> I'm blowed if I can see any just-so stories in my discussion with BBella.-I didn't make my point clear enough. You did not use just-so stories, nor did BBella. I'll try again. God is always discussed against a background of religious imagination. Evolution is a theory filled with imagination. All I'm asking is clear your mind of the stuff we cannot know, when you try to analyze the objects of that 'stuff'. That is why I presented Berlinski. He is a wonderful example of someone who looks at all the babble, clears it out of his head and then thinks and presents his thoughts. His conclusion is that there is much more to the thought there may be a greater power, and very little true evidence for atheism. The book is a great read. He is not at my position of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but close as I interpret it.-As for "Weltanschuung" my mental view of the pronuncation got to my typing fingers. I apologize. Freud invented a great word for a concept. As I age my mind is getting to be more active than the rest of me. It has no 'sitzfleisch'.

BBELLA: If consciousness is energy like everything else that IS is energy, and since nothing stays the same but change, I would think that everything that "IS" is in a constant state of evolution/change, including that which we call God and that which we call consciousness. So, even if we knew something of where we came from, as the scriptures say, there is no telling what we will become.
> 
> Agreed. If there is a God, I would find it/her/him easier to understand in terms of deism (not intervening) and process theology as explained to us by Frank ... i.e. learning all the time. I can picture God experimenting with life, jettisoning some forms and improving others, just as we humans do with our own designs. Omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't give him much fun. So just as there is no telling what we will become, there is no telling what God will become. -The above discussion demonstrates how God is always presented against a background of religious just-so stories. Evolutionary theory has its own background of ephemeral just-so stories. Human nature seems to require that we invent these stories when presented with phenomena that we do not understand. In medicine it is giving a poorly understood process a name. Then we all feel better. The ancients had Zeus, Thor, Athena,etc. Native American Indians were surprising more advanced for a stone-age civilization: they had monotheism in the Great Spirit. -I'm making the point I always make: when presented with the unknowable, in your thought patterns try and make a fresh start. Ignore the just-so stories and start with what we can accept as factual material to build your veltanschauung (worldview).

"Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it's intelligent energy." 
> 
>Of course the analogy must sooner or later come up against the prime question: did the conscious will (my little chunk of God) that enables me to do my thing precede the rest of me, or did it arise out of the same materials that form my beard, head, rump? Was there a conscious will (i.e. God's) before the Big Bang ... if it happened ... or is conscious will (i.e. ours) the chance product of the Big Bang? Round and round we go....-If consciousness is energy like everything else that IS is energy, and since nothing stays the same but change, I would think that everything that "IS" is in a constant state of evolution/change, including that which we call God and that which we call consciousness. So, even if we knew something of where we came from, as the scriptures say, there is no telling what we will become.

Was there a conscious will (i.e. God's) before the Big Bang ... if it happened ... or is conscious will (i.e. ours) the chance product of the Big Bang? Round and round we go....-You may spin like a top. I don't. Of course, if you are spinning fast enough, you will become a gyroscope and hold your position on the picket fence in fine form.

Either a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or...<&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I hope this doesn&apos;t add to the confusion, but would like the above clarified: Your statement seems to say to me that the UI was and is outside the Big Bang and the universe it created with energy. Is that how you meant it? Or are you saying the UI, which is energy, became the Big Bang and evolved into the universe as we now know it. If so, could the above also be simply said: Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it&apos;s intelligent energy?-Yes, I believe God (UI) is both within and without our universe, and your final sentence is right on the mark.

Either a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or...<-I hope this doesn&apos;t add to the confusion, but would like the above clarified: Your statement seems to say to me that the UI was and is outside the Big Bang and the universe it created with energy. Is that how you meant it? Or are you saying the UI, which is energy, became the Big Bang and evolved into the universe as we now know it. If so, could the above also be simply said: Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it&apos;s intelligent energy?

Alan Guth cannot be ignored. He claims that this universe is &apos;something from nothing&apos;. He explains that if one adds up all the forms of energy, positive and negative in our universe, the total answer one reaches is zero!-Alan Guth is one of the leading theoretical cosmologists in the world. He invented the inflation theory.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I am, I must confess, completely bewildered by your equation: all positive + all negative forms of energy = 0, therefore the Big Bang was a creation. Presumably all those non-believing professional physicists and cosmologists don&apos;t understand it either. -Note the comment about Guth above. Most of his compatriots in cosmology agree with him.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I&apos;m not sure why you call both the UI and my fence &quot;pure&quot; energy (I wouldn&apos;t dare apply the epithet to my rump). &quot;All matter is really energy in different forms.&quot; OK, then, let&apos;s agree that energy &quot;has existed forever into the past&quot;. That doesn&apos;t make it a conscious intelligence. Your philosophy prof at least seems to have distinguished between these DIFFERENT forms of energy, but once we accept the distinction between mind and matter, we go straight back to square one. Did energy in the form of matter precede energy in the form of mind, or vice versa? Round and round we go...That&apos;s philosophy for you.-The first verses of Genesis follow the Big Bang. &quot;1:3 is the opening act of the story of creation&quot;. (In the Beginning Of, by Judah Landa,2004) &quot;Let there be light&quot;. Light is energy. At first there is always energy. Energy can stay as energy or can become any form of matter. Matter is made up of various particles of energy. An atom is made up of smaller particles of energy down to quarks and force fields mediated by particles. I don&apos;t think you undertand this. My philosophy prof was only stating fact. Energy is energy. It is a zoo of particles in various families, positively charged, negative, or with no charge. Matter is on the outside and energy particles are on the inside, is another way of putting it. Of course, he was defining &apos;mind&apos; as pure energy, as it is. Yes, energy goes all the way back, and has always existed, either as my UI or as a potential set of quanta as the way the space in our universe is formed, a false vacuum (Stenger).-Your rump is energy, how energetic is for you to say. That picket fence is energy. Finally, energy may change but always exists. The total of all energy in this universe is constant. It can be neither created or destroyed. Guth is allowed to use his formula. So finally my statements are not confusing: Either a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or a false vacuum of space has always existed and a quantum perturbation went poof and our universe appeared. We MUST be part of something eternal.

&#13;&#10;> Won&apos;t you join me on the fence?-&#13;&#10;Can&apos;t do that. Matter is energy on the outside, mind is energy on the inside to quote MY philosophy prof. All matter is really energy in different forms. Alan Guth cannot be ignored. He claims that this universe is &apos;something from nothing&apos;. He explains that if one adds up all the forms of energy, positive and negative in our universe, the total answer one reaches is zero!-This sure makes the Big Bang a creation. The UI is pure energy and has existed forever into the past. -All of this reasoning is what has made the theoretical cosmologists conjure up, impossible to prove, multiverses to get rid of the supernatural God idea.-Your rump is the closest part of your body to my way of thinking. That fence of yours is really pure energy, thanks to the UI.

&#13;&#10;> However, now that we&apos;re crossing logical swords (only in play, I assure you), let me pursue my initial Wonderland point, because your &quot;first cause&quot; doesn&apos;t address it. We agree that our conscious, intelligent mind is so complex that we can&apos;t believe it fashioned itself by chance. However, you do believe that there is an immeasurably greater conscious, intelligent mind that was not designed. If in your view complex intelligence is proof of design, how can you then argue that even more complex intelligence is NOT proof of design? Alternatively, if you can believe in a supreme form of intelligence that was not designed, why can you not believe in a lesser form of intelligence that was not designed? This is not a defence of chance, but a question concerning the logic by which you reconcile two diametrically opposed arguments.-We will go round and round until we tire. Our consciousness and intelligence is a part of the UI. Somewhere way back in infinite regression there is a something, a first cause, which has always been, not designed, but always present. An eternal UI is that something. Contrarily, if way back there is only eternal matter, what caused it? And how did that inorganic matter figure out how to make consciousness from organic matter? The UI can inject consciousness into humans as a part of the coded advance of evolution, arranged by the UI. I don&apos;t care if it is infinitely long ago, that is the only way I can accept a start to the process. I&apos;m not arguing within my arguments. Start with my first premise of a first cause, and all the rest fits together nicely.

&#13;&#10;> You can argue with equal logic, and equal inconsequentiality, that if everything has a cause, there cannot be an uncaused first cause, and so there has to be an infinite regression to something.-Exactly. &apos;Regression to something&apos; equals &quot;first cause&quot; If there is nothing at first, there will be nothing now (Vic Stenger to the contrary).&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> The &apos;first cause&apos; argument is a philosophical placebo.-No, it is not. It is a logical concept.-&#13;&#10;> Why not admit that we&apos;re confronted by an insoluble mystery, and join me on the fence of the don&apos;t-knows-can&apos;t-knows? Oh, and beware of Greeks bearing gifts.-You are right. The first cause is an &apos;insoluable mystery&apos;, but it must be there lurking in the distant past, and a gift from the Greeks.

&#13;&#10;> Which of course I do. And I come up with the following exquisitely absurd argument: our own intelligence is so complex that it can only be the result of an act of creation, whereas the immeasurably more complex intelligence that created it cannot have been the result of an act of creation. Welcome to Wonderland.-That is not Wonderland. It is the recognition of &apos;first cause&apos;, a philosophic gift from our ancient Greek Friends. If everything has a cause, there must be an uncaused first cause. There can not be an infinite regression to nothing.