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]The IM hypothesis is a third option, regardless of its source. [/i] DAVID: [i]But in my pattern of thought, the only source of an IM is God.[/i] dhw: [i]In this context I am not arguing about the source but am presenting an alternative (possibly theistic) option that removes the anomalies from your rigid concept of God&apos;s methods and purpose.[/i] DAVID: [i]But a &apos;possibly theistic&apos; IM for me is just part of initial programming. I see the possibility of God allowing semiautonomous inventions.[/i]-I shall dealt with the totally unsatisfactory concept of semi-autonomy under &#147;[b]Panpsychism[/b]&#148;. (Sorry to be dodging around, but our threads are now overlapping.)-dhw: [i]Unlike you, I do not work from a conclusion.... However, you cannot stand the idea that maybe the diversity is the result of the free-for-all which marks the whole history of evolution. That doesn&apos;t fit in with your preconceived notion of God, who must have planned everything because his purpose was to create humans. [/i] DAVID: [i]Right, I don&apos;t see a free-for-all. I simply see life&apos;s ability given by God to diversify as part of His plan.[/i]-Life does not have an ability to diversify. Only living organisms can diversify.  I am suggesting to you that a free-for-all could have been God&apos;s plan (if he exists), as opposed to a programme geared to the production of humans, which as it unfolded sort of did and didn&apos;t include the nest of the weaverbird.   dhw: [i]I&apos;m afraid you&apos;re stuck with your weaverbird: once and for all, do you accept the possibility that it might have designed its own nest?[/i] DAVID: [i]Frankly, I have no idea how it happened, but the weaverbird is not likely to have accomplished the entire form and design.[/i]-You can just imagine God saying to the weaverbird (or the monarch or the plover or the spider or the beaver or the bee or the millions of other creatures you believe to be incapable of doing their own designing): &#147;Here&apos;s a plan for the first half. Now see what you can do with the second half.&#148; For general comments on &#147;semi-autonomy&#148;, again see my post under &#147;[b]Panpsychism[/b]&#148;.