Assumptions, Part 6d

We finish with Nick’s email. Does he actually provide any evidence? Spoilers: No.

Please note that my previous text is in italics block quote and his text is in italics.

“Read the next section of my post then argue that no conscious being is necessary for quite natural mechanisms that give rise to consciousness. Then get back to me.”

Nick, this is your last attempt to fulfill your promise to provide evidence for your god.

“You claimed there were only two options, when actually, the number of possible options could be greater than 2. There could be 10,000. Or a billion.”

“As I already said, I claimed that life either began at the beginning of the universe, or that life began after. These are two mutually exclusive possibilities which cannot both be true; and obviously, since life DOES exist, they cannot both be false. Therefore, one of them has to be true, and since we both know that modern science currently indicates that life emerged after, we can, for the time being, narrow it down to just one chronological possibility while recognizing that EVEN IF the other were true, the argument I am making would not be particularly different.”

Which has nothing to do with you failing to give evidence for your god except “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“But the chronological possibilities are irrelevant to how many possible deterministic mechanisms there could be for the creation of life, assuming the second option is true. I am asserting that , “We have matter spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe is created, OR we have animate matter in the universe from the get go.” The rest of my argument is arriving at certain conclusions based on those two possibilities assuming that the latter is the truth but even if its not the argument remains the same.”

Blah, blah, blah. What does this have to do with “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god?”

“I am not making any statement on how that happened in terms of the natural mechanisms which took place. I am not saying, Element A mixed with B, under the influence of force C. I am saying, why should A and B mix under the influence of C to result in D if A and B and C are the only things that are and D is not the same thing as A, B or C.”

You are wasting my time.

“Whatever happened, you have physical reactions which give rise to life and eventually to consciousness. As I wrote earlier, even if we assume consciousness depends wholly on matter for its being (an assumption I am impartial on, btw) , consciousness is nonetheless distinct from matter. We both know this; as surely as you exist, you know it too. I know it’s true as inherently as I know I exist. You can try and tell me you don’t, but then I would know you are either insane or lying, so don’t bother trying. (That rhymed!)”

You keep asserting things not in evidence. Stop doing that.

“Therefore, if we are, hypothetically, before the time at which Abiogenesis took place, the potentiality for animate life and the consciousness which proceeds from it is already ingrained in the physical makeup of the universe as an unrealized potentiality.”

Word salad.

“So, I pose an analogy and ask you a simple question. Think of the Universe as a chain of domino’s. Think of each particle as a Domino. Think of chemical reactions as a Domino falling. Does it make any conceptual or logical sense to say that the Domino’s falling by themselves should create something which is unquestionably not the Domino’s at all if the Domino’s are all there are?”

More blah, blah, blah, without anything more than “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

Your time is about up. I’m rapidly becoming uninterested in continuing this convo.

“It makes perfect conceptual sense to say that an animate entity should create another through deterministic processes that are derived completely from the first entity. It makes absolutely none to say that undirected deterministic processes should result in something other than themselves if they are the only thing that exists.”

And yet, after so many opportunities, you have spectacularly failed to complete your only assignment: give evidence for your god that’s more than “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

“If you think that is an assertion, it is only an assertion in the sense that I assert 2 and 2 make 4. If you think the logic is flawed, prove to me how it is.”

Well, first, I don’t have to do anything since you failed to give me anything but “DNA … I am going to point blank assert … god.”

So we’re done.