Consciousness: and brain damage (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 15:04 (321 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Nobody in his right mind would claim that a being which can create a whole universe is “human like us”. That does not mean we do not share certain characteristics. It seems highly unlikely that the organisms you believe your God created could have invented love, hate, curiosity, pleasure, desire etc. while your God knew nothing about such matters. Nor do I accept that terms such as interest and relationship are not “humanizing”, even if we don’t know the exact nature of the interest/relationship.

Thank you for: "we don’t know the exact nature of the interest/relationship." Delving into the matter doesn't offer any proof of God or explanation of how He operates, which is why Adler is 50/50 or neutral.


dhw: ...here’s an alternative hypothesis (not dogma, and not even belief): God’s purpose in creating the ever changing bush of life was to create an ever-changing bush of life, including humans, and his method was to give organisms an autonomous means of diversifying. No humanizing there, so that objection flies out of the window; “why try?” goes out of the window too, because if you can try, I can try; and you have repeatedly acknowledged that there is nothing in this hypothesis that does not fit in with the history of life on Earth. There is no proof for either of our hypotheses, so what other reason do you have for not considering mine?

DAVID: I can almost fully agree, except, as you know, I will still declare we are His main goal.

dhw: I do not ask you to believe my hypothesis. I ask you not to dismiss it, and to recognize that it is a feasible alternative to your own. This would be another red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb if I could be sure that you would stick to it.

I do not accept your hypothesis as a belief of mine, but it does fit evolutioanry history. Fair enough?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum