The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, January 22, 2010, 12:05 (5227 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: I'm simply taking the facts as we know them and not weaving any romances.-Here's another romance for you: 
Once upon a time there were lots of brainless globules of inanimate matter floating around in the wind/water/soup, and they kept brainlessly bumping into each other, until one day some of them brainlessly bumped into each other in such a way that quite accidentally they replicated themselves. Not only did they replicate themselves, but they also managed, quite brainlessly and accidentally, to become animate, to become capable of adapting to different environments and even of creating brand new and very useful bits and pieces which would also replicate themselves. These brainless mechanisms were so flexible that, after a very long time, they even produced brainy beings who tried deliberately to construct the mechanisms that had created themselves by accident. But, dear reader, until this very day they've been unable to do it. Why? Because brainy though they are, they're not as brainy as the brainless globules that had accidentally and brainlessly created the mechanisms.-There may be a romantic sequel to this romance. One day the brainy beings may succeed in creating the mechanisms, and they will be awarded the Nobel Prize for their braininess in proving that you don't need a brain to create the mechanisms they have just created.(Some unromantic people might call this a logical fallacy.)-***********
DHW: That life-form may very well be vastly different from ours. If you're going to ask where it came from, no-one can answer, and that's one of the reasons why I'm an agnostic and not a theist. Substituting one mystery for another merely shifts the problem, but that doesn't change by one iota the problems linked to the quasi-religious faith of materialism.-GEORGE (in response): We could of course speculate that the parameters of our universe were set by human-like scientists in some previous universe, but this would not explain where life came from, originally, only set it back further in time.-You have repeated my own argument, except of course for the last bit about materialism.-**********
GEORGE: They [various speculators] could be right. You could be right. But I need more evidence.-Exactly my feelings, in relation to their speculations, my own speculations, and your speculations. I do believe you are in danger of becoming an agnostic! To help you on your way, and since I'm in creative mood, let me offer you two axiomsisbelief in materialism does not provide evidence for a God.-You'll like that, I'm sure. Of course its converse is equally trueisbelief in a God does not provide evidence for materialism.