Count Lucanor, the regularity of physical forces are testifying to us that intelligence, purpose and consciousness are attributes or properties of physical forces, of energy, and of matter.
It happens to testify just the opposite. The consistency and predictable repetitiveness of the laws of physics point at invariant mechanical cause and effect processes, in which given sets of conditions produce the same results. Two hydrogen atoms will join one oxygen atom to form a water molecule, which will have the corresponding properties, as in all matter. Consciousness and purpose are absent in this relation, otherwise matter in general would behave without any restrictions, capriciously, purely determined by intentions, and you would see water not being water, or gravity working differently under the same conditions. The regularity of nature's forces implies that there's nothing making choices.
BlindedWantsToSee wrote:The claim that matter or energy is not, or cannot be, conscious or intelligent is just an assumption, not a proven fact.
That's not precisely what is being claimed. In fact, living beings, which are nothing but physical entities, are conscious. We say they are alive and conscious because of the type of processes and functions that they carry out autonomously, by themselves. They have been singled out and explained thoroughly. And we have seen that this living beings have operated in a very tiny fraction of time and in a minuscule place, overwhelmingly overshadowed by a vast, soulless, cold universe of matter and energy that does not show any of the processes and functions of living matter. And that's it. Whenever someone wants to show that the universe is conscious, I mean, if they really want to make a solid case, they will have to show something more than just stating the baseless opinion that "it looks as if being alive and having consciousness".
I can't explain it all or prove anything, but it is obvious to me that energy (or at least some of it) is intelligent. You are justified in dismissing my claims or trying to debunk them, if that is what you would like to do. However, this discussion about the material or non-material nature of our reality is really of no consequence to the main idea of this post, to what I'm claiming regarding the nature of life.
Since you are acknowledging that you are not able to present and sustain your case, there's no need to debunk much. If you only feel compelled to state the things in which you believe, I can just say I don't have to believe them.
As an illustration, let us assume that sunlight or solar radiation is harmful to human skin and can cause skin cancer. I don't know if this is really true, but for this example let's say it is true. I come along and say: 'hey, everybody, I have noticed that exposure to the sun is damaging our skins and giving some of us skin cancer. We should do something to protect ourselves'. The sun may or may not be consciously and purposefully hurting us. But the fact is, in this example, the sun is damaging people's skin and giving some of them skin cancer. The sun may not want people to get cancer or be aware at all, yet it is doing the harm. This is why I say that the exact nature of the Source is not really relevant here. Life is a certain way, and this way is hurtful for the vast majority of the 7 billion human souls upon this world. That is what I am talking about.
The sun, however, is not a mysterious thing, inaccessible to our senses and lacking concrete physical properties. We know what the sun is made of and which things it does that have an effect on people's skins. We wouldn't know it's the sun doing the harm if we didn't know all these properties. It's been a long time since we lacked enough tools to make inferences based solely on wild guesses from naked eye observations. So the source of the harm is relevant, since its properties, related to its essential nature as a star that emanates ultraviolet radiation, are also directly related to the effect caused on people's skins.
Yes! Imperfect nature of the designer is the right answer. Ok, you are going to want proof for everything I say. I don't have proof; I have hints and clues, evidence. Here is where I get the information that helped me arrive to the conclusion of imperfect designer. There is a video on YouTube entitled "Lloyd Pye Everything You Know Is Wrong". I told Gary I would not bring this up, but it's necessary here. In the video, Lloyd Pye explains why he believes that human beings were genetically engineered by an alien race of people about 200,000 years ago. They did not do a good job.
I'm very sorry, but I'll have to pass on this one. I don't think I can get into a fruitful discussion with a "Vondanikener", any more than with a "flatearther". For pure respect, I'll just watch the video (hope is not too long) and will make no comment.
YES! Right again. I can't agree with you more here. We disagree, it seems, because you believe there is just nothing beyond what we can see, and hear, and touch, and smell, and taste or measure with scientific instruments; and I believe there is something that escapes our perception, and senses, and ability to measure scientifically. It is definitely not a supreme ruler that puts harmony in the universe.
Life is what it is, and there is a reason for that. It is not an accident. I have given my theory of why life is the way it is.
Let's put it this way: I prefer someone believing aliens, made of flesh and bone, are behind the emergence of life on Earth, instead of divine immaterial entities dwelling in a spiritual dimension.
-- Updated November 25th, 2017, 10:15 pm to add the following --
Count Lucanor wrote:
That will be like saying that the only way blindness can be explained is by going blind yourself.
No, because I said "understood" not "explained". Nice try.
Explaining and understanding are just two instances of the same process, so it really makes no difference. I could have used "understood" or "explained" in the same sentence and the meaning is the same.
Of course you can explain things you know nothing about and have never experienced, such as near death states. People do it all the time. What you can't do is understand near death experiences unless you experience them yourself.
Well then, you're admitting you cannot understand anything related to so called "near death experiences", so you cannot assert nothing about it either. And about people who claim they have experienced them, you can only have their claims, right?
So a blind man can explain (falsely) what 'red' is. It will be an explanation based on imagination, but an explanation nonetheless. But the blind man will never be able to understand 'red' unless he can experience it. And in addition to experiencing it he would also need a certain amount of knowledge about it as well.
But you're talking from an omniscient point of view: as if you DID KNOW that the blind man cannot experience red, despite yourself asserting that only the experiencer can understand the experience. How did you get to understand blindness as being unable to catch redness if you have never lived it yourself? How would you get to talk about "altered states of vision"?
And what happens when the blind man comes back to having vision? His explanation is any better now for the inquirers? Note that the inquirers are exactly in the same position they were before: they have not lived blindness.
Now add that people claiming to have had "near death" experiences are not really dead, otherwise they would not be talking about it. So they are not talking about the experience of being "fully" dead. If you get me a one-month corpse talking, don't hesitate to call me.
But they are 'out of reach' for everyone, including the people experiencing them. Even the experiencers themselves will not be able to understand their experiences without a sufficient amount of knowledge about their nature.
Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and experience.
But then you're admitting that experience alone is not enough for understanding something. In any case, it seems you're equating or reducing "experience" to "personal experience". So, the ONLY scientific research of blindness, if we followed your argument, would come from blind people. The only scientific knowledge about Jupiter would come from a traveler to that planet. The only valid scientific research of hurricanes would come from people that have been swept away by one. And the only scientific knowledge of the mechanics involved in hitting a baseball, will come from a baseball player. It doesn't make sense. Actually, experience encompasses more than eye-witnessing, it involves also indirect sensing of data by measuring instruments, creating models, testing, analysis and many other tools that, combined, actually produce a better understanding of phenomena than plain sight. That's why blind people must learn from the science of vision to really understand their blindness. And that's why engineers can work in the design of baseballs and baseball bats. That is not to say that anyone can understand how it feels
to be blind better than a blind person, but in feeling
the processes involved are more related to emotions, than to the cognitive high-order reasoning of the neocortex. Just in case: that's the part where you actually understand things.