Human evolution: we are entirely improbable (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 08:42 (1395 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am happy to agree with you and Hoyle that chance is illogical. Now look at your explanation: only a living, conscious mind can design life and consciousness, and therefore our life and consciousness were designed by a living, conscious mind which was not designed by anything at all. Logical?

DAVID: You deny a first cause, which is not logical.

dhw: I have never denied a first cause! I have listed three possible first causes (your God, chance, and some form of panpsychism) but find none of them convincing enough to take a leap of faith. Now please explain the logic of your bolded theory above.

DAVID: The usual: nothing never produces something. Therefore, as you agree, there must be a first cause. Of your three possibilities, chance is impossible because of the complexities in living biology and panpsychism is a woolly mind-like theory, so why not stick to the obvious: the necessity of an eternal planning mind?

dhw: Why won’t you explain the logic behind the “mind” theory bolded above, which is no less woolly than the woolly “mind-like” theory?

DAVID: I'm forced to go back to simple principals, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The complexity of life requires a designing mind. Our minds are not equal to that mind but our appearance with our minds is not explained by any theory presented by humans. As for panpsychism as an undefined mental force, it is just a variation on the recognition mental activity is required and is a fudge factor in the debate.

With the bold, you have at last recognized that NONE of the theories presented by humans can explain our appearance with our minds or the appearance of elephants, whales, brontosauruses, eagles, ants or bacteria with their various minds. Do you not realize that the theory bolded at the beginning of this post – the illogicality of which you continue to ignore – of a universal, eternal, all-powerful, living conscious mind which was not designed by anything at all is a HUMAN theory? Thank you for confirming the logic that underlies agnosticism. But I do not wish to undermine your faith or anybody else’s. I am simply pointing out that neither you nor Dawkins should pretend that your respective faiths in God/mindless nature are based on science. You are of course both welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe!