Board index ‹ God

[Choking]

> Any "naturalistic first cause" at this point is mere speculation without foundation.

Well, the thing about a naturalistic first cause is that it doesn't make the assumptions that the theistic first cause makes. It's true that there are many unknowns, but the key difference is intelligence (and whether it's personal, I suppose.) We don't really make any other claims about it, because we can't know, but in a similar fashion there are many things that theists claim are unknown about God, as well - either we can't know (he's beyond human comprehension) or we just don't know (God acts in mysterious ways). Again, I think the key difference, (and therefore, what should be the focus of the argument) is whether the FC is personal and/or intelligent.

Let's not worry about any of the above, though. I think we're largely on the same page. Just as a thought experiment, which of the following would you agree with?

1. If the FC is not intelligent, then it is not God.
2. If the FC is not personal, then it is not God.
3. If the FC is neither intelligent nor personal, then it is not God.
4. If the FC is intelligent, then it is God.
5. If the FC is personal, then it is God.
6. If the FC is both intelligent and personal, then it is God.

I would agree with 1, 3, 4, 6, and maybe 2 and 5. This depends on how my understanding of your concept of personality changes.
Personality

Let me share with you a bit of my understanding of the universe. Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, this is a very scientific understanding, but I am combining quantum physics with philosophy, which is a very touchy subject combination. Therefore, you will find very few scientists who necessarily agree with me, since most scientists are not quantum physicists, and many quantum physicists are not also philosophers. I myself am also very uneducated in regards to quantum physics, but I think the specifics are not actually too important. However, I am more educated than the average person (albeit not by much) in terms of Artificial Intelligence, so I have a pretty specific understanding of the problem of consciousness. So, here's my understanding.

Fundamental particles:

I'm sure you know that quantum physics is weird. No one really knows how or why particles interact at their most basic levels. Quantum physics, though, is about particle and field interactions. There are, in theory, just a couple basic particles and rules. In fact, it could be (and in fact is very likely to be) just one kind of fundamental particle with one rule - e.g. a particle with a directional magnetic field. Probably not that, but something that's at least comparable.*

So, you have the entire universe composed of that one, single particle, and, in the beginning (before time, space, matter, etc. existed), maybe it was entirely, perfectly, ordered. Maybe there was chaos. And that's all the universe was. Then, something happened.** This was the First Cause (FC).

Chaos:

So, the FC caused something like this (https://conversationofmomentum.files.wo ... &h=&crop=1). A stable, ordered system with no motion was thrown into chaos by one little disturbance.
Another good gif is this one (https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautifu ... h=04a8f60a). Two particles together with two simple rules (they maintain the same distance, and are pulled in the direction of gravity) produce an immense amount of chaos - almost completely unpredictable (but not truly random), with a huge amount of information within.

So, simple rules cause a chaotic universe. Although it appears randomized (and therefore non-deterministic), it is actually completely determined by its few basic rules and was thrown into chaos by one tiny event.

Order:

When there's chaos between interacting deterministic particles, they form certain patterns. Galaxies, for example, are formed by planets and stars. Planets and stars are formed by dust. Dust is formed from atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules are formed by protons, electrons, and neutrons. This probably goes several levels deep. Any chaotic simulation will give similar results, and you don't need random variables (although subatomic particles are difficult to simulate, because we don't know all of their properties and rules.)
With enough chaotic particles forming small patterns, you can form more and more complex patterns. Electrons/protons/neutrons form different elements. Different elements form different molecules. Different molecules form crystalline structures, liquids/gases/solids, planets, rocks, etc. With enough particles (and we have an inconceivable number in our universe) you can create incredible complex structures (with enough snowflakes, you'll eventually make every one.) Eventually, you might create one that can self-replicate (life). This is testable in Conway's Game of Life, although not on the level that we have in our own universe.

Life:

All that's required for life is self-replication and mutation. From there, the most viable forms survive and evolution begins. More and more complex structures evolve as they compete for resources in a never-ending arms race, and eventually you get intelligent life. From an evolutionary standpoint, you see, intelligence is rare, but it isn't necessarily anything mystical. It's just another means to survive. It's how humans came to be on the top of the food chain.

See, humans don't just pop into existence - we're too complex. Neither do molecules. Molecules formed from something smaller, and more fundamental. Complex structures beget more complex structures.***

Personality:

I think this is important here, because I feel like you're referring to consciousness when you say "personal". You've definitely referred to:

1. Consciousness
2. Truth
3. Catsup
4. Subject/object differentiation

But I feel like these are all human concepts. If we were evolved from chaos, not deliberately created, then we're just bundles of fundamental particles that managed to come together in a "thinking" pattern. The universe doesn't care about us, we're just new types of "particles" the same way a planet is a "particle" or an atom is a "particle". Sure, we are more complex, but in general, complexity begets more complexity. But the universe doesn't care about the distinction between catsup and a rock, they're just bundles of atoms in different patterns - just like the difference between a human and a rock. "Truth" is a construct of the human mind, as is any objective morality, or even language. Can you possibly show otherwise?

Intelligence:

So what's special about intelligence, or consciousness, or "personality"? What question needs to be answered? Sure, if there's something special about life, if a "soul" is a type of fundamental particle, maybe there's a personal God that made it that way. But there's nothing that says that there is.

You should look up some short videos about neural networks if you're not familiar. We've created minds that can think and reason, to a certain extent, and we know a lot about how they work. We haven't created one as complex as a human mind, but we're getting surprisingly close. If this interests you at all, watch the AlphaGo documentary on Netflix. That artificial mind is capable of creating strategies to the board game Go that human experts would never have thought of - it's smarter than we are.

Sure, we can't replicate emotion, language, or visual processing yet, but there's no evidence that those concepts are different than regular data processing, except in terms of complexity. I strongly believe we'll get there sooner than you'd think - possibly the next couple decades.

A side note about information:

Information is "facts provided or learned about something or someone" or "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things".

A particle itself is not information. Information refers to writing, bits, sound, etc. All of this has information coded within, that conveys an idea about something else. "Information" is another human construct, just like truth, morals, and love are human constructs. It's likely that you're referring to something else when you refer to "informational data", and I think that that something else is patterns and sequences. Patterns and sequences are absolutely something that occurs naturally. Planets and their orbits occur naturally. Crystalline structures occur naturally. Molecules occur naturally, formed from atoms, and they have plenty of sequential patterns. DNA occurs naturally (although admittedly, it's usually created by other DNA - that's how complexity begets more complexity.) DNA is just another sequential pattern with a mixture of chaos and order, but it's one that happens to be particularly complex.

*I'm using this as an example. Maybe there are two fundamental particles, I don't have any way to know. The logical scientific consensus seems to be that it's just a couple simple particles/fields/rules - we've imagined fundamental particles (the atom) even before we could see cells or molecules.

**If the universe was chaotic, I would say it's more likely that these FCs happen all the time, and there are trillions of universes. Still, though, my little essay here is just explaining our own universe.

***I think this is important, because you bring up the "question of complexity". I don't think there is a question. We know that complex creatures create more complex creatures, and chaos breeds more chaos. It's natural to the universe. Complexity is not a constant that can be neither created nor destroyed - rather, it necessarily adds to itself.

[jimwalton]

> Just as a thought experiment, which of the following would you agree with?

I certainly agree with 1-3. Simple logic by definition. As far as 4-6, I think the conclusion leans in the favor of God, but I don't think 4-6 automatically and necessarily lead to God. Perhaps there are other alternatives, but God is certainly a reasonable conclusion.

> So, the FC caused something like this. A stable, ordered system with no motion was thrown into chaos by one little disturbance.

But what caused the disturbance? A disturbance still begs the question of FC.

> So, the FC caused something like this. A stable, ordered system with no motion was thrown into chaos by one little disturbance.

These are all fascinating theories, possibilities, and thoughts. It staggers the mind to try to go back to this point and make sense out of what happened to begin the cosmos.

> This is testable in Conway's Game of Life, although not on the level that we have in our own universe.

Yeah, all the "mights" and "coulds" still fall short of what did. The search is intriguing, though.

> All that's required for life is self-replication and mutation

This sounds reductionistic and simplistic. There's a whole lot more in the picture. As far as I know, despite all the speculation and theories, no one is truly able to say how life began, let alone to replicate it. Yet with all our science, technology, and knowledge—all our intelligence—we are not able to replicate what is claimed to have happened by blind and chance processes. Things like that make me go hmm.

> But the universe doesn't care about the distinction between catsup and a rock, they're just bundles of atoms in different patterns - just like the difference between a human and a rock.

The honest problem with this perspective is that all is meaningless. We're just chemicals. Nothing matters except survival, and even that is questionable. Just as we can do without the passenger pigeon, possibly we can do without humans. Things like murder and rape are meaningless. There is no such thing as good or evil. We're just rocks but different. But I don't think this is realistic. I think we all know better. Our quest for the "why" and our deep-seated pain over evil belies a fundamental knowledge that we are not meaningless. So it seems to me.

[choking]

Sorry, that was a very long previous post. If you don't want to read it all, or would rather pick it over slowly, I would love just a response to my thought experiment question, and the following:

1. What is information and where does it exist outside of life and human constructs? Do you think complex molecules have information?
2. Does God contain information? (I would argue that all minds do.)
3. What needs to be explained about consciousness, that cannot be explained by chemical processes?
4. What is subject/object differentiation? Does it exist outside of life?

The basic gist of my long comment is something I repeat a few times: complexity begets more complexity. Evolution advances, crystals form, etc. It's a property of entropy and chaos. That's where information, life, and consciousness come from.

A side note about time:

Time is a dimension. So are the three spatial dimensions we live in, height, width, and length. When the Big Bang happened, width happened. That's why the universe started at a single point, and expanded. In the same way, (or similar, at least), when the Big Bang happened, time happened. That's why it's difficult to argue about time outside the Big Bang: we don't know if it had any meaning before. However, a classical God exists outside of time, so it's likely he has his own time dimension of some sort. I don't think intelligence is possible without time, since he would need to process information. I don't think that's unfeasible.

Regardless, I feel like the argument about timelessness can be abandoned, unless you can show why God can be eternal when you believe being eternal is self-contradictory. I think both God and the NFC are easily eternal in their own ways.

...I had to split into two comments because I exceeded the character comment on the other one. I've never done that before.

In response to this:

> Yeah, I realize that. But remember this is just one of about 8 arguments/evidences that would turn a person's mind toward God in favor of naturalism.

I just mean that, if those qualities don't favor God, they don't support your argument. This is one of the reasons I made the chart, to help visualize the argument. Intelligence and personality can support the conclusion of God, but power cannot, because it applies to both God and NFC. I'm not saying you're wrong, this is just my attempt to simplify the argument by cutting out unnecessary bits. The only reason we would need to debate power is if power supported one of the two sides, or if it directly related to another portion of the argument, but I don't think it does.

[jimwalton]

> What is information and where does it exist outside of life and human constructs? Do you think complex molecules have information?

I think informational data is also found in non-organic places, but still as a result of an intelligent cause. For instance, Shakespeare's Macbeth or an instruction manual.

> Does God contain information? (I would argue that all minds do.)

Yes. Necessarily.

> What needs to be explained about consciousness, that cannot be explained by chemical processes?

Consciousness seems to be separate from mere chemical processes. People's out-of-body experiences (end of life phenomena) seem to be inexplicable by chemical processes alone (how they can know what was going on in a different location, for instance). Memory, intuition, consciousness, values, morals, and perception cannot be simply explained or attributed to the properties of the material on which the information is conveyed.

> What is subject/object differentiation? Does it exist outside of life?

It is somewhat Cartesian (cogito ergo sum) combined with the valid perception of other minds. There is a valid subject-object relationship of things in the universe. We are not a material or even metaphysical unity. And no, it doesn't exist outside of life.

> Time is a dimension.

Yes, and there are even speculations by scientists about other dimensions, going up into 5, 6, 7 or more. We know so much, but in a sense we know so little.

I'm curious: When would you allow a divine "foot in the door"?

[Choking]

> But what caused the disturbance? A disturbance still begs the question of FC.

Sure, but the questions is whether the FC is intelligent or personal, not whether it exists. This model can work with any form of disturbance.

> There is no such thing as good or evil. We're just rocks but different. But I don't think this is realistic. I think we all know better. Our quest for the "why" and our deep-seated pain over evil belies a fundamental knowledge that we are not meaningless. So it seems to me.

I think we'll delve into this more with the other aspects of the argument, but yeah, nothing has any inherent meaning by this model. Rather, the only meaning that the universe has is that which we give it. Existentialism is a problem in the human psyche that we try to fill with meaning, but there's no real evidence that there is a true meaning.

> I think informational data is also found in non-organic places, but still as a result of an intelligent cause. For instance, Shakespeare's Macbeth or an instruction manual.

I feel like there's a problem in defining informational data as something created by intelligence. I think complex molecules have informational data, as does DNA, and neither was necessarily created by intelligence. Also, if informational data much have been created by intelligence, who or what created God? It's another step in the problem, not a solution.

> Consciousness seems to be separate from mere chemical processes. People's out-of-body experiences (end of life phenomena) seem to be inexplicable by chemical processes alone (how they can know what was going on in a different location, for instance).

AFAIK, there's no evidence for true out-of-body or end-of-life phenomena. Do you know of any actual studies done on this that give evidence of a supernatural cause? People claim miracles, auras, psychic abilities, etc. all the time, but no one's ever proven anything.
Memory, intuition, consciousness, values, morals, and perception cannot be simply explained or attributed to the properties of the material on which the information is conveyed.

Memory is the storage of information. Intuition is a matter of subconscious psychology. Consciousness is the sum of a number of thought processes. Values and morals are results of evolutionary psychology (humans are social creatures, and need a functioning society to survive.) Perception is the informational input. All of this is explained through photoreceptors, chemical balances, data processing and storage, and genetics. While we don't know all the math behind how brains work, we have a very good understanding of how neural networks work. Really, the biggest psychological mystery of the mind is our ability to learn, but we're getting closer and closer to that every day. Neural networks are complex and convoluted, which is why psychology is such a tricky field of study, but I don't know of any evidence that the mind is anything more than a bundle of mathematical operations between neurons and across synapses.

[jimwalton]

> I think complex molecules have informational data, as does DNA, and neither was necessarily created by intelligence.

But see, this is the issue at hand. There is no scientific evidence that information data comes from any source other than previous informational data.

> but there's no real evidence that there is a true meaning.

Except that we all sense it. It's one of many realities that is not provable by science (just like the reality that I don't like asparagus; it can be perceived by not proved).

> Also, if informational data much have been created by intelligence, who or what created God?

Something—whatever it was—was already eternal. We've already been over this part of the case.

> Do you know of any actual studies done on this that give evidence of a supernatural cause?

There have been studies to verify its validity, but supernatural causes cannot be proved, let alone by science.

> All of this is explained through photoreceptors, chemical balances, data processing and storage, and genetics.

See, I think that these factors do NOT adequately explain consciousness, intuitions, memories, etc. Consciousness and intuitions cannot be reduced to mere electrical impulses. Even language is so abstract as to betray that there is more going on than electrical impulses.

[Choking]

> But see, this is the issue at hand. There is no scientific evidence that information data comes from any source other than previous informational data.

Here's a map visualizing the argument. I gave you editing permissions, too, if you want.

Basically, "informational data" is a matter of order, chaos, and complexity. It increases gradually - this is a known state of the universe. Evolution adds data, molecular formations add data, settling of fundamental particles into atoms adds data, and the formation of cells adds data. So much of this happens naturally. Why can this progression not simply be traced back to 0, or at least 10^-bajillion?

If the FC necessarily had to have informational data, why did it need to be intelligent? We know information (DNA) can come from an unintelligent source (previous DNA from unintelligent animals.)

> Except that we all sense it.

I don't sense it. Even if I did, why is that necessarily anything more than a psychological phenomenon?

> Consciousness and intuitions cannot be reduced to mere electrical impulses.

But why not?

> Even language is so abstract as to betray that there is more going on than electrical impulses.

No, language is built on structure (grammar, phonetics, etc.) We're very close to being able to replicate it naturally with AI. It is very complicated, true, but what about it is necessarily more than mathematical?

[jimwalton]

> Basically, "informational data" is a matter of order, chaos, and complexity.

Isn't it true that DNA is just as complex when it first appears as it is bajillions of years later? As far as I know, there is no gradual evolution of DNA's complexity.

> If the FC necessarily had to have informational data, why did it need to be intelligent?

Because as far as we know, informational data can only come from other informational data.

> We know information (DNA) can come from an unintelligent source (previous DNA from unintelligent animals.)

Yes, information (bits, facts, figures) can come from an unintelligent source (previous or other information), but informational data (when data are processed, interpreted, organized, structured, or presented so as to make it meaningful or useful) Perhaps https://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information would be useful.

> I don't sense it.

If you're serious, then you have no problem with the Austin bomber or Harvey Weinstein, because there is no true meaning to anything. We're all ultimately just an agglomeration of chemicals with consciousness. Life has no meaning, our actions have no meaning, and death has no meaning. To me it doesn't make sense to say we're just chemicals and cause-and-effect, but then also to say killing or sexual predation has any meaning. Consistency is necessary. And if we have invested life with meaning, that's just a construct we impose and it has no real meaning either.

> "Consciousness and intuitions cannot be reduced to mere electrical impulses." But why not?

If mental events are intrinsically related to neural events, then all mental events and our consciousness itself are governed by the laws of neurobiology. Instead what we observe is that in human behavior higher level casual properties emerge, showing that thinking and deciding are genuinely efficacious. If consciousness and intuitions can be reduced to mere electrical impulses, then thinking is ultimately determined and not genuine. I would say instead that thinking is genuine, and therefore scientific inquiry is real, and that the uniqueness of humankind doesn't lie entirely in the neural machinery, per se.

> Even language is so abstract as to betray that there is more going on than electrical impulses.

Language can only come from an intelligent source, and language is only effective if it is endowed with meaning. The "intelligence" assigns meaning to otherwise meaningless sounds or symbols, and the combination of those sounds and symbols can yield even greater meanings. And that meaning is non-material; it is neither matter nor energy. It is distinct from electrical impulses. Language, therefore, demands a non-material source, since it is impossible that the meaning of language has a material cause. Material causes are incapable of generating non-material effects. The laws of chemistry and physics offer no clue whatsoever that matter can assign meaning or otherwise deal with meaning at even the most rudimentary level. Atoms cannot assign meaning to meaningless symbols to form a vocabulary or to give meaning to vocabulary.

Mathematics is a language, and math has no material source.

The laws of nature themselves are non-material.

> We're very close to being able to replicate it naturally with AI

Yes, an intelligent source has made that possible.

[Choking]

> Isn't it true that DNA is just as complex when it first appears as it is bajillions of years later? As far as I know, there is no gradual evolution of DNA's complexity.

Nah. To be fair, we don't fully understand the origin of DNA, but we have plenty of valid theories, usually structured around the evolution of RNA molecules into proteins and DNA. Simpler organisms have fewer genes than more complex organisms.

> Yes, information (bits, facts, figures) can come from an unintelligent source (previous or other information), but informational data (when data are processed, interpreted, organized, structured, or presented so as to make it meaningful or useful) Perhaps https://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information would be useful.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here. I feel like you accidentally forgot part of a sentence. DNA is informational data. DNA can come from unintelligent animals, therefore informational data can come from unintelligent sources (even if you do claim it needs previous informational data).

> If you're serious, then you have no problem with the Austin bomber or Harvey Weinstein, because there is no true meaning to anything. We're all ultimately just an agglomeration of chemicals with consciousness. Life has no meaning, our actions have no meaning, and death has no meaning.

I have a conscience, but I recognize that it's due to evolutionary psychology. I don't have any sense of greater meaning in the world. I have my own goals for humanity, but the only goals and meaning that I think we have are the ones that we create for ourselves.

> To me it doesn't make sense to say we're just chemicals and cause-and-effect, but then also to say killing or sexual predation has any meaning. Consistency is necessary. And if we have invested life with meaning, that's just a construct we impose and it has no real meaning either.

I mean... yeah. The only meaning life has is the meaning we give it. If we kill the earth with global warming, and every human and animal dies, the universe will just go on without us. We're basically just mold on a speck of dust spinning through an incomprehensibly massive universe. But certain things make us happy and sad and angry and satisfied, so we might as well try to make the best of it, and try not to suffer endlessly. Maybe we can try and search for greater truth, but there's no guarantee we'll find much. But that's the beauty of it - we're not stuck under the whims of a God who might cause mass genocide any moment, we don't need to fear eternal damnation, we can just... be free. And do what we want. And, in general, we want to help each other, and we want to make friends and have families, and we want world peace, and we have people who will fight for that.

You keep implying that an inherent meaning in the universe is something clear, something obvious to see... but then what is nihilism? How could anyone fail to see that meaning, if it's so clear to you?

> Instead what we observe is that in human behavior higher level casual properties emerge, showing that thinking and deciding are genuinely efficacious.

Higher level casual properties like what? Do you have any examples?

> If consciousness and intuitions can be reduced to mere electrical impulses, then thinking is ultimately determined and not genuine. I would say instead that thinking is genuine, and therefore scientific inquiry is real, and that the uniqueness of humankind doesn't lie entirely in the neural machinery, per se.

What evidence do you have that thinking is "genuine"? Many scientists think that AI will surpass humanity one day. AI, too, though, are simply determined by electrical impulses and their neural machinery. I mean, yeah, it feels genuine to you, but there's no actual evidence of it. When you roll dice, it feels genuinely random, but it's entirely determined by simple Newtonian physics. There are just so many hidden variables that you can't tell the difference. It's the same in the mind. Neural networks are so complex and difficult to understand that they seem to be beyond reason, but in the end, it's just layers and layers of simple mathematical formulas.

> "We're very close to being able to replicate it naturally with AI" Yes, an intelligent source has made that possible.

But the point behind my statement was that language can be entirely guided by electrical impulses. If so, what evidence is there that the human mind is more than electrical impulses, neural networks, with a sprinkle of complicated chemistry?

> Language can only come from an intelligent source, and language is only effective if it is endowed with meaning. The "intelligence" assigns meaning to otherwise meaningless sounds or symbols, and the combination of those sounds and symbols can yield even greater meanings. And that meaning is non-material; it is neither matter nor energy. It is distinct from electrical impulses. Language, therefore, demands a non-material source, since it is impossible that the meaning of language has a material cause. Material causes are incapable of generating non-material effects. The laws of chemistry and physics offer no clue whatsoever that matter can assign meaning or otherwise deal with meaning at even the most rudimentary level. Atoms cannot assign meaning to meaningless symbols to form a vocabulary or to give meaning to vocabulary.

> Mathematics is a language, and math has no material source.

> The laws of nature themselves are non-material.

You keep using this word, "meaning", as though it, itself, has meaning outside of the human consciousness. It doesn't, though. If there are not intelligent forms around, language has no meaning. Meaning has no meaning. Morality has no meaning. The "meaning" only exists within our brains. It's just a matter of patterns. We recognize patterns in language because it's a helpful social tool. We recognize patterns in the seasons because they help our agriculture. We recognize patterns in light and day because they help us sleep, hunt, survive. Patterns exist with or without intelligence, but intelligence (being a complex pattern itself) simply helps work with and create new patterns. What evidence of any "meaning" is there outside of our own skulls?

When you say that language demands something nonmaterial, I don't fully understand what you mean. Language itself is, in a way, nonmaterial, since it's just ink on paper, soundwaves through air, lights on a screen. But it's patterns in the paper, air, or light, that we recognize. It's just pattern recognition. And again, patterns exist with or without intelligence - intelligence is just a particularly complex one.

[jimwalton]

> Simpler organisms have fewer genes than more complex organisms.

I know, but the real issue at this point is that informational data, by every evidence we have, comes from other informational data, and that's my point.

