Computer \"reads\" memories... (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, March 27, 2010, 00:41 (5164 days ago) @ dhw

dhw
> You say that a deity "doesn't explain anything better than chance." But if one can't believe that chance created life, some form of designer does offer a better explanation provided one stops at that point. However, I (and you too, I think) can't stop at that point, and this brings me to the reason why I can also understand perfectly well why George embraces atheism. There is no evidence of a God. I feel as George does that there is no divine power "up there". Despite the pinpoint engineering of life and the functioning, interrelated mechanisms of the universe, our world just seems to go its own random way, which suggests total absence of a deity (or at the most, the presence of an indifferent deity, who might just as well not be there). Intellectually, there is also no avoiding the question of God's own provenance, and if you can believe in a supreme intelligence that either came into being undesigned or has always been there, then you might as well believe that WE came into being undesigned or that life has always been there (BBella's view). I share your opinion that in this respect God offers nothing that chance can't offer. 
> -This block quite accurately describes exactly how I view the entire scenario. Okay, fine, say we agree that the universe had to be designed. -What then do we do with this agreement? Maybe David disagrees, but an explanation must really DO something, and his explanation doesn't do anything at all. I really wish someone could tell me what it actually explains? The most useful answer is a "how" something happens, followed immediately thereafter by a "why." One can say the Adler/Turell conjecture is valid, but beyond that, nothing. In David's language, even if we figure out abiogenesis, we still would have no idea if it is THE one our creator used, and we're still in the dark. -And to be fair, I can't really do anything with "chance," in the broadest sense of the word. -> And so I can't say as you do that "we can never be justified" in embracing a belief. My agnostic dilemma lies in the fact that I see both sides as having an equally strong and equally weak case! Hypotheses like multiple universes or man-made brains mean nothing at the moment. You might just as well say: "Supposing God suddenly reveals himself?" As I said in my response to David, I'm content to keep looking, to wait for new developments, and probably to die without getting any closer to the ultimate truth, but I don't have a problem if others choose for or against design. My only problem is when people who have made their choice hurl ridicule at those who have gone the opposite way, but fail to acknowledge or even recognize the equally vast gaps in their own reasoning.-I don't see the difference between us here--the fact that you can enumerate both strengths and weaknesses--and because of this--you don't select one over the other. This clearly demonstrates that you don't feel either has enough justification.-[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"