Three Powerful Books

[_mentalgymnast]

Is it really too much to ask that you lay out where you see the strengths of the fine tuning argument that you think is being dismissed by those who don't accept the claims the mythology of a given people from a certain period of time is somehow special compared to the numerous other myths our species has generated to explain the world?

The fact that I am a conscious being gives evidence to a series of events that led to my ability to sit here and communicate with you using a complex syntax developed through the minds of evolved creatures who would not exist except for the fact that an extremely complex series of fine tuned processes resulted in this thing we call consciousness. Consciousness reigns supreme. To choose between consciousness being the result of chance vs. organized intelligence seems to be a no brainer.

Consciousness reduced to bits and bytes is information organized. For that information to come to fruition in an organized state we refer to as consciousness seems highly unlikely unless the conditions for that organization are fine tuned to the smallest degree.

Not having any evidence as of yet of any other conscious creatures in the universe more highly developed than ourselves brings me to the tentative conclusion that we are the ultimate result of a series of events that either happened by chance or purpose.

I choose purpose. Fine tuned purpose.

As I said earlier, I think that consciousness reigns supreme. Human consciousness appears to be at the apex of organized living creatures. My gut feeling is that this is the result of an intelligent mind/consciousness much superior than ours.

God.

YMMV.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You're calling evidence that you don't like Satanic?

No.

Regards,
MG

[_Gadianton]

So go back to the book, open to one of the pages you marked up, quote the part you highlighted, and write out the comments or words you wrote in the margin. If the one you picked doesn’t seem to capture a large enough point, go to the next one you marked up and repeat. In the end, you should be able to pick out a point to make or at least be reminded of the overarching themes you found convincing.

You recently noted that you find it difficult to determine if people here give due diligence to the concepts behind their comments. Surely you can understand that if you can’t make a single substantive statement about the content of a book you are telling others will change their lives, it is difficult to imagine you’ve done any due diligence yourself.

yikes. MG doesn't do well when pinned down like this.

[_mentalgymnast]

Surely you can understand that if you can’t make a single substantive statement about the content of a book you are telling others will change their lives, it is difficult to imagine you’ve done any due diligence yourself.

But I have. And I would recommend that others have their own experience in reading the book that would be unique to themselves. Just as yours was to you and mine was to me.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Surely you can understand that if you can’t make a single substantive statement about the content of a book you are telling others will change their lives, it is difficult to imagine you’ve done any due diligence yourself.

But I have. And I would recommend that others have their own experience in reading the book that would be unique to themselves. Just as yours was to you and mine was to me.

Regards,
MG

So, not a single substantive statement.

[Guest]

Consciousness reigns supreme. To choose between consciousness being the result of chance vs. organized intelligence seems to be a no brainer.

Reigns supreme over what? Even in your own mind nonconscious brain activity is far more influential than conscious executive thinking. This is an example of a biased belief that does not stand up to examination. You just privileged consciousness because it happens to be something you experience and appreciate. That's a value judgement not a basis for making substantial claims about the architecture of the cosmos. In fact, the reasons you did this have more to do with letting nonconscious thought reign supreme and leaving your executive thinking to rationalize it's behaviours.

Also, someday you will be eaten by bacteria who don't care about your belief that you are the pinnacle of organization in the universe. So.

[_mentalgymnast]

So go back to the book, open to one of the pages you marked up, quote the part you highlighted, and write out the comments or words you wrote in the margin. If the one you picked doesn’t seem to capture a large enough point, go to the next one you marked up and repeat. In the end, you should be able to pick out a point to make or at least be reminded of the overarching themes you found convincing.

You recently noted that you find it difficult to determine if people here give due diligence to the concepts behind their comments. Surely you can understand that if you can’t make a single substantive statement about the content of a book you are telling others will change their lives, it is difficult to imagine you’ve done any due diligence yourself.

yikes. MG doesn't do well when pinned down like this.

Admittedly so. As I already have. But what does that actually show/prove? Is there something ‘won’? Something lost? Did you win? Did I lose?

This thing called faith is a position of disadvantage vs. the materialist. That I will also admit. Faith is a position of heart and mind. That is a difficult if not impossible thing for a strict materialist to wrap their mind around and accept as being a valid position.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

You might find this illuminating.

https://youtu.be/PFJPtVRlI64

[_mentalgymnast]

Consciousness reigns supreme. To choose between consciousness being the result of chance vs. organized intelligence seems to be a no brainer.

Reigns supreme over what?

I would say crude matter. Consciousness reigns supreme over strict materialism. John Polkinghorne is a favorite of mine.

Polkinghorne is thoughtfully dismissive of attempts to account for consciousness through materialist explanations. He thinks using computer processing as an analogy is hopeless. (Where, in these accounts, is the programmer?) He doubts that evolution fully accounts for the mind, since it is not clear that consciousness has any survival value, and at any rate it is very hard to account for the survival value of, say, music, or quantum mechanics. “Our scientific, aesthetic, moral and spiritual powers greatly exceed what can convincingly be claimed to be needed in the struggle for survival, and to regard them as merely a fortunate but fortuitous by-product of that struggle is not to treat the mystery of their existence with adequate seriousness.” [Beyond Science, 64]

This goes back to how or why the universe even exists. Polkinghorne, I think, would say that the universe came into being to support consciousness. And we are the manifestation of that ultimate creative process. With purpose. With meaning.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

But I have. And I would recommend that others have their own experience in reading the book that would be unique to themselves. Just as yours was to you and mine was to me.

Regards,
MG

So, not a single substantive statement.

You’re right. Not in this post anyway. So?

Regards,
MG