Your first paragraph: I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you said.

> When you refer to the "players in the system" being unable to produce consciousness, are you thinking in terms of the law of conservation of energy?

No, I was thinking of the natural processes of evolution under the understanding of no guiding intellect behind them.

> The trend in biological evolution is always towards complexity and diversity.

A curious statement. My garden goes to chaos. : ) Are you saying that biological evolution is always on the advance? Just wondering. It sounds like you're saying that the direction of biological evolution is by default in the direction of improvement.

> There are NO fossils that contradict the theory of biological evolution.

I haven't said anything to contend that I didn't believe in the possibility of evolution. What I am arguing is that there are a lot of things about biological evolution that don't add up.

> When in actuality the way things are are completely explainable in the context of natural unconscious processes.

This is one of many places we do actually disagree with each other.

> Not to mention this is all has been observed...

I haven't said anything to contend that I didn't believe in the possibility of evolution. What I am arguing is that there are a lot of things about biological evolution that don't add up.

The difference between genetics and the traffic light and iPod comparisons is that those examples don't self replicate. Also, the mutations that just happen to be helpful are self perpetuating. It’s not as if ALL the genetic information is shuffled every generation. Genes self replicate through reproduction, thereby allowing the next generation to inherit those beneficial random mutations. If a particular mutation gives the organism a better chance of survival and reproduction than it's peers, within relatively small number generations, the entire population will have that mutation/trait, because those that have it out-compete those that don’t. Even if, by chance, the beneficial gene mutates for one individual organism, the rest of the populations will still be carrying the original beneficial mutation. So the one unlucky organism would have to compete with the rest of the population for survival and reproduction. As long as that mutation never becomes harmful in the context of the environment it will not be selected out. This population of organisms will continue on, and somewhere down the line another random mutation that happens to be helpful will occur, adding to the last helpful mutation. But if a harmful mutation happens, it only happens to one individual. It is then selected out before it has a chance to replicate further because it has to compete with the rest of the population. Think of all the species that have gone extinct.

When you refer to the "players in the system" being unable to produce consciousness, are you thinking in terms of the law of conservation of energy? If so, this rule does not apply, because the earth is not a closed system. It receives incoming energy from the sun and other cosmic rays from the universe. This is energy is responsible for all kinds of combinations of and changes to the elements that are/were present here on earth. And specifically, these forms of energy are known to cause genetic mutations. As far as adding information to the genome, scientists have observed populations of yeast adding information multiple times in only 450 generations. The trend in biological evolution is always towards complexity and diversity. Random mutation is basically the process of guess and check. Random mutations continue to happen until one is beneficial, and simply by the nature of being beneficial it becomes self-perpetuating.

Why couldn't consciousness be developed through a mechanical process? Do either of us even know what consciousness is? Watch that show ‘brain games’ you’ll see how our brains are simply pattern recognition machines that can be easily tricked if you understand how they work. Look at our physical brains. We have a reptilian brain responsible for the basic functions of our bodies, then a mammalian or limbic brain responsible for the emotions, and a neocortex that gives us the ability to reason. One layer built upon the last. When you look at the fossilized remains of our earlier primates descendants we are able to see a chronological growth in the size of the cranium. There is an unbelievable amount of data to back this up. There are NO fossils that contradict the theory of biological evolution. http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/ ... r_her.html
Again, I have to go back to the puddle in the pothole reference. You're point of view keeps assuming that the way things are is the way they were intended to be. When in actuality the way things are are completely explainable in the context of natural unconscious processes. Life fills in the gaps. Wherever random mutation and opportunity meet, that's where life goes, because those gaps are where life can self perpetuate.

Not to mention this is all has been observed by scientists in labs observing flu viruses and how they change, so they can give us an effective vaccine next year. Some deniers like to say “well, that’s just microevolution." Microevolution isn’t something different than biological evolution. It’s just on a shorter time scale. We can extrapolate from there and compare those extrapolations to the fossil evidence we see, and the way we see genes themselves behave when replicating and randomly mutating.

Take care

My problem with consciousness evolving through mutation is examining the players in the system. I'll use two (inadequate) analogies. Suppose there is a traffic light that changes at random intervals. It has always been random because there was no programmer to tell it "every 30 seconds". How long do you think it will take for this traffic light to learn to recognize your car and give you a green light? Obviously, never. First of all, "random intervals" is the only choice. Second of all, something mechanistic can never develop consciousness.

Second faulty analogy. Suppose I have an iPod. It's stuck on "shuffle". I get great songs one after another, but can I reasonably expect that some day the iPod will give me a sequence of my favorite songs, of all metal music, or an awesome sequence of stuff? Yes, I can reasonably expect that one day it just might do that, but I can't expect it to happen again. It was an accident, and the only element in the system is "shuffle". How long will it take the iPod to figure out what I like and select it for me? Never. Something mechanistic has no hope of developing consciousness, and "intent" will never be an outcome of a sequence of songs. They will never have meaning, and even if they did accidentally, the machine would be incapable of learning from that and selecting it again.

Back to naturalism. The only player in the system is mechanics: chemicals, physical laws, random progression or regression. How long will it take for consciousness to develop? Never. Something mechanistic can never develop consciousness. "Shuffle" is the only choice. I think we use regressive logic to interpolate back into the system a possibility that we know to be reality, not recognizing that intent can never be a result of "selection" unless there is something rational in the system. But "shuffle" is the only choice in the system.

You give the environment almost a consciousness to select. Sure, in the winter, white has a better chance of survival. But in the summer that rabbit has a better chance of getting killed unless it figures out pretty quickly how to be brown in the summer and white in the winter. But if there are thousands of years in the development of that mutation, you're making a logical and reasonable leap that this can happen over and over again, when "shuffle" is the only player in the system, and life is a brutal place of kill or be killed. Running fast, white fur, long necks, camouflaging patterns, metamorphosis—you give a lot of credit to a mechanistic system devoid of rationality, intelligence, and purpose.

I'll look forward to more conversation.

How can we trust thoughts if they are the product of a consciousness evolved through mutation? Because thoughts are a product of our brains, which are pattern recognition machines that evolved. A nervous system that can conceive of predictive models and act in its own interest based on those models. If a primitive human had a thought that it's ok to grab hot coals out of a fire, that is poor pattern recognition. The organisms with good pattern recognition and reasoning would be selected by the environment. Gods are the predictive models that we came up with when we were relatively ignorant of the way the world is. Belief in gods were very helpful in aligning collective goals of tribes, and reinforcing family and community bonds. In this way, belief in gods were helpful in terms of survivability.

What is guiding selection? The environment. The environment at any given time is what selects beneficial mutations to be passed on and spread through a population. What's fascinating here is that each mutation that is selected changes the environment. When a bee inherits a tendency to be attracted to colorful flowers, the flowers at some point have a mutation that makes them more colorful and attractive to bees, which aid in pollination. If those bees were not present in the environment, a flower could have had a random mutation to be more colorful, but in that case it would not aid in survivability or reproduction, so there is nothing in the environment that selects it. Whatever mutation happens to work best in a given environment is selected. White fur is selected in a snowy environment. A predator's ability to run fast is selected when its prey runs fast. I understand that this concept can be difficult to understand when you've spent your life seeing intention behind everything, and I may not be using the best examples in my attempts to explain it. When I finally understood it, though, it was a very powerful moment for me. I think we may have actually reached the core paradigm difference between those that see biological evolution through natural selection as a fact, and those that see a guiding force or intention, i.e. intelligent design, as a fact. I don't see intention as a necessary explanation for the way we see the world today. I see it as an idea that appeals to our primitive nature. Similar to how, I'm sure, the early users of fire assumed some supernatural being intended for them to have it, when in reality its' a perfectly natural chemical reaction that was probably stumbled upon by accident by primitive humans.

You do ask an interesting and profound question, though. From where did our intention/consciousness arise? This is one of the wonders of the universe. Carl Sagan said, we are the way for the universe to know itself. It illustrates the idea that we were spawned OUT OF the universe, rather than being brought INTO it. I'm not an atheist that says with conviction that nothing happens after we die. Nobody can say that with anymore certainty that a christian saying with certainty that they will join God in heaven after they die. The point is, I don't know. It's unknowable, which to me is fascinating. We are so infinitely lucky to be here. So many things could have happened differently since the big bang that would not have allowed you or me to exist and have this discussion. My parents could have decided to date other people. My great ancestors could have just as easily caught some horrible illness and perished before reproducing. Some direct descendant of us both could have been eaten by a predator. I'm filled with wonder when I try to contemplate how lucky I am to exist, against the backdrop of such improbability. But, that's just the way it happened

It's been a pleasure, I look forward to a response if you are interested. I'll start a separate thread about the bible. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.

This has been great. I'll address several of your questions/statements, but i don't want our subject matter to keep expanding into an unmanageable size, with so many topics going we lose our focus.

Your "Intention" thoughts are intriguing. "Intention can create things," but to me that shows both personality and purpose, neither of which are players in systems where randomness and chance are the only players. Even when consciousness "evolves," since it evolved as a mutation, could any thoughts that were the manifestation of said consciousness be trusted? What I'm saying is, if even the thoughts coming to the mind of a conscious, sentient being are the results of random selection, on what basis could they be evaluated as true or even reliable? A stray thought is just as possible as a true one, and there would be no way to tell. So even intention, it seems to me, is self-defeating.

Mutations are random, but selection is not? What "governs" selection, then? Is there a conscious teleology in the universe "guiding" the selection process? I'm sure you'll say no, but you use words and concepts that seem to betray the belief in a background "guiding purpose," I'd almost want to say.

Then you say, "I don't see any evidence of intention other than our own." Interesting statement, but if WE have intention, from where did that arise? I know of know evidence that rationality can arise from anything other than a previous rationality.

You asked if I believe in fate or predetermination. No I don't. I see purpose and design, evolutionary progressions that cannot spontaneously generate (at least there is no evidence that they ever do), such as rationality, purpose, a sense of good and bad, personality, and the like.

You also asked if I'm a Christian. Yes I am. Do I take the Bible literally? I think "literal" is a problematic word that doesn't contribute to our understanding or conversation, and that's sort of the premise of your question.

The Bible is a rich literary collection, containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

I would be more than pleased to discuss the Bible—the "whole other bag of worms"—with you.

Infinitesimal singularity. This is an important point. This is where all bets are off in my opinion. Since space, time, matter and energy all came into existence with the big bang, the idea of "before" is somewhat illogical because time itself did not exist. There are similar points, in my view, since the big bang where things sprang into existence when the conditions were right. New elements created inside stars, life itself, then consciousness, then technology. The next such point in time I assume will be when we create AI, but I'm getting off on a tangent. A point I try to remind myself is that things come into existence when the conditions are right. Intention can create things, but it isn't required.

Fine tuning: That's actually pretty funny. I suppose you make a good point that my "if things were different" idea isn't actually an argument. It's a pretty true statement though, and that's why it matters. The universe does not need an outside intention. I don't see any evidence of intention other than our own. From a genetic perspective we are simply a vehicle for our genes to copy themselves. In some ways I feel like this argument comes down to a belief in fate, or predetermination. How do you personally feel about those?
This is the way I see intelligent design though too. Helpful genes are not "intentionally accumulated" as you said. If a mutation occurs, and that mutation happens to take advantage of a condition(s) in the environment, it will then spread itself through the population in a relatively small number of generations. That population would not lose that mutation unless it became an actual disadvantage. This would be unlikely for mutations such as the one(s) responsible for light detection. For instance, the blind cavefish's eyes. They are born with the genetic programming for the eyes (from before they were full-time cave dwellers), but never get the environmental stimulation to use them. They never lost the programming for the eyes because it was not a disadvantage to have them. These mutations stay until random mutations garble that area of the genome and render it selectively neutral. The fish's genome is not able to observe that those genes are no longer required, and then decide, intentionally to remove them from the genome. The mutations are random, the selection though, is neither random nor intentional. It is not random or intentional that a mutation for white fur helps an animal camouflage itself in the arctic. It's also not random or intentional that if that same mutation happens in the jungle, it will be selected (i assume) out of the gene pool fairly quick.

Hey, I really enjoy the conversation. Thank you again for being so respectful. We may be getting down to the time where we both feel we can't make our points anymore clearly I'm just curious though, are you a christian? And if so you do take the bible literally? I understand that's a whole other bag of worms, but it's still fascinating to talk about. And respectful conversation partners are hard to come by . Either way. Thanks again.

Thank you once again for courtesy and respect. I appreciate your attitude.

COSMOLOGICAL. My understanding of the universe before the Big Bang is that it is regarded to be an infinitesimal singularity, and as such a "place" (using this word very loosely here, for there was no such thing as "place" in a singularity) when the laws of physics do not apply. It is generally regarded that matter did not exist, but is speculated that energy maybe possibly may have (one reason, I think, is because scientists are desperate to assume that SOMETHING was there in the nothingness). As such, it cannot be assumed to have contained anything that we would respect as a causative mechanism. In addition to that, the point is not that we can't identify the causative mechanism, but that (in one form of the cosmological argument) science tells us that everything that HAD a beginning is known to have had a cause. The universe, as we know it (originating from an infinitesimal, undefinable, dimensionless singularity), therefore, had a beginning, and therefore both logically and scientifically, we are justified to look for a causative mechanism. And, my only point is that God is a logical source of that, given the paucity of other choices.

