternal? One does not get something from nothing. The famous question, why is there anything?, has an answer. There has always been an eternal something.-> David: Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.[/i]-Research into primative societies has shown this over and over.-
> David, I think your "wall of quantum uncertainty" is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.-But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.

1728 views

dhw: [My agnostic balance is based]...2) on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.-DAVID: Can you avoid the idea that something has to be eternal? One does not get something from nothing. The famous question, why is there anything?, has an answer. There has always been an eternal something.-Agreed. The debate concerns whether that something is conscious or not.-Dhw: David, I think your "wall of quantum uncertainty" is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.-DAVID: But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.-This is casuistry. On one side is the concept of design, on the other the concept of chance. On one side is conscious energy, on the other unconscious energy.

1706 views

DAVID: But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.
> 
> dhw: This is casuistry. On one side is the concept of design, on the other the concept of chance. On one side is conscious energy, on the other unconscious energy.-Good. I will accept the chance side of the equation as unconscious energy, and add that unconsciousness implies no pattern, therefore totally unorganized energy in a random state. And you will then assert that this amorphous mass of energy somehow got organized into the classses of particles wwe have found in scientific atom smashing. In your chance state there are no organized classes of symmetrical particles. Chance energy has to be raw energy, lacking all organizaation, and by chance gets to what we see today. To me a pipe dream.

1713 views

dhw: This is casuistry. On one side is the concept of design, on the other the concept of chance. On one side is conscious energy, on the other unconscious energy.-DAVID: Good. I will accept the chance side of the equation as unconscious energy, and add that unconsciousness implies no pattern, therefore totally unorganized energy in a random state. And you will then assert that this amorphous mass of energy somehow got organized into the classes of particles we have found in scientific atom smashing. In your chance state there are no organized classes of symmetrical particles. Chance energy has to be raw energy, lacking all organization, and by chance gets to what we see today. To me a pipe dream.-"And you will then assert..." No, David, what I assert over and over again is that I find BOTH scenarios equally impossible to believe! That is the nature of agnosticism. Matt appears finally to have grasped it. He writes, rather movingly:-"For a blinding second, the incredulity [I'd suggest incredibility here] of chance or a conscious creator enveloped my mind in such a way that the thoughts were tangible things: and the incredulity [OK here] was equal. I get it now: I really do."-But you don't, David. So here are the two questions and answers:-1) Do I believe that chance could create the complexities of life and consciousness? Answer: no. I find it incredible.
2) Do I believe in an eternal, non-created intelligence vast enough to create universes, and yet also able to assemble the tiny blobs of material necessary for life and consciousness? Answer: no. I find it incredible.-Agnosticism for me is not believing in chance and not believing in a designer: as Matt puts it, equal incredulity. I accept all your arguments against chance, and I accept all the arguments against an eternally existing universal consciousness. One side must be right, and so while not believing, I do not DISbelieve (i.e. I do not say chance is definitely wrong, or God definitely doesn't exist). I can only wait and see, or wait and not see!

1738 views


> dhw:"And you will then assert..." No, David, what I assert over and over again is that I find BOTH scenarios equally impossible to believe! That is the nature of agnosticism. -No, dhw; I've been needling you. There is a quote in my new book which roughly says agnosticism is an unwillingness to believe in or accept either side. You may remember it.
> 
> 1) Do I believe that chance could create the complexities of life and consciousness? Answer: no. I find it incredible.
> 2) Do I believe in an eternal, non-created intelligence vast enough to create universes, and yet also able to assemble the tiny blobs of material necessary for life and consciousness? Answer: no. I find it incredible.
> 
> Agnosticism for me is not believing in chance and not believing in a designer: as Matt puts it, equal incredulity. -Of course! But many agnostics don't understand your position.

