MATT: It has been clear to me for some years, that the distinction between chance and design is false: Especially if randomness is part of the equation [...] the fence itself could well be the actual answer. We *know* chance had something to do with our development. An option hereby ignored is the one where there is a concrete mixture of chance and design: Maybe one or two major events were "designed".
> 
> I think there is a degree of confusion here. I can't answer for David, but for me it goes back to the "major event", the origin of life. The mechanism which governs life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation is of such extreme complexity that even our finest minds can barely understand it, let alone recreate it. This is a machine that works. Can you believe that such a mechanism could assemble itself by sheer accident? I can't. Once it exists, then yes, chance plays an enormous role in the unfolding of evolution, as it does in our everyday lives. The origin is the problem. However, if you believe the mechanism was designed, then you move to the question of what designed it. And you come up against a whole series of improbabilities just as great as that of the original mechanism assembling itself. I needn't go into them again. A mixture of design and chance means there is a designer, so you are still pinned to the same impossible choice. As agnostics, we don't choose ... we sit on the fence.-An excellent response to Matt. Ball in his court.


> dhw:"And you will then assert..." No, David, what I assert over and over again is that I find BOTH scenarios equally impossible to believe! That is the nature of agnosticism. -No, dhw; I've been needling you. There is a quote in my new book which roughly says agnosticism is an unwillingness to believe in or accept either side. You may remember it.
> 
> 1) Do I believe that chance could create the complexities of life and consciousness? Answer: no. I find it incredible.
> 2) Do I believe in an eternal, non-created intelligence vast enough to create universes, and yet also able to assemble the tiny blobs of material necessary for life and consciousness? Answer: no. I find it incredible.
> 
> Agnosticism for me is not believing in chance and not believing in a designer: as Matt puts it, equal incredulity. -Of course! But many agnostics don't understand your position.

What reason do we have to assert that teleology even applies? Our universe will eventually cool out, become completely flat--and all known existence will be gone.
> 
> What is the teleological explanation for that?
> 
> And you're avoiding the intelligence question again.-I don't have an answer for heat death. Perhaps there will be another iteration with another universe about 100 billion years from now. But in my interpretation intelligence =s teleology. I just cannot comprehend chance creating the molecular machinery we see in the living cell. Bit by bit the complexity found by science gets more complex. Is there no level of complexity that will convince you chance won't work?


> > 1. We lack a reliable test of intelligence.
> > 2. It is clear, that chance *has* played an integral role in our development. 
> > 
> > The question here is nearly identical: How can you tell the difference between chance and design? What's the defining characteristic? What does chance even look like to begin with? (THAT I can answer, it's mathematical, but I want to hear you and David take cracks at this.)
> 
> Agreed that chance has a role, but intelligence has to have a role in setting up the playing field at first. The issue is whether one can detect teleology to be able to apportion the role of chance and the role of design.-Here's one place where we differ: teleology is necessarily an anthropomorphic idea. It states that because there are final causes in human actions, then there must be final causes in nature.-That's not an easy thing to validate, David. I think it makes your case unnecessarily difficult. -What reason do we have to assert that teleology even applies? Our universe will eventually cool out, become completely flat--and all known existence will be gone.-What is the teleological explanation for that?-And you're avoiding the intelligence question again.


> 1. We lack a reliable test of intelligence.
> 2. It is clear, that chance *has* played an integral role in our development. 
> 
> The question here is nearly identical: How can you tell the difference between chance and design? What's the defining characteristic? What does chance even look like to begin with? (THAT I can answer, it's mathematical, but I want to hear you and David take cracks at this.)-Agreed that chance has a role, but intelligence has to have a role in setting up the playing field at first. The issue is whether one can detect teleology to be able to apportion the role of chance and the role of design.

dhw: [My agnostic balance is based]...2) on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> DAVID: Can you avoid the idea that something has to be eternal? One does not get something from nothing. The famous question, why is there anything?, has an answer. There has always been an eternal something.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Agreed. The debate concerns whether that something is conscious or not.-And this is where I tie back in: David&apos;s case relies heavily on the notion that he can detect intelligence, and for that matter, so can the rest of us. -He could have a case, if it hasn&apos;t been demonstrated time and again, that our ability to test and discern intelligence has historically been extremely lacking. Who can forget this?-Or this?-> &#13;&#10;> Dhw: David, I think your &quot;wall of quantum uncertainty&quot; is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> DAVID: But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> This is casuistry. On one side is the concept of design, on the other the concept of chance. On one side is conscious energy, on the other unconscious energy.-David hits upon the fact I&apos;ve been driving at for some years here...-1. We lack a reliable test of intelligence.&#13;&#10;2. It is clear, that chance *has* played an integral role in our development. -It has been clear to me for some years, that the distinction between chance and design is false: Especially if randomness is a part of the equation. The fence isn&apos;t simply a position you wait at before deciding to go somewhere: The fence itself could well be the actual answer. We *know* chance had something to do with our development. An option hereby ignored is the one where there is a concrete mixture of chance and design: Maybe one or two major events were &quot;designed.&quot; How could you tell? <--And its that question that seems to me to begin resorting back to the &quot;brain in a vat&quot; reduction I started in regards to free will. &quot;How could you tell the difference between a free and unfree action?&quot;-The question here is nearly identical: How can you tell the difference between chance and design? What&apos;s the defining characteristic? What does chance even look like to begin with? (THAT I can answer, it&apos;s mathematical, but I want to hear you and David take cracks at this.)

MATT: My meditations always return to the fact that our wishes for an eternal caregiver are facile: I&apos;m far more likely to be a maltheist than a theist.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I find Maltheism just as blinkered as Eutheism (the belief that God is good). Maltheists rightly ... in my view ... say that if God is all good, where the heck did evil come from. Well, if God exists and created human consciousness, and he is purely evil, where the heck did love, charity, empathy, sympathy, philanthropy, altruism come from? The only clue we have as to the nature of a possible creator is the nature of what he has created, and for me by far the greatest likelihood is that he made us in his image ... i.e. a mixture of what you and I hold to be good and bad.&#13;&#10;> -For a blinding second, the incredulity of chance or a conscious creator enveloped my mind in such a way that the thoughts were tangible things: and the incredulity was equal. -I get it now: I really do. -> I suggested that David&apos;s idea of God hiding behind a &quot;wall of quantum uncertainty&quot; was a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> MATT: And let&apos;s not forget: Quantum physics requires an observation.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Just two comments here: &#13;&#10;> 1) The word &quot;quantum&quot; is now used to give virtually any phrase a cachet of scientific respectability. David could just as easily have called it a wall of uncertainty.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 2) Your remark raises an interesting issue. Religious people often go on about how we need their God, but they rarely consider their God&apos;s need for us. What would he be without humans (maybe ETs as well?) to worship him, puzzle over him, question him, pray to him, doubt him, please him, anger him, entertain him? Just an infinite expanse of bored energy.-It&apos;s that last statement here that really gets my mind thinking creative... and funny things. A novel about an immensely bored God... well I&apos;ll finish the one about the &quot;Devil who Gave Up&quot; before I tackle that idea... but there&apos;s a story in there. -(And November is national novel writing month... My goal is to complete my first draft by the end of the month, then begin the process of distillation...)

&#13;&#10;> dhw: 2) Your remark raises an interesting issue. Religious people often go on about how we need their God, but they rarely consider their God&apos;s need for us. What would he be without humans (maybe ETs as well?) to worship him, puzzle over him, question him, pray to him, doubt him, please him, anger him, entertain him? Just an infinite expanse of bored energy.-I agree, no bored. Connected to us.

DAVID: But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> dhw: This is casuistry. On one side is the concept of design, on the other the concept of chance. On one side is conscious energy, on the other unconscious energy.-Good. I will accept the chance side of the equation as unconscious energy, and add that unconsciousness implies no pattern, therefore totally unorganized energy in a random state. And you will then assert that this amorphous mass of energy somehow got organized into the classses of particles wwe have found in scientific atom smashing. In your chance state there are no organized classes of symmetrical particles. Chance energy has to be raw energy, lacking all organizaation, and by chance gets to what we see today. To me a pipe dream.

DAVID: ...and I think [I have provided] proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an underlying greater power, a universal mind. And yes it is inconceivable if approached out of thin air. But you have admitted chance is not an option, so my UI wins.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Words need to be chosen far more carefully here. What you have proved is the unlikelihood (not the impossibility) of chance creating life and consciousness, but you cannot prove the existence of an equally unlikely (not impossible), uncreated, eternal and universal form of life and consciousness. Despite the starkness of the choice, I find both explanations inconceivable, and so neither wins!&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> MATT: Dhw&apos;s reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Which of course it can never be, as you know from your own study of epistemology. The case of Eben Alexander shows that subjective experience can be enough to tip the balance (ditto many similar experiences), but that can never offer the objective level of proof that you demand. Perhaps it is the mystic side of your personality that holds you back from out-and-out materialism. My own agnostic balance is based: 1) on the complexity arguments that materialists try desperately to downgrade, and on a vivid awareness that the majority of my most profound experiences completely defy any materialist explanation; 2) on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.-God is open to reveal himself to me: As yet, I have proven an unworthy subject.-OR you and I are &quot;acting out HIS will&quot; by testing believers...-MY meditations always return to the fact that our wishes for an eternal caregiver are facile: I&apos;m far more likely to be a maltheist than a theist. --> DAVID (to Matt): God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. You either jump across the chasm or you don&apos;t. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> He is either concealed, or he isn&apos;t there. I myself was not around when humans began to think, but David is older than me! If his statement is true, we then have to decide whether the assumption of divinity was the result of closeness to the true nature of things, or sheer ignorance. Science has certainly swept away vast swathes of early religious thinking, and yet the deeper it delves into the nature of life, consciousnness and the universe, the more mysterious these seem to become. David, I think your &quot;wall of quantum uncertainty&quot; is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.-And lets not forget: Quantum physics requires an observation.