ONTOLOGICAL. It's OK if you don't prefer this line of reasoning. It's just another angle at the philosophical propositions of the rationality for the existence of God pertaining to the nature of being. I included it to show there are so many approaches where the existence of God can make sense, but if you don't like the lack of empiricism, that's fine.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The problem with your model (and the evolutionary model in general) is its upsweep. The law of entropy tells us that things break down, wind down, burn out, decease, etc. I'll grant that on occasion one might see an accidental upswing or two, 'cause, hey, it just might happen. The pure naturalistic evolution model, however, requires and infinite numbers of upsweeps, at just the right time, and in some kind of sensible sequence to bring about what we see today, and to me that requires an odd estrangement of biological, chemical, and physical reasoning. So a single cell happens to get a beneficial mutation that allows it to crudely detect light. Unlikely, but it happened, and it's helpful. According to natural selection, though, if that doesn't benefit survival, it most likely won't repeat through very many generations. But in the course of millions (billions) of years, the flow is entropy, and random. By the time the next royal flush emerges, the situation has most likely deteriorated. Your assumptions are quite optimistic (and, by the way, they are infused with purpose and intentionality, which are not in the system of naturalistic evolution). Your analogy assumes rational play, intentional accumulation, knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em as the millions of hands go by. Without purpose in the system, such things are wildly optimistic and statistically absurd. And yet you seem to be assuming a (fairly) steady sequence of upswings in a system governed by a law of downswing.

And what if conditions in the universe were different? Sorry, with all due respect, that's a non-argument. As far as we know, if the universe were not fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to be having this conversation. While that is true, it's not an objection to the fine-tuning view. It's still puzzling that these values are exactly what they are, and that's what all of us are trying to explain. To speculate, "What if they were different?" doesn't take us anywhere, because then we may not be here to converse. This is the evidence we have, and this is the evidence we must deal with. Here's what I observe (empirically): our universe has many characteristics of fine-tuning. We have two hypotheses: (1) the universe was designed by some powerful and intelligent being, and (2) the universe came to be by way of some chance process that does not involved in intelligent designer. Logically, 1 is more likely than 2, and therefore, with respect to the empirical evidence, 1 is to be preferred to 2. Granted, we couldn't exist if the universe was not the way it is (as far as we know), but how is that relevant, really? Basically, if I'm thinking it through correctly, you've said, "Well, if things were different, things would be different."

Wow, a respectful response from you as well. Thank you. Hard to come by online.

Regarding causes of the universe and/or God. I don't necessarily think that I am certain that the universe is eternal. And even if it were, I don't necessarily see why it needs kinetic energy prior to its existence. Part of existence is matter and energy. If energy were present before the universe existed, the universe would have already existed. I contend the universe could just as easily be uncaused the way you see God as being the "uncaused" thing. And even if the universe was caused, why would it have to be by only one all-loving all-powerful all-knowing god? That conveniently fits the wester Judeo-Christian model for God pretty spot on.
The ontological argument seems completely devoid of empirical reasoning. And again, seems to just conveniently fit the Judeo-christian model for god.

This leads me to what I see as the problem with the concept of intelligent design. I think at its core it comes down to a misunderstanding of biological evolution through natural selection. I understand the poker reference but I don't think it holds up. For example, the first royal flush is all that is needed in biological evolution. That royal flush, let's compare it to a single-celled organism being born with a genetic mutation that allows it to crudely detect light. That's a pretty helpful mutation, and very unlikely, but given enough hands of poker (generations of genetic lines in a given population) it would become more and more probable. That random mutation would increase the likelihood of that organism's survival and ability to reproduce, thereby spreading that trait (or royal flush) through the gene pool of the population. The second and third royal flushes don't happen right away. They happen after potentially billions or trillions of more hands of poker, but you still have the previous helpful mutations on your side (let's call that the money you win along the way). In addition all the unhelpful mutations and especially harmful mutations die out immediately (losing hands that don't cost you any of your winnings). It's a streamlining of genetic lines in a population.

