More Denton: A new book (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 10, 2016, 00:19 (2972 days ago) @ dhw

[/i] David: God could be simply pure energy with consciousness...[/i]
> 
> dhw: This sounds impressive, but particles are matter, and you have listed “portions” of particles.-Sorry, wrong: atoms are the basic constituents of matter. I'm discussing pure energy particles, size measured in electron volts which make up atoms.-http://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/fl/What-Is-the-Most-Basic-Building-Block-of-Matter.htm-> dhw: My point is not that we cannot separate energy from matter, but that they are interdependent.-Yes, interdependent, but we can interrupt that relationship with enough energy power to smash matter apart and find the energy particles inside the atoms.-> dhw: However, if you believe your God may be composed of “virtual” particles or some unknown “pure plasma of energy”, and created existing energy and matter out of his "pure energy", then so be it.-Plasmas are pure energy.-> dhw: Similarly, your fellow scientists can believe in strings and multiverses, though you suddenly become sceptical when they come up with such “unknowns”.-Plasmas are knowns!
> 
> dhw: I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists.-You want God to be matter. Why!?
> 
> dhw: This is the real crux of the matter. Is consciousness some unknown form of energy that uses the brain, or is the brain the generator of the energy we call consciousness? Who knows? -Back to the theory that the brain is a receiver of consciousness as a possibility. Consciousness may exist as electromagnetic wave fields, and they are not matter. Magnetic fields are not matter, but magnets are.-> 
> dhw: But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves?-If you have followed my reasoning, consciousness may be pure energy, and the only matter necessary is the matter that receives the thoughts and feelings and interprets.-> 
> Dhw: ...you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”.
> 
> DAVID: I use the 'tough-love parent' as a metaphor, not as a real parent. 
> 
> dhw: It is an attempt to read your God's mind, as is the suggestion that he created us to relieve the boredom. But let's keep going: what “metaphorical” reasons can you think of for God wanting to set us problems in the first place?-My guess: He knew that balance of life would require dangers to us, but with the powerful brains He gave us we can find the answers. Would you like the Garden of Eden without challenges to keep life interesting or do you want the obvious boredom of the Garden? This is all in my first book.
> 
> DAVID: I agree there is no need for multicellularity. There is no need for the enormous jump to conscious humans. Therefore we must look to teleology. There must be a driving purpose behind an evolutionary process that consistently advances beyond necessity.
> 
> dhw: There was no need for any jumps...full stop. I agree that there must be a driving purpose: I have suggested survival and/or improvement. That drive (perhaps implanted by your hypothetical God when he hypothetically endowed the first cells with intelligence) would explain every jump you can think of, including from apes to humans.-Bacteria have survived without any improvement! The point cannot be escaped. Multicellularity gave us sexual reproduction which introduced the ability of opening up genetics to more complexity in progeny. Still looks teleological to me.