Reality: can science prove God? (General)

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 20, 2020, 21:12 (140 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind? [I do not accept either theory.]

DAVID: But, interestingly, you agree design is required, and then scramble to explain the new designs with brilliant cell committees, based on studies in fairly simple free-living bacteria. it seems like any theoretical port in the storm of really logical thoughts.

You know perfectly well that the theory of cellular intelligence is based on far more than the study of bacteria, and your fixed belief that a 50/50 possibility = a 100% impossibility does you no credit. Nor does it in any way render the theory of an unknown, sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful, conscious mind any more “scientific” than the theory of mindless materials evolving into conscious materials.

DAVID: You should agree design shows foresight. That is our experience in all problem-solving inventions.

dhw: Is it? I thought problem-solving entailed mastering current conditions, not looking into a crystal ball.

Did you design your lovely home? Did you counsel with an architect? If so, you and he used aforethought in the design to make it have the new functions and livability you wanted. No crystal ball ever required, just designing brains as usual. No 'mastering' involved, just analysis of current uses and adaptations for changes desired. All requiring mentation.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum