Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof - PART ONE (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 05, 2021, 14:03 (1201 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have two very opposite views of God's personality and intentions.

dhw: Why won’t you tell us more about your interpretation of God’s “image and value” and personality? And why won’t you tell us why millions of direct operations are “easier” than the invention of a single mechanism to make all the changes?

God is all purpose with no self-aggrandizing intents. As a designer myself it is easier to do it directly than hand it off to a secondhand design mechanism which will have to have an enormous set of instructions to produce proper results.

DAVID: I think we live in God's consciousness and He has given us some of His.

dhw: So why is that more “substantive” than your God inventing a mechanism which will produce consciousness similar to his? (NB: if he gives us some of His consciousness, then we have all the more reason to believe that he and we probably have similar thought patterns, emotions etc. Please do not ignore this parenthesis!)

As usual I'll accept logic. I don't think He does anything to satisfy His personal emotional needs. He has none in my opinion.

dhw: […] My point is that if everything comes from materials, it is perfectly logical for your God to have created materials from which intelligence emerges. That would be a theistic compromise between dualism and materialism.

DAVID: It is your logic, not mine. The cells act intelligently through God's instructions.

dhw: Your statement of your belief does not make my proposal illogical.

You have our belief, I have mine, each logical to each of us.

dhw: [continued from above] …..to advocate a two-part soul (or a two-part self), or to your astonishing claim that you “know” God is nothing like a human.

DAVID: You are an amazing theologian. They know God is not anything like us, Adler certainly included. From non-belief you develop all sorts of wild concepts of Him, especially humanizing.

dhw: Nobody “knows” even if God exists, let alone what he is like. We can only speculate, which is why I offer different alternatives, all of which you agree are logical - just as you agree that your God probably has thought patterns etc. similar to ours, so do please stop pretending you never said so.

My comments are not set in stone. I have a right to alter your misinterpretations of my
comments.

dhw: […] if I remember rightly, you even believe that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

DAVID: Yes, consciousness is a gift from God, but I fully agree it has to arise from material which lives, with life another gift from God.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with this belief. How does it run counter to the theory that your God designed materials from which consciousness would emerge – just as humans have built machines from which artificial intelligence emerges – i.e. in your own words: “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain”?

AI is a weak example. Emergence requires the invention of life. Only God does that.

DAVID: The chain of life from the original bacteria to us is the only reason we are here. Life only comes from life, and it is glaringly obvious it didn't pop up spontaneously from any ordinary matter.

dhw: I agree. And the chain of life from the original bacteria is the only reason why ALL life forms were or are here. And I agree that life only comes from life, except for its unknown origin. And I agree with the logic that even the first living cells are too complex to have popped up spontaneously. That is why I accept the logic of the design theory. I remain agnostic, however, because I cannot regard the mystery of life and consciousness as having been solved by creating an even greater mystery in the form of a living, conscious, unknown and sourceless “being” who designed them.

And I fully accept your manifesto of agnosticism, short as it is of accepting a designer. Design without a designer is an empty position.