&#13;&#10;> > That&apos;s why its *impossible* for me to make that jump: I can&apos;t help but presume that *any* judgment I have about God didn&apos;t come from some kind of social compunction.&#13;&#10;> > &#13;&#10;> > Dhw&apos;s reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> As an evidentialist you will never have a complete answer. God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. -Have any evidence of that? ->You either jump across the chasm or you don&apos;t. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.-It&apos;s &quot;jumping&quot; that I find the grand folly of mankind. Our passions have proven disastrous: My theory of politics for example, (Libertarian Anarchism) operates under the observation that throughout history, it has been the acts of individuals either acting *as* government or *for* government that have had the greatest propensity for bungled action. -Who&apos;s more likely to jump? A man? Or a thousand men?-You can call me an evidentialist if you like: But don&apos;t forget I&apos;ve followed Buddhism for a long time, and part of what makes me think &apos;God&apos; is more likely an illusion is the observation that the meditative states described by Buddhism are perfectly mirrored--in Christian Mysticism. (And Jewish Kabbalah, but I&apos;ve read more books on the former than the latter.) -If I can create the &quot;feeling&quot; of God, without invoking God, this is direct--&quot;evidence&quot;--if you will, that religious experience doesn&apos;t *require* a God at all. -So even in the experiential--the domain of the religious--the &quot;evidence&quot; is inconclusive.

dhw: on what I see as the utter impersonality of the cosmos and of Nature here on Earth, and on the inconceivability of a conscious mind that has existed for ever and is on such a vast scale that it can create universes.-Can you avoid the idea that something has to be eternal? One does not get something from nothing. The famous question, why is there anything?, has an answer. There has always been an eternal something.-> David: Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.[/i]-Research into primative societies has shown this over and over.-&#13;&#10;> David, I think your &quot;wall of quantum uncertainty&quot; is a fine, scientific-sounding term for my agnostic picket fence.-But the fence has two sides and two areas, and as a boundary there is something in both of them. If the other side for you is the possibility of chance, remember chance is a concept, and is not material or energy. What is left is pure energy.

&#13;&#10;> That&apos;s why its *impossible* for me to make that jump: I can&apos;t help but presume that *any* judgment I have about God didn&apos;t come from some kind of social compunction.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Dhw&apos;s reasons may differ, but my *will to truth* demands that the case must be as *iron clad* as 1 + 1 = 2-As an evidentialist you will never have a complete answer. God is concealed, presumably by choice. He is back there behind a wall of quantum uncertainty. You either jump across the chasm or you don&apos;t. And you are right. Ever since humans began to think, they have assumed a divine level.

&#13;&#10;> DAVID: The last stop on the road of life is either an afterlife or nothing, and we all find out. But we all have to wait, because no one really knows until he gets to that final station. I&apos;m more comfortable having chosen.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> dhw: An admirable summary, and I have nothing but respect for your choice. However it would be interesting to know exactly what you have chosen. Some religions offer a pretty terrifying concept of the afterlife (see below),-You forget, I don&apos;t use religious concepts. Religions are part of the problem.-> dhw: And so despite your often repeated warnings about attributing qualities to the Universal Intelligence, this suggests that you do have particular qualities in mind.-I use the descriptions found in near to death experiences. Everyone on the other side seems happy.-> dhw: Even if there is a conscious afterlife, we may still not find out those truths, as your God may continue to remain hidden.-The ultimate truth appears to be revealed in the NDE tales &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> dhw: (I really can&apos;t think of &quot;hell&quot; as anything but the invention of power-hungry humans to scare their flocks into obedience ... but I could be wrong!)-You are not wrong. I have always (see past entries) characterized the heaven/hell approach in religion as a childish invention. Candy if you are good, and punishment if you are bad. Hillel and Jesus preached goodness for goodness sake. -> dhw: I am very comfortable with my choice not to choose. After all, it&apos;s not knowing that makes the subject so endlessly fascinating.-You started this website because of a desired response to Dawkins. He was so positively atheistic. Was this site to provide a measured agnostic stance on the fence, or did you hope to see answers that might lead to a choice? What I have provdied has balanced the rantings of Dawkins and others, and I think proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an underlying greater power, a universal mind. And yes it is inconceivable if approached out of thin air. But you have admitted chance is not an option, so my UI wins.