1744 views

dhw: [My agnostic balance is based]...2) on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.
> 
> DAVID: Can you avoid the idea that something has to be eternal? One does not get something from nothing. The famous question, why is there anything?, has an answer. There has always been an eternal something.
> 
> Agreed. The debate concerns whether that something is conscious or not.-And this is where I tie back in: David's case relies heavily on the notion that he can detect intelligence, and for that matter, so can the rest of us. -He could have a case, if it hasn't been demonstrated time and again, that our ability to test and discern intelligence has historically been extremely lacking. Who can forget this?-Or this?-> 
> Dhw: David, I think your "wall of quantum uncertainty" is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.
> 
> DAVID: But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.
> 
> This is casuistry. On one side is the concept of design, on the other the concept of chance. On one side is conscious energy, on the other unconscious energy.-David hits upon the fact I've been driving at for some years here...-1. We lack a reliable test of intelligence.
2. It is clear, that chance *has* played an integral role in our development. -It has been clear to me for some years, that the distinction between chance and design is false: Especially if randomness is a part of the equation. The fence isn't simply a position you wait at before deciding to go somewhere: The fence itself could well be the actual answer. We *know* chance had something to do with our development. An option hereby ignored is the one where there is a concrete mixture of chance and design: Maybe one or two major events were "designed." How could you tell? <--And its that question that seems to me to begin resorting back to the "brain in a vat" reduction I started in regards to free will. "How could you tell the difference between a free and unfree action?"-The question here is nearly identical: How can you tell the difference between chance and design? What's the defining characteristic? What does chance even look like to begin with? (THAT I can answer, it's mathematical, but I want to hear you and David take cracks at this.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1754 views


> 1. We lack a reliable test of intelligence.
> 2. It is clear, that chance *has* played an integral role in our development. 
> 
> The question here is nearly identical: How can you tell the difference between chance and design? What's the defining characteristic? What does chance even look like to begin with? (THAT I can answer, it's mathematical, but I want to hear you and David take cracks at this.)-Agreed that chance has a role, but intelligence has to have a role in setting up the playing field at first. The issue is whether one can detect teleology to be able to apportion the role of chance and the role of design.

1731 views


> > 1. We lack a reliable test of intelligence.
> > 2. It is clear, that chance *has* played an integral role in our development. 
> > 
> > The question here is nearly identical: How can you tell the difference between chance and design? What's the defining characteristic? What does chance even look like to begin with? (THAT I can answer, it's mathematical, but I want to hear you and David take cracks at this.)
> 
> Agreed that chance has a role, but intelligence has to have a role in setting up the playing field at first. The issue is whether one can detect teleology to be able to apportion the role of chance and the role of design.-Here's one place where we differ: teleology is necessarily an anthropomorphic idea. It states that because there are final causes in human actions, then there must be final causes in nature.-That's not an easy thing to validate, David. I think it makes your case unnecessarily difficult. -What reason do we have to assert that teleology even applies? Our universe will eventually cool out, become completely flat--and all known existence will be gone.-What is the teleological explanation for that?-And you're avoiding the intelligence question again.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1747 views

What reason do we have to assert that teleology even applies? Our universe will eventually cool out, become completely flat--and all known existence will be gone.
> 
> What is the teleological explanation for that?
> 
> And you're avoiding the intelligence question again.-I don't have an answer for heat death. Perhaps there will be another iteration with another universe about 100 billion years from now. But in my interpretation intelligence =s teleology. I just cannot comprehend chance creating the molecular machinery we see in the living cell. Bit by bit the complexity found by science gets more complex. Is there no level of complexity that will convince you chance won't work?

1710 views

MATT: It has been clear to me for some years, that the distinction between chance and design is false: Especially if randomness is part of the equation [...] the fence itself could well be the actual answer. We *know* chance had something to do with our development. An option hereby ignored is the one where there is a concrete mixture of chance and design: Maybe one or two major events were "designed".-I think there is a degree of confusion here. I can't answer for David, but for me it goes back to the "major event", the origin of life. The mechanism which governs life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation is of such extreme complexity that even our finest minds can barely understand it, let alone recreate it. This is a machine that works. Can you believe that such a mechanism could assemble itself by sheer accident? I can't. Once it exists, then yes, chance plays an enormous role in the unfolding of evolution, as it does in our everyday lives. The origin is the problem. However, if you believe the mechanism was designed, then you move to the question of what designed it. And you come up against a whole series of improbabilities just as great as that of the original mechanism assembling itself. I needn't go into them again. A mixture of design and chance means there is a designer, so you are still pinned to the same impossible choice. As agnostics, we don't choose ... we sit on the fence.

