Belindi wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2018, 5:42 am
Greta wrote: ↑
April 3rd, 2018, 2:38 am
What doesn't make sense to me is the idea of intelligence amongst all that nucleated plasma. Maybe there was? I don't know, no one does, However, it does not appear to be the case. Rather, the universe has grown and developed in a way not miles from the way its inhabitants grow and develop. Nature extends far beyond our atmosphere.
Then again, I'm a bit of a m̶a̶d̶ ̶o̶l̶d̶ ̶d̶o̶g̶ ̶l̶a̶d̶y̶ panvitalist so the idea of a cold and dead cosmos may just be our perspective within emerging living systems. At this stage those systems have not shown any signs of intelligence or consciousness (away from the Earth) but that too may be a perspective effect due to the relatively tiny scale of our explorations so far, along with our situation on the inside.
I think you have to take eternal values more seriously. Eternal values depend upon eternity which is that those values(and everything else, the fall of the sparrow, each terrible conflict, every kind word, the nucleated plasma, and so on) were always going to happen; God had all these events up his sleeve so to speak.
The weakness in most people's eternal values arguments is that they arrogantly specify the values exactly as if from an engineering blueprint that mentions every rivet.
Belinda, I think people should take panvitalism more seriously - but they don't. I'd take eternal values more seriously if:
1) someone could coherently explain how eternal values could exist amongst non sentient matter before the emergence of intelligent creatures, and;
2) if those who claim such values to be true did not respond more aggressively than is usual on forums. You would expect the opposite. If so-called eternal values have no positive effect on character - no increase in patience, understanding and goodwill - then what is the point?
Still, I don't discount the possibility of eternal values either for the same reason - no evidence one way or another. I have mentioned a few scenarios where entities that might be thought of as God may somewhat realistically be inserted into scientific gaps. Thus, I don't discount eternal values or many other claims, but I certainly won't take the idea seriously without at least one convincing explanation.
The irony of all this is that I would have no quibble at all with the people I have the most vigorous debates with online if they just qualified their views with "probably", "seemingly", "perhaps", "maybe", "possibly", and so on. My beef has always
been with misplaced certainty, not the propositions themselves.
That people would rather fight and sweat than qualify their pet ideas and admit to uncertainty is telling in itself.