Surely the evolution of complex life from such a perfectly formed base of molecular and then cellular interaction points to intelligent design. — MikeL
how do they justify the assertion that if design then conscious agency isn't true — MikeL
If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree? — MikeL
It appears that we have to justify that if there's design then there's a designer (a conscious agency) since we make that claim and arguments such as your depend on this premise being true. — TheMadFool
If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree?
— MikeL
I'm not sure how this helps your argument for God. — TheMadFool
You understand yourself to be an especially patient, curious, and experienced student of the patterns of life. Great. The implication, however, may be that others here are not. You are welcome to that belief. In my experience, lots of guys think they are the smartest person they know. I know I do. — t0m
If no one is smarter than anyone else, then why would you need to tell me this? — t0m
Why would you need to explain to me, an equally smart person, what philosophy is really about? — t0m
Finally, good fiction tends to reveal life. It is hyper-real. Dostoevsky comes to mind. — t0m
I think it's only fair to ask you for the results of doing philosophy this way. — t0m
But that's crazy. It's like looking at a rocket ship parked on the side of the road and refusing to believe it was intelligently designed because you can't locate a designer. — MikeL
Well, wouldn't it make sense that if God had designed us, he would want us to have an emergent consciousness so we could sense his presence? — MikeL
It makes sense to us assuming God exists and that's what we want to prove isn't it? — TheMadFool
so long as the other side is able to explain how life originated naturally: but they can't. — MikeL
In the meantime the other side doesn't have to do any work at all to justify their assertion that life arises spontaneously through chemical interaction. They have no solid case, which is why they turn the argument back on you rather than outlining their own proofs. If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them. — MikeL
saying that we know life arose naturally because we can form some of these base chemicals is an argument comparable to saying that we know a house arises naturally because we can get clay out of the ground and in certain conditions heat it and shape it into bricks. — MikeL
Precisely. It is because we are aware of ourselves, can stare in awe at nature, and understand we are more than the sum of our parts that drives us to seek out the places where the creator may have left his fingerprint. We feel unique and transcendent above simple cause and effect relationships. — MikeL
The universe is awesome in what sense? We're alive but life exists on only one planet and that too confined to certain areas on the globe. Could it be that our awe is misplaced and that we should actually rue our miniscule solitary existence in the universe? — TheMadFool
Hoffman's book gives an overview of where biology is nowadays on what life actually is, how it works. Cells, it turns out, are nothing at all like what I learned in AP Biology a hundred years ago! That means we're only now beginning to see the shape of what a theory of abiogenesis would look like. It's helpful to know what you're explaining the origin of, don't you think? — Srap Tasmaner
I just don't see how you get from the "haven't" we could all agree on to the "can't" you insist on. — Srap Tasmaner
We c are still discovering new types of life on this planet in areas we thought life couldn't exist. Have patience. The universe is quite large and there is plenty of time to explore it. — Rich
If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them.— MikeL
Well, it seems that we have to slide the viewing window back to the origin of the issue. We can then see that the first move in this game was made by theists. Theists argued for the presence of a creator based on design. The atheistic position is the refutation, the second move, so to speak. The ball is in the theists' court I'm afraid. — TheMadFool
Well, I understand the scientific position as that of remaining within the bounds of the observable and measurable. Science is descriptive - it studies phenomena and looks for patterns. — TheMadFool
This information is used by theists to claim God's existence but, as I said above, atheists think this analogy is like comparing apples to oranges and they're right. We don't have a collection of universes governed by laws made by a creator. If this were the case then the analogy would be a good one but it isn't so it fails. — TheMadFool
Can you? — MikeL
Demand them to prove it. — MikeL
How do you know that the laws of the universe are not governed by a creator? — MikeL
You see. Rather than answering the question it is a redirection.That question cuts both ways: How do you know that the laws of the universe were put into place by a creator? — TheMadFool
I agree, that is why I specified scientists, not science.As for science, it's not on any side of the debate. — TheMadFool
Oh, they must love debates then.Atheists don't have to prove anything. — TheMadFool
Yes, you are right, they do. But with nothing to prove, I guess they just have to say theists are wrong to win the argument, which is pretty much what they do.the design argument is based on the order/patterns that exist in the universe. Atheists think this argument from design is flawed. — TheMadFool
One specific area where science actually disagrees with relgion is on the matter of creation - the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years or so old and Geology says its 4 billion years old. So, who is right? Evolution too is considered anti-religious in a similar fashion. What do you think? Is science anti-theism? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.