1727 views

MATT: It has been clear to me for some years, that the distinction between chance and design is false: Especially if randomness is part of the equation [...] the fence itself could well be the actual answer. We *know* chance had something to do with our development. An option hereby ignored is the one where there is a concrete mixture of chance and design: Maybe one or two major events were "designed".
> 
> I think there is a degree of confusion here. I can't answer for David, but for me it goes back to the "major event", the origin of life. The mechanism which governs life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation is of such extreme complexity that even our finest minds can barely understand it, let alone recreate it. This is a machine that works. Can you believe that such a mechanism could assemble itself by sheer accident? I can't. Once it exists, then yes, chance plays an enormous role in the unfolding of evolution, as it does in our everyday lives. The origin is the problem. However, if you believe the mechanism was designed, then you move to the question of what designed it. And you come up against a whole series of improbabilities just as great as that of the original mechanism assembling itself. I needn't go into them again. A mixture of design and chance means there is a designer, so you are still pinned to the same impossible choice. As agnostics, we don't choose ... we sit on the fence.-An excellent response to Matt. Ball in his court.

1721 views

DAVID: ...and I think [I have provided] proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an underlying greater power, a universal mind. And yes it is inconceivable if approached out of thin air. But you have admitted chance is not an option, so my UI wins.
> 
> Words need to be chosen far more carefully here. What you have proved is the unlikelihood (not the impossibility) of chance creating life and consciousness, but you cannot prove the existence of an equally unlikely (not impossible), uncreated, eternal and universal form of life and consciousness. Despite the starkness of the choice, I find both explanations inconceivable, and so neither wins!
> 
> MATT: Dhw's reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2
> 
> Which of course it can never be, as you know from your own study of epistemology. The case of Eben Alexander shows that subjective experience can be enough to tip the balance (ditto many similar experiences), but that can never offer the objective level of proof that you demand. Perhaps it is the mystic side of your personality that holds you back from out-and-out materialism. My own agnostic balance is based: 1) on the complexity arguments that materialists try desperately to downgrade, and on a vivid awareness that the majority of my most profound experiences completely defy any materialist explanation; 2) on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.-God is open to reveal himself to me: As yet, I have proven an unworthy subject.-OR you and I are "acting out HIS will" by testing believers...-MY meditations always return to the fact that our wishes for an eternal caregiver are facile: I'm far more likely to be a maltheist than a theist. --> DAVID (to Matt): God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. You either jump across the chasm or you don't. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.
> 
> He is either concealed, or he isn't there. I myself was not around when humans began to think, but David is older than me! If his statement is true, we then have to decide whether the assumption of divinity was the result of closeness to the true nature of things, or sheer ignorance. Science has certainly swept away vast swathes of early religious thinking, and yet the deeper it delves into the nature of life, consciousnness and the universe, the more mysterious these seem to become. David, I think your "wall of quantum uncertainty" is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.-And lets not forget: Quantum physics requires an observation.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1740 views

MATT: My meditations always return to the fact that our wishes for an eternal caregiver are facile: I'm far more likely to be a maltheist than a theist.-I find Maltheism just as blinkered as Eutheism (the belief that God is good). Maltheists rightly ... in my view ... say that if God is all good, where the heck did evil come from. Well, if God exists and created human consciousness, and he is purely evil, where the heck did love, charity, empathy, sympathy, philanthropy, altruism come from? The only clue we have as to the nature of a possible creator is the nature of what he has created, and for me by far the greatest likelihood is that he made us in his image ... i.e. a mixture of what you and I hold to be good and bad.-I suggested that David's idea of God hiding behind a "wall of quantum uncertainty" was a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.-MATT: And let's not forget: Quantum physics requires an observation.-Just two comments here: 
1) The word "quantum" is now used to give virtually any phrase a cachet of scientific respectability. David could just as easily have called it a wall of uncertainty.-2) Your remark raises an interesting issue. Religious people often go on about how we need their God, but they rarely consider their God's need for us. What would he be without humans (maybe ETs as well?) to worship him, puzzle over him, question him, pray to him, doubt him, please him, anger him, entertain him? Just an infinite expanse of bored energy.

