Re: Mind and Consciousness (God version)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

He opens with a basic Paley's watch error ("everything looks created, therefore.. a creator!") and proceeds from that false premise. Why is it worth repeating do you think?

As cosily reassuring Paley's watch error claim is, it avoids the implication that something that looks created, could in fact actually be created.
Dawkin's acknowledges this but goes on and contradicts himself by stating that the universe looks as though it hasn't been created, giving "science" as his warrant.
No doubt you will argue that Dawkins merely states that the universe merely "looks" as though it wasn't created but that Paley wasn't saying the universe merely "looks" like it was created.
Dawkin's and yourself piss about too much imo with the "improbability of God based on science" shtick.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As cosily reassuring Paley's watch error claim is, it avoids the implication that something that looks created, could in fact actually be created.

You don't understand the Paley's Watch fallacy.

Dawkin's acknowledges this but goes on and contradicts himself by stating that the universe looks as though it hasn't been created, giving "science" as his warrant.

I'm pretty sure "Dawkin's" (sic) doesn't do that, but no doubt you can provide a citation so we we're know you're not just making it up right?

No doubt you will argue that Dawkins merely states that the universe merely "looks" as though it wasn't created but that Paley wasn't saying the universe merely "looks" like it was created.

No - that's just you straw manning again. Why would I (or Richard Dawkins) say any such thing rather than what we actually say? 

Dawkin's and yourself piss about too much imo with the "improbability of God based on science" shtick.

"Dawkin's" (sic) says no such thing. Why do you persist with such dishonest fantasies?

[Outrider]

As cosily reassuring Paley's watch error claim is, it avoids the implication that something that looks created, could in fact actually be created.

It doesn't ignore it, it starts with the observation that life on Earth looks, superficially, as though it were created. The argument then goes through various different threads to show that superficial view is at best questionable - it doesn't definitely 'prove' that things couldn't be created, just that if they were it's by someone deliberately attempting to imply, or utilise, natural causes and effects.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't ignore it, it starts with the observation that life on Earth looks, superficially, as though it were created. The argument then goes through various different threads to show that superficial view is at best questionable - it doesn't definitely 'prove' that things couldn't be created, just that if they were it's by someone deliberately attempting to imply, or utilise, natural causes and effects.

O.

Perhaps you can justify the addition of the word”superficially” here.
How does science call “creation” into question?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Perhaps you can justify the addition of the word”superficially” here.

An object appearing to be created does not justify the statement that therefore it is created.

How does science call “creation” into question?

Science doesn't.

[Outrider]

Perhaps you can justify the addition of the word”superficially” here.

I don't see that it needs a clarification - on a first inspection creation could be presumed, but digging under the surface calls that into question.

How does science call “creation” into question?

The natural world we have shows innumerable examples of repurposed developments, biological activities which would make no sense as an independent design but do make sense as the result of iterative variations selected for local fitness. For someone who's so vocal about Professor Dawkins' writings, you don't appear to have actually understood very many of them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see that it needs a clarification - on a first inspection creation could be presumed, but digging under the surface calls that into question.

It's not clarification of your assertion that's required it's justification. Here, you are just repeating the assertion

The natural world we have shows innumerable examples of repurposed developments, biological activities which would make no sense as an independent design but do make sense as the result of iterative variations selected for local fitness. For someone who's so vocal about Professor Dawkins' writings, you don't appear to have actually understood very many of them.

O.

As a poster of several years I have noticed people having to be reminded that biological evolution is not biogenesis, let alone genesis(creation) and now here am I reminding you.

Wll you now justify your use of the word superficial since we are talking about creator rather than designer/craftsman.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's not clarification of your assertion that's required it's justification. Here, you are just repeating the assertion

The clarification has already been given to you – because an observed object or phenomenon is complex does not imply that it was purposely created that way. That’s why just assuming that it was is “superficial”.

Any rowing back on you getting Paley’s watch arse-backwards by the way?

As a poster of several years I have noticed people having to be reminded that biological evolution is not biogenesis, let alone genesis(creation) and now here am I reminding you.

Presumably you’re trying to say abiogenesis here, and you don’t need to “remind” anyone of that because no-one here has suggested otherwise. 

Wll you now justify your use of the word superficial since we are talking about creator rather than designer/craftsman.

See above (and a non sequitur). 

[Outrider]

It's not clarification of your assertion that's required it's justification. Here, you are just repeating the assertion

I'm referencing a well-documented, publicly available body of work that demonstrates it's not an assertion - I can't do the reading for you.