The fine tuning thing doesn't hold up for me. For example if conditions in the universe were different; say gravity was weaker, or oxygen and hydrogen don't combine in to make liquid water, life (if it were even possible in such a universe) would simply be alien to us. We see the universe as finely tuned because our genes have acquired, over countless generations, the helpful mutations that allow us to live in our environment. Only what happens to work in a given environment is held on too. If the universe was tuned in such a way that life would be impossible, there would be nobody to complain about how poorly tuned the universe is for them.

Again, i really appreciate the respectful response. And I look forward to yours.

Thank you for a respectful reply. I'll give you thumbs up for sincerity and courtesy.

As far as the cosmological argument, there is much to say, but I'll condense it with this: For the universe to have eternal existence, it must have been static (potential energy). But what moved the universe into kinetic energy? How did it get in motion? Personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes (though not every personal cause is a first cause.) You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, "Who caused it?"

The ontological argument doesn't trace what your questions frame. First I'll sketch out the argument itself:

1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.

Secondly, your understanding of God is a bit wanting. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and the only God. There can be only one such being. As such, then, all thoughts in any direction other than the direction of the truth is false, misleading, and ultimately destructive. If God is life and love (by Biblical definition), then the only alternative for the person who chooses to separate him- or herself from God is non-life and non-love. It's not that God is a spoiled child demanding your love OR ELSE, but that God is the truth, and all other pursuits are going to lead to destruction. It's a plea coming from him to align with what is true, life, and love, rather than pursue a course of your own making that will undo you. It's not contradictory at all. We can certainly discuss this more.

The teleological argument doesn't claim resemblance, but demonstration. One form of it reads this way:

1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.

And the analogical argument as follows:

1. The productions of human contrivance are the products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles the productions of human contrivance
3. Therefore probably the universe is a product of intelligent design
4. Therefore probably the author of the universe is an intelligent being.

Neither of these claim that all elements of the system are perfect (isn't the avocado pit just TOO BIG?!), but that the system itself exhibits characteristics that make the most sense having come from an intelligent source. As far as eating and breathing through the same hole, though, I do believe that's the way we have our sense of taste, so there may be some merit to the compromise it causes in other areas.

The argument for fine-tuning is not, according to my understanding, what you claim. It's that the scientific discoveries in physics and astronomy about the structure of the universe offer reasonable premises for a theistic argument. Also, there are arguments from biology for the existence of God involving the nature and character of the living beings our world displays. Given what we see in science, theism is not only possible but reasonable. On the other hand, the atheistic hypothesis that all of these constants and balances have their values by chance (that is, those values are not the result of anyone’s choice or intention), it is exceedingly improbable that they would be fine-tuned for life. This seems to offer support for theism: given theism, fine-tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism, it is; therefore theism is to be preferred to atheism.

Your illustration of the puddle, thinking that because it's the way it is, we fabricate an assumption of design. It's true that we find ourselves where we do, and so we can easily say, "Well, it just must-a worked out that way because here we are!" And while that point is correct, how is it relevant? If we're playing poker, and I produce a royal flush, we'd all laugh and scream, and I'd take the pile. But if I did it again (even though there is just as much mathematical probability as the first time), you'd look at me real funny. And if I did it a 3rd time, I better be ready to run. Why? Because random probability would be far less an acceptable explanation than that somebody was messing with odds with interference.

Interesting stuff. Here are some of my thoughts on what I see as holes in your logic.

Cosmological argument: You say there must be one uncaused being. Why would the first uncaused thing have to be a "being"? If it's possible for anything to ever be uncaused, couldn't the universe itself be uncaused?

Ontological argument: The concept of God to me seems contradictory. All knowing, all powerful, all loving….he really requires acknowledgment, praise and love, and if he doesn't get it from you, you go to hell. This concept of God (the one that seems to be held by most believers) to me seems very contradictory.

teleological argument and enological argument both deal with intelligent design, but all you can say is that the universe "resembles" intelligent design. Eating and breathing through the same hole is not all that intelligent. An appendix that is a vestigial organ from when our ancestors needed it to eat grasses and such is not an intelligent design.

To me the intelligent design idea is like a puddle, sitting in a pothole. Imagine the puddle could think. The puddle thinks to itself 'this pothole fits me pretty well. In fact it fits me perfectly. It must have been designed for me.' The puddle doesn't see that it just fills in the opportunistic gaps…much like life does through biological evolution through natural selections of random genetic mutations that increase survivability and reproductiveness, thereby spreading those traits through a population. Unhelpful mutations are eliminated from the gene pool immediately.

Also, science does not explain everything. It is the process we use to understand the universe through observation.