God and Reality (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Thursday, July 04, 2013, 12:17 (4159 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Yet more attributes! Rest assured, I don't keep worrying about God and evil, but I'm willing to discuss different concepts. .....I wrote earlier: "The muddled theist and atheist cling to their own woolly hypotheses and dismiss the others as woolly hypotheses, while the clear-thinking agnostic sees that they are all woolly hypotheses, and so remains neutral." That applies as much to muddled theists' woolly concepts of God as it does to woolly explanations of life and consciousness. BBella's ALL THAT IS expresses what we know, and avoids all attributes. Agnosticism par excellence!-DAVID: Your agnosticism is just as muddled. You don't accept a chance development of All That Is. -No muddle there.-DAVID: You do accept evolution but you are sure Darwin got it wrong by relying too much on ramdon mutation and natural selection and you have embraced epigenetics. Is Lamarck OK?
 
Evolution comprises several theories. I reject random mutation and gradualism, accept common descent and natural selection, am convinced that epigenetics plays a major role, and suspect that it is bound up with some form of Lamarckism (inheritance of characteristics invented by the "intelligent cell/genome"). No muddle there. But like you, I am dependent on the research of the experts, and my views have certainly developed considerably over the last five years.
 
DAVID: You accept a first cause, but are afraid to imagine what it might be.-Not afraid. I simply don't know, and cannot subscribe to any particular creed. Not knowing/believing does not constitute a muddle.-DAVID: You admit to not being able to conceptualize a first cause with consciousness. Since you continue to seek 'truth' about how our reality started can you just let a little imaginative supposition sneak in?-I also admit to not being able to conceptualize a non-conscious first-cause that gives rise to consciousness, either by chance or by panpsychist evolution. Yes, I can let a little imaginative supposition sneak in, which is why I can put myself in the shoes of a theist, atheist, or panpsychist of whatever ilk. I do not reject their hypotheses. But not rejecting does not mean believing. I see merits and weaknesses in all three hypotheses, and remain neutral. No muddle there.-DAVID: With all this confusion whirling about, I really view your picket fence as completely non-padded.-Where is the confusion? Ignorance, certainly, but admission of ignorance is not the same as believing conflicting concepts, or accepting hypotheses that require the abandonment of reason. My picket fence is padded to the extent that I do not have to sit on the gaping holes of contradictory arguments, or on the sharp points of immutable dogmas. When it comes to the existence and nature of God, BBella's neutral ALL THAT IS remains the only concept that does NOT cause confusion.