1729 views


> dhw: 2) Your remark raises an interesting issue. Religious people often go on about how we need their God, but they rarely consider their God's need for us. What would he be without humans (maybe ETs as well?) to worship him, puzzle over him, question him, pray to him, doubt him, please him, anger him, entertain him? Just an infinite expanse of bored energy.-I agree, no bored. Connected to us.

1750 views

MATT: My meditations always return to the fact that our wishes for an eternal caregiver are facile: I'm far more likely to be a maltheist than a theist.
> 
> I find Maltheism just as blinkered as Eutheism (the belief that God is good). Maltheists rightly ... in my view ... say that if God is all good, where the heck did evil come from. Well, if God exists and created human consciousness, and he is purely evil, where the heck did love, charity, empathy, sympathy, philanthropy, altruism come from? The only clue we have as to the nature of a possible creator is the nature of what he has created, and for me by far the greatest likelihood is that he made us in his image ... i.e. a mixture of what you and I hold to be good and bad.
> -For a blinding second, the incredulity of chance or a conscious creator enveloped my mind in such a way that the thoughts were tangible things: and the incredulity was equal. -I get it now: I really do. -> I suggested that David's idea of God hiding behind a "wall of quantum uncertainty" was a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.
> 
> MATT: And let's not forget: Quantum physics requires an observation.
> 
> Just two comments here: 
> 1) The word "quantum" is now used to give virtually any phrase a cachet of scientific respectability. David could just as easily have called it a wall of uncertainty.
> 
> 2) Your remark raises an interesting issue. Religious people often go on about how we need their God, but they rarely consider their God's need for us. What would he be without humans (maybe ETs as well?) to worship him, puzzle over him, question him, pray to him, doubt him, please him, anger him, entertain him? Just an infinite expanse of bored energy.-It's that last statement here that really gets my mind thinking creative... and funny things. A novel about an immensely bored God... well I'll finish the one about the "Devil who Gave Up" before I tackle that idea... but there's a story in there. -(And November is national novel writing month... My goal is to complete my first draft by the end of the month, then begin the process of distillation...)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1709 views


> > That's why its *impossible* for me to make that jump: I can't help but presume that *any* judgment I have about God didn't come from some kind of social compunction.
> > 
> > Dhw's reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2
> 
> As an evidentialist you will never have a complete answer. God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. -Have any evidence of that? ->You either jump across the chasm or you don't. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.-It's "jumping" that I find the grand folly of mankind. Our passions have proven disastrous: My theory of politics for example, (Libertarian Anarchism) operates under the observation that throughout history, it has been the acts of individuals either acting *as* government or *for* government that have had the greatest propensity for bungled action. -Who's more likely to jump? A man? Or a thousand men?-You can call me an evidentialist if you like: But don't forget I've followed Buddhism for a long time, and part of what makes me think 'God' is more likely an illusion is the observation that the meditative states described by Buddhism are perfectly mirrored--in Christian Mysticism. (And Jewish Kabbalah, but I've read more books on the former than the latter.) -If I can create the "feeling" of God, without invoking God, this is direct--"evidence"--if you will, that religious experience doesn't *require* a God at all. -So even in the experiential--the domain of the religious--the "evidence" is inconclusive.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

1707 views


> The complexity is incredible (apologies for my pedantry). I agree. The complexity is such that I cannot believe in chance. But if one cannot believe in a non-created transient form of life and consciousness, how can one believe in a non-created, eternal and universal form of life and consciousness? Round and round we go!-Here is a description of the complexity in the transcription process. It took 30 years to decipher:-"The structure shows that a first part of sigma recognizes the -10 element through contacts with single-stranded DNA that entail the unstacking and insertion of DNA bases of the -10 element into pockets. A second part of sigma recognizes the discriminator element through contacts with single-stranded DNA that entail the unstacking and insertion of a DNA base of the discriminator element into a pocket. A third part of sigma contacts the other strand of DNA and pre-organizes it to serve as the template for RNA synthesis. Finally, RNA polymerase recognizes the core recognition element through contacts with single-stranded DNA, unstacking and inserting a DNA base into a pocket. 'This study represents a very significant contribution to our understanding of the workings of this central macromolecular machine of gene expression,'"- 
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-scientists-unveil-d-molecular-machine.html

1724 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum