@kellyjay saidYou seem to be using the word "mindlessness" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in order to anthropomorphize the mechanics of the universe? Why does the creator entity have to be human-like? Is it because you are a human?
The universe is something that appears to have come about through mindlessness, and life does it appear to be something that has come about by mindlessness? If you suggest yes, mindlessness is all that is required, then what properties are you looking at that suggest mindlessness to you? Does error checking suggest mindlessness to you? Does the fine-tuning of any operation, ...[text shortened]... c designer is another topic for another day, but if you cannot even get to one required, why bother?
@kellyjay saidWhat "reductionist viewpoint"?
A reductionist viewpoint doesn't address information that requires revelation to understand because it goes way beyond mere chemical makeup. We see words in a book; they carry meaning that cannot be grasped by the composition of the paper and ink on the pages; they can be understood by a mind looking at the work of another mind that meaning is more than simply molecules forming ink and paper.
@avalanchethecat saidI'm arguing from what we know and see! When we see a computer's design and all the error checking in hardware and software. We know what to look for in that error checking, like feedback loops, because it requires them. When we see that error checking taking place in life, and we know what is required to do this, we can look for things that do them they are required. A mindless process will not come up with these types of specific processes, they are there because they are required, a mind had to be behind it.
When you point to the 'fine-tuning' and complexity of life and say it must be down to a creator, you are arguing from incredulity, and that is not a sound argument.
@kellyjay saidAnd when you want to REALLY understand the nature of the universe, like you might want to do when looking into an error in the computer's design, you check in your Holy Bible, right?
I'm arguing from what we know and see! When we see a computer's design and all the error checking in hardware and software. We know what to look for in that error checking, like feedback loops, because it requires them.
@kellyjay saidYou say that "a mindless process will not come up with these types of specific processes" as though that is a fact. If a machine as complicated as a cell is to procreate successfully, some form of error-checking process is required. It seems pretty obvious to me that any form of life which is going to procreate successfully MUST develop processes akin to those which you see in computing and so on. I see no requirement for a mind to be behind this. You are arguing from incredulity because you don't understand how these processess arose naturally.
I'm arguing from what we know and see! When we see a computer's design and all the error checking in hardware and software. We know what to look for in that error checking, like feedback loops, because it requires them. When we see that error checking taking place in life, and we know what is required to do this, we can look for things that do them they are required. A mindl ...[text shortened]... e types of specific processes, they are there because they are required, a mind had to be behind it.
@avalanchethecat saidWell, as I said, what I see and know, I use to look at what I see. What part of life and all its processes, including error checking, speak mindlessness to you and why?
You say that "a mindless process will not come up with these types of specific processes" as though that is a fact. If a machine as complicated as a cell is to procreate successfully, some form of error-checking process is required. It seems pretty obvious to me that any form of life which is going to procreate successfully MUST develop processes akin to those which y ...[text shortened]... e arguing from incredulity because you don't understand how these processess arose naturally.
@kellyjay saidYou are making an unwarranted leap. Life and the universe are amazing, astounding things, but just because we don't understand how it all happened is not cause to ascribe it to a creator. To the pre-scientific mind, all natural processes seem indicative of a mind behind them. The advent of science has shown us how most of these processes work and that they are completely natural and devoid of 'mind'. I see no reason to expect that those processes which we do not yet understand will be any different.
Well, as I said, what I see and know, I use to look at what I see. What part of life and all its processes, including error checking, speak mindlessness to you and why?
@avalanchethecat saidHow incredible it all is doesn’t make us accept or reject a creator. The points I have been making are simple mindlessness vs design, what do we know about each possible cause and which most reasonably matches what we see?
You are making an unwarranted leap. Life and the universe are amazing, astounding things, but just because we don't understand how it all happened is not cause to ascribe it to a creator. To the pre-scientific mind, all natural processes seem indicative of a mind behind them. The advent of science has shown us how most of these processes work and that they are complet ...[text shortened]... I see no reason to expect that those processes which we do not yet understand will be any different.
@kellyjay saidNo, the points you have been making are points which you view as indicative of 'design' because your operating paradigm involves a creator. None of them, to me, imply design, because I view the universe through a different filter.
How incredible it all is doesn’t make us accept or reject a creator. The points I have been making are simple mindlessness vs design, what do we know about each possible cause and which most reasonably matches what we see?
@avalanchethecat saidDescribe your filter.
No, the points you have been making are points which you view as indicative of 'design' because your operating paradigm involves a creator. None of them, to me, imply design, because I view the universe through a different filter.
Mindlessness v Design
Mindlessness
= a kind of smear word to decribe processes creationists don't understand and/or science hasn't explained yet
Design
= word to decribe processes creationists frame as if they understand them and/or they believe science will never explain but it works for them in a kind catchall "intellectual" way because of their theology.
@fmf saidSo you refute the discussion by how you define what we see, mindless is something creationist use so it cannot have real meaning?
Mindlessness v Design
Mindlessness
= a kind of smear word to decribe processes creationists don't understand and/or science hasn't explained yet
Design
= word to decribe processes creationists frame as if they understand them and/or they believe science will never explain but it works for them in a kind catchall "intellectual" way because of their theology.