I hit the Pass-go button; you seem too emotional right now :joke:

Don't be afraid of yourself!
LOL

Emotion would certainly seem to be a factor. You can tell from the way they tend to become agitated and turn irate the moment you challenge their preconceived ideas — Apollodorus

Well said. A tell tale sign of cognitive behavioral dysfunction/therapy usually surrounds ad hominem. Meaning, when backed into a corner, you attack the person and not the issue. Kind of like what politicians did in the recent election. They lost the issue in court, so let's attack the people and the process itself.

But you're right, their agitation persists for some unknown emotional reason :joke:

Most Atheists are very unsophisticated in their thinking when it comes to justifying their belief system. — 3017amenWell, atheism is not a belief system. — tim wood

Yes it is a belief system, we'll have to agree to disagree. Because logically you have to use reason to arrive at your conclusion. Hence, in logic, any atheist who posits God does not exist has the precarious and untenable position of defending same.

The most prudent thing an atheist could do is to say nothing about it. Otherwise, he has essentially endorsed another belief system.

As I said, the amusing and ironic part is that the Atheist can't even logically explain their own conscious existence, it's logically impossible. So how can they posit no God?

Most Atheists are very unsophisticated in their thinking when it comes to justifying their belief system. For example, even their own conscious existence is essentially logically impossible to explain. Which goes back to their precarious and untenable position of the Atheist having to defend same (no EOG). They can't.

Must be some sort of issue with cognitive dysfunction as it relates to emotion... :joke:

But we are guided nonetheless by our Will and intellect to move forward with living life. In — 3017amen
Like a circling eddy in a stream, yea. — frank

Sure. Like James' notion of our stream of consciousness. Which begs yet another question, if this energy cause, results in this cognitive behavior, does the law(s) of energy apply here? Meaning, if energy can neither be created or destroyed, what happens to conscious energy, I wonder. Or maybe it's not germane because it's (consciousness) not exclusively material(?).

My question relates to how that cognition works with philosophical theories about how we got here. Is that foregoing an example of top-down reasoning or bottom-up reasoning, I wonder. — 3017amen
One idea would be that just as I reflect on events and my self is generated by that reflection, the tribe's living self is generated by saying how we got here? — frank

Could you elaborate a bit on that one Frank? Is that like Wheeler's PAP?

In the alternative, what I was thinking is that in our way of making sense about cause and effect (from what we just talked about in reflecting on our past experiences-SK quote) is that considered top-down (or bottom-up) thinking... , what other kinds of thinking uncovers cause and effect and how we got here?

Anthropism/Anthropocentrism may mean the design of the carbon-based cell somehow came before or was created by the order of nature, in the exquisite fitness of the laws of nature themselves, for all life on Earth:

Nowhere is this fitness more apparent than in the properties of the key atomic constituents of the cell. Each of the atoms of life—including carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, as well as several metal elements—features a suite of unique properties fine-tuned to serve highly specific, indispensable roles in the cell. Moreover, some of these properties are specifically fit for essential roles in the cells of advanced aerobic organisms like ourselves.

So this would be my question: say your experiences are like texts. Do you read them while they're being laid down to paper? Or do you act unconsciously and read them later?

Remembering backward, but living forward, as SK said. Does that have any bearing? — frank

Extraordinary questions, I mean that! It speaks to part of the "value system" model from the OP. As such, I am going to monder this ( a monder is a cross between a mull and a ponder LOL), but want to plant a seed in the meantime:

Okay, let's consider SK's famous quote: “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards,” What are some implications? Well, in thinking about top-down versus bottom-up reasoning, it made me thing about how intellectual life (one's value system) is thought about. Let's use a simple example of one who loses their job or their lover or gets a promotion, or any event in time, etc... .

With respect to cause and effect and how it relates to your questions, the vast majority of time we can only understand why these things happen by reflecting on the past. We use intellect and reason to determine why things happened the way they did, or do. We unconsciously move forward in everydayness knowing about these experiences and experience the resulting feelings from them. Sometimes we are self-aware and other times we are not. But we are guided nonetheless by our Will and intellect to move forward with living life. In short, I would say we do both. But I think there is much more to parse there... .

My question relates to how that cognition works with philosophical theories about how we got here. Is that foregoing an example of top-down reasoning or bottom-up reasoning, I wonder.

Even so, a reader might ask themselves, in that little scenario, what Darwinian survival advantages do those kinds of value systems have on humans? Are they too, some kind of abstract value system in themselves? Objectively, why should we care, when survival instinct, and the basic needs of food clothing and shelter have already been met?

What needs to be explained is how the passage of time seems to change depending on our mental state. Is the passage of time a mental state, or independent of mental states? What is the difference between change and time? — Harry Hindu

Those are awesome questions Harry!

