Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> dhw: [i]I am happy to agree with you and Hoyle that chance is illogical. Now look at your explanation: [b]only a living, conscious mind can design life and consciousness, and therefore our life and consciousness were designed by a living, conscious mind which was not designed by anything at all.[/b] Logical?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]You deny a first cause, which is not logical.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I have never denied a first cause! I have listed three possible first causes (your God, chance, and some form of panpsychism) but find none of them convincing enough to take a leap of faith. Now please explain the logic of your bolded theory above.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The usual: nothing never produces something. Therefore, as you agree, there must be a first cause. Of your three possibilities, chance is impossible because of the complexities in living biology and panpsychism is a woolly mind-like theory, so why not stick to the obvious: the necessity of an eternal planning mind?[/i]
> 
> Why won’t you explain the logic behind the “mind” theory bolded above, which is no less woolly than the woolly “mind-like” theory?