DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 17:57 (3660 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You did not answer my question. People who watch sport and who watch films also do so for a purpose. And the makers of the games and the films plan for unpredictability.-You keep equating God's motives or personality with human behavior. I specifically try not to do that, since we cannot know about Him except to look at what He produces. Yes, I ignored your supposition. I use inference to the best solution in logic. He produced humans against all odds of chance, therefore I interpret that result as His intent.
> 
> I have no doubt that if God exists, he had a purpose in creating life. But I'm not convinced that WE are that purpose, or even if we are, I don't know his purpose for creating us. .... Why do you insist that only a planned and predictable spectacle can constitute a purpose?-I don't know why He created us either. But it required planning and control to do it against all odds. You also reject chance. you just can't imagine a designer so you invent unreasonable ways around one. I find a purposeful designer a reasonable result.-
> DAVID: You don't like my use of 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt'? A reasonable solution to the issue of 'why' is to reason to the best solution to the question. If you accept cause and effect, and understand the question of 'why is there anything?', there has to be a first cause, which must, per force, be supernatural. Just because you cannot get yourself to image that possibility, does not mean that it is illogical. Show me a fallacy in my line of reasoning.
> 
> dhw: You cannot leave out consciousness. The fallacy is that the first cause must be (a) supernatural, and (b) conscious. You quite rightly, in my view, base your evidence on the complexities of life and consciousness, which seem inconceivable without conscious design. But if life and consciousness have to be designed, it is a logical fallacy to say that in God's case they do not have to be designed - they are simply there. You and I reached agreement that the first cause may be energy. But why would eternal energy be conscious of itself? An evolving consciousness through the mindless transformation of energy into matter into energy is just as possible/impossible as a consciousness that has simply existed for ever.-I'll accept that energy in some form or state always existed. That is a logical first cause, but to postulate that amorphous energy can somehow organize itself into conscious energy is beyond my reasoning capacity. Therefore, I can accept only conscious energy as a first cause. Yu have rejected chance as the cause for the appearance of the universe and life, but injected it again at a prior level of development. You are not consistent. Try leaving out random chance in your thinking and see what happens.