As a poster of several years I have noticed people having to be reminded that biological evolution is not biogenesis, let alone genesis(creation) and now here am I reminding you.

And as a poster of several years I need to point out the god of the gaps fallacy, again.

Wll you now justify your use of the word superficial since we are talking about creator rather than designer/craftsman.

No,  it's still a work of poor design before you ever get to considering life. Why is there such a vast expanse of empty, hostile to life space if life is the point? It doesn't take much investigation to find things that make you question whether it's actually designed - hence, superficial.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm referencing a well-documented, publicly available body of work that demonstrates it's not an assertion - I can't do the reading for you.

And as a poster of several years I need to point out the god of the gaps fallacy, again.

No,  it's still a work of poor design before you ever get to considering life. Why is there such a vast expanse of empty, hostile to life space if life is the point? It doesn't take much investigation to find things that make you question whether it's actually designed - hence, superficial.

O.

Evolution is a change in what is already there. Creation is what is responsible for what is there.

Independence of action in the created order is part and parcel of monotheistic religions e.g.free will.

You cannot blame God for your actions and call God of the gaps fallacy at the same time.

It looks as though you are confusing change with creation still.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No,  it's still a work of poor design before you ever get to considering life. Why is there such a vast expanse of empty, hostile to life space if life is the point? It doesn't take much investigation to find things that make you question whether it's actually designed - hence, superficial.

O.

Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.

And that is aside from us not actually knowing the limits to alien life.

Whatever the purpose of the universe, God doesn't actually need it. Rather than looking at the universe as a mechanistic industrial process I think we are better off thinking of it more in terms of a piece of art where the art gets to produce itself.

I think Christianity has concentrated more on what mankinds purpose is rather than the purpose of the universe and this is summed up in the Westminster confession "man's chief end is to know God and enjoy him forever"

[Nearly Sane]

Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.

And that is aside from us not actually knowing the limits to alien life.

Whatever the purpose of the universe, God doesn't actually need it. Rather than looking at the universe as a mechanistic industrial process I think we are better off thinking of it more in terms of a piece of art where the art gets to produce itself.

I think Christianity has concentrated more on what mankinds purpose is rather than the purpose of the universe and this is summed up in the Westminster confession "man's chief end is to know God and enjoy him forever"

Your god created childhood leukemia as a 'piece of aet'? You worship the pain of children as an art work.

[Dicky Underpants]

Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.

Aside from NS's valid point, there is certainly at least one pertinent instance (one of probably millions) where it is obvious that 'better' design has been achieved on a completely different line of evolution than the humanoid line. The octopus eye is very obviously better designed than the human eye. Now, since the human being is supposedly (according to the Christian view) the crown of creation, why is the human eye more badly designed than that of the octopus? Did "The Fall" actually involve a complete rewiring of the human ocular system? Having achieved such a finely designed (and very similar) eye along the invertebrate line of evolution, why could 'God' not grant us this better designed apparatus? (In fact, the better designed eye had been achieved much earlier on in a much more lowly mollusc than the octopus, namely the Pecten).

I should add that in addition to the octopus eye's better design leading to there being no 'blind spot', there is less danger of retinal detachment. Quite important qualities, I'd have thought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your god created childhood leukemia as a 'piece of aet'? You worship the pain of children as an art work.

I did mean rather a piece of art which gets to develop itself.
You obviously do not share the view that the universe is a wonderful place, rather a hostile place.

Mind you I suspect there are people who argue both as it suits namely the people who think the universe hostile one minute but are able to enjoy the garden without the fairies, like Douglas Adams , the next.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

"Creator" merely implies that something was intentionally created, rather than just came about non-intentionally. I don't know what you mean by "personal" here, nor why a claim of a creator "makes it personal".

Not sure how you can have an accident/ non intentionality when there is, effectively only one thing...the universe...or God...so no context or alternatives for chance/accident to operate.

[Dicky Underpants]

I did mean rather a piece of art which gets to develop itself.
You obviously do not share the view that the universe is a wonderful place, rather a hostile place.

"There were some who believed that the  world was, from top to bottom, a conjuror's cave"
David Lindsay - A Voyage to Arcturus.

For those who do not believe, the Universe is simply what it is. Theodicy is simply a problem for - well - those who believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"There were some who believed that the  world was, from top to bottom, a conjuror's cave"
David Lindsay - A Voyage to Arcturus.