> I have a conscience, but I recognize that it's due to evolutionary psychology. I don't have any sense of greater meaning in the world.

Well, then you have to try to figure out where your conscience came from. If evolution is founded on and driven by survival, what do you care if Weinstein is a predator or Cruz a murderer? First of all, if we're just animals, then "rape" is a meaningless word. "Inappropriate sexual behavior" just isn't a problem. Second of all, we know the world is overpopulated and there are a limited number of resources, so the elimination of 19 students can be a benefit for survival. Third, if all we're doing is eliminating particular organisms that are only an agglomeration of chemicals indwelt by consciousness, it's no different killing them than killing a fern plant. Who cares? You can't change your stripes: if there is no meaning (if we are just chemicals), then there is no meaning. But if your conscience is has true bearing, then there has to be a reason and a meaning behind our consciences.

> But certain things make us happy and sad and angry and satisfied, so we might as well try to make the best of it, and try not to suffer endlessly. Maybe we can try and search for greater truth, but there's no guarantee we'll find much.

This is all well and good, but ultimately it's nonsense if we are only chemical organisms here by chance and no different (ultimately) from the rock in the yard except that we have consciousness. If we are nothing but atoms, then we are nothing but atoms. You can't out of one side of your mouth say we are only evolved atoms and organisms and then out of the other side of mouth claim we have some kind of value. While we may arbitrarily assign value to human beings, it's contrived value and not real value. Ultimately, it does matter who we rape and kill any more than what an earthworm has sex with or destroys.

> we're not stuck under the whims of a God who might cause mass genocide any moment

I'm with you on this one! So glad we're not stuck under the whims of such a god.

> but then what is nihilism? How could anyone fail to see that meaning, if it's so clear to you?

Since we are creatures of free will, genuine reasoning ability, and also of the possibility to get it wrong, unfortunately "getting it wrong" is a common occurrence. When enough "getting it wrongs" are piled up, entire classes of people and even cultures can live under deceit and misinformation (flat earth theory).

> Higher level casual properties like what? Do you have any examples?

I would say things like social-relationship processes in brain organization, the capacity to simulate and evaluate actions without acting, language processing, art, music, and the like. The ability we have to change and adapt in a split second. Large disruptions cause reorganization. We are ultimately adaptable. Sometimes we incorporate some elements of previous adaptations, but sometimes new systems emerge. Our brains are capable of higher and higher levels of organization and adaptability. Thinking, deciding, consciousness, memory, language, representation, belief, etc. are large dynamic patterns of brain activity that constrain the ongoing lower-level physiological phenomena whose activity constitute the brain patterns themselves. Therefore the causal properties of patterns are not reducible to the elements. They are emergent.

> What evidence do you have that thinking is "genuine"?

Whoa. If thinking is not genuine, can we trust it as reliable?

> You keep using this word, "meaning", as though it, itself, has meaning outside of the human consciousness. It doesn't, though.

You're right, and that's what I'm saying. Language is so distinctively nonmaterial, and yet we are able to think without corresponding action or activity (a biological response), to consider options of interpretation with volition, to interpret with reliability (genuineness), and to attribute meaning above neuronal activity.

Since we are really discussing causality, I'll bring the conversation back around to that: You are seriously arguing that all of this that we have been discussing came about randomly by accidents of nature, from impersonal chemicals and atoms, genetic mutation (almost always deleterious), and blind processes (natural selection sans any intent, design, or purpose), and that makes more sense to you than that possible the cause was an intelligent, personal, powerful, purposeful causal mechanism?

It seems like this is your argument for causality:

1\. Chemicals have somehow yielded personality and consciousness
2\. Randomness has yielded genuine and reliable reasoning capability
3\. Chance has given us complex balanced and purposeful processes and objects
4\. We are nothing more than the assembly of material elements, but we are capable of intelligence, reasoning, art, science, logic, language, and belief.

It seems to me, to be honest with you, that if you think this is inferring the most reasonable conclusion, that you are a priori ruling out a divine foot in the door, and therefore closing your mind to what seems to be not only a reasonable direction but possibly the most reasonable inference for the data at hand and following the evidence where it leads.