For those who do not believe, the Universe is simply what it is.

And what is it Richard?

[Outrider]

Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.

No, you don't need that. You can look at the manifest flaws of the end product, the limitations it imposes that don't need to be imposed, and identify poor design.

And that is aside from us not actually knowing the limits to alien life.

Other potentially 'better designed' life doesn't undermine the case of the 'chosen' species of God, and its immediate surroundings, being poorly designed.

Whatever the purpose of the universe, God doesn't actually need it.

We do, though, and it's overwhelmingly hostile to us, who are supposed to be the point of it.

Rather than looking at the universe as a mechanistic industrial process I think we are better off thinking of it more in terms of a piece of art where the art gets to produce itself.

The message it conveys, as a piece of performance art, is poor design.

I think Christianity has concentrated more on what mankinds purpose is rather than the purpose of the universe and this is summed up in the Westminster confession "man's chief end is to know God and enjoy him forever"

Because when they suggested that the universe was there for the purpose of man it quickly became obvious that was nonsense. Before Christianity can focus on what the purpose is of mankind it needs to establish a rationale for presuming there is a purpose, otherwise we're just back to theology being the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy.

O.

[jeremyp]

I did mean rather a piece of art which gets to develop itself.

Are you saying that your god was not aware of the consequences when he designed the Universe? He didn't know that he was creating a place in which children would have immense suffering?

You obviously do not share the view that the universe is a wonderful place, rather a hostile place.

I do not see those two descriptions of the Universe as mutually exclusive. There's no denying that the Universe is overwhelmingly hostile to us. Humans are only able to live on the surface of one small planet in one of billions of solar systems in one of billions of galaxies, as far as we know.

Even just on this planet, without human created technology, humans can only live on a very small part of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you don't need that. You can look at the manifest flaws of the end product, the limitations it imposes that don't need to be imposed, and identify poor design.

You can only have an end product at the end, Outrider, and we are not at the end. For Christians mankind's end or ultimate purpose, as specifically stated and outlined in say, the Westminster confession is to "enjoy God forever" but only willingly. So not a human design issue.

[Outrider]

You can only have an end product at the end, Outrider, and we are not at the end.

You have an end-product at the point of use - I'm using reality right now (although, to be fair, I'm not sure about you).

For Christians mankind's end or ultimate purpose, as specifically stated and outlined in say, the Westminster confession is to "enjoy God forever" but only willingly. So not a human design issue.

So the rest of us have to suffer for the this art piece because God is perfectly moral...

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

And what is it Richard?

Not something with benign - or hostile - intentions with regards to us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not sure how you can have an accident/ non intentionality when there is, effectively only one thing...the universe...or God...so no context or alternatives for chance/accident to operate.

Why not? You can claim a universe that's designed and engineered by a creator god, or you can reason your way to a universe that's essentially purposeless. I don't know why you plump for the former.

PS Still no news on you getting Paley's Watch arse-backwards by the way?       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why not? You can claim a universe that's designed and engineered by a creator god, or you can reason your way to a universe that's essentially purposeless. I don't know why you plump for the former.

PS Still no news on you getting Paley's Watch arse-backwards by the way?     

It was actually your "little helpers" who started going on about design and engineering. I actually put a post suggesting we shouldn't look at it as an industrial process, after telling your "Little helpers" they seemed to be confusing evolution with biogenesis and universal creation something you seem to be repeating here.

Let me help you out. Evolution is a change in what exists. Creation is the provision of what there is.

There cannot IMV be unintention or accident if there is only one thing so I would say God or whatever could not have unintentionally or accidentally give rise to the universe. There is no context in which he can have an accident.

Sriram I would imagine is a monist which means the universe is one thing and so also has no context in which to have "An accident"...that wouldn't be inconsistent with an idea of universal intentionality.

And then there's you....A Cake-ist who argues that the universe is both a single thing and yet, somehow also a collection of things, whichever suits his argument.

Given then that I am not talking about design or engineering....who gives a crap about Paley?

[Dicky Underpants]

It was actually your "little helpers" who started going on about design and engineering. I actually put a post suggesting we shouldn't look at it as an industrial process, after telling your "Little helpers" they seemed to be confusing evolution with biogenesis and universal creation something you seem to be repeating here.

Let me help you out. Evolution is a change in what exists. Creation is the provision of what there is.

I've never known any of the atheists/agnostics/ignostics  here ever to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. It's always the theists who keep doing that.