I'll just start with a simple supposition regarding mental states. Time is just a human calibration of change. A temporal-ness of sorts. We know change exists, but we really don't know whether time exists in a concrete way that is outside our perceptions of it. Time seems to be some sort of Subjective truth... . Some sort of feeling (as in time flies when you're having fun/from the OP).

I hope others will chime-in...

What if self consciousness starts with memories? Recognition of the self comes from analyzing remembered events and assigning cause and effect. Sometimes the self is a cause and sometimes it's affected. Either way it's always central in the narrative. — frank

Hey Frank!

Thanks for your contribution. Long time no talk, I hope all is well with you and yours!

I think that's a great question. It reminds me of the perception differences between the Will itself (the metaphysical part of consciousness), and life experiences, which, are essentially still all part of cause and effect.

Meaning, I perceive I'm self-aware in a different way as I age. It seems that on a gradient scale, one's basic Will to live/survive is more predominant in earlier years than say in later years because we have no memories to reflect upon. Then as we age, our Will seems to be less involved in Being because we've collected memories to either be happy or sad about. So if for example we wanted to kill ourselves, we would presumably do it because our collection of memories are bad versus good. The bad outweighed the good. And in that case, our intellect overpowered our Will; our Will was subordinated by our intellect. Our intellect said life is not worth living.

Maybe at first all the things we put under the umbrella of consciousness are identified as parts of the environment. The storm is angry. The river loves me. The lion hates me. I kill the lion.

I've been pondering why it is that math stalled in development until the invention of abstract money. Maybe abstractions were there, but not entirely fleshed out the way we experience them. — frank

Can you share some examples of that Frank?


BTW- relative to causation, what are your thoughts:

1. Darwinism=Bottom-up reasoning
2. Emergence= Top-down reasoning

Anyway, thanks again for poking your head in on the discussion...you have plenty of philosophy to offer!!!

The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
--Albert Einstein — Tiberiusmoon

Hence the paradox of time (several of many):

Something like sleep can cut off our observation of time which gives the illusion of time going by almost instantly, so this observation gives some insight to how days go by faster or slower. — Tiberiusmoon

In your view, does that suggest a metaphysical component relative to our perception of time?

Since the illusion is within ourselves as observers, it is rational to think that our physical reality has no time of which everything progresses but a constant state of here and now that changes as energy is acted upon matter. — Tiberiusmoon

Are you saying present is static like eternity? Meaning, how big a slice of time does the here and now represent?

Time is just a measure of a observation of matter, not so much a measure of progression. — Tiberiusmoon

How does the illusion of time itself (from the foregoing), relativity, the speed of light (time stoppage), and other phenomena make time an observation of matter?

This also answers why we haven't met any time travellers in our reality as such concept would not exist logically in this regard. — Tiberiusmoon

Can you elaborate a bit on that? I was thinking the cosmological theories about black holes/worm holes, etc..

consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.) — 3017amenHow does this work? — tim wood

Not sure I understand your question. But, consider the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind working together. If one were to describe that phenomenon of cognition, you wouldn't be able to describe it logically. For instance, driving a car while daydreaming, then crashing and killing yourself. Or driving while thinking about a math equation, and so on.

The mind is not only capable of doing two things at once, but your mind can also trick your self-awareness into thinking you're on a beach while driving, hence crashing and dying. The proposition that describes the phenomenon would violate many rules of bivalence/non-contradiction/excluded middle because we don't know which element of consciousness was driving the car.

Think of it as varying degrees of truth value, or two truth values at the same time, like fuzzy logic. I was aware and unaware that I was driving my car. (Or I was driving and not driving at the same time-your consciousness is 'logically impossible'.)

Anger management does not seem to be popular with the fanatical atheists here!
— 3017amen

Very true. That's an idea for a new thread: Does atheistic philosophy foster fanaticism, paranoia, and mindless violence? — Apollodorus

Yep. Check out my profile I did one awhile back on that very same topic. We uncovered a lot of resentment, anger and other emotional deficiency kinds of things. Maslow would call it, deficiency motivation, as opposed to growth motivation.

I've always said we're boys and girls in adult bodies. Having a sense of Innocence, wonderment, curiosity, positive energy, are certainly among many virtues to behold. However, to act reasonably, as a so-called responsible adult, one must know which hat to wear when, by of course treating like cases likely and different cases differently.

That said, one must learn not to exclusively dichotomize things by staying in one emotional place too long. In this case, the angry Atheist adult who now decides to, for whatever reason, wallow in the bottomless chasm of self pity, does so at the risk of much shame and interminable misery, not to mention risking one's overall health and well-being.

In a world of volitional existence, one could argue that it's all about self-awareness and courage. The good news is that for the most part, we humans can be who we want to be.

Anyway, check out the thread if you want to revisit it...

The record speaks for itself and it's says your are a liar. — James Riley
Not at all. The record doesn't say that. You say that. And we've seen what your statements are worth. As I said, you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse. — Apollodorus

:100: Anger management does not seem to be popular with the fanatical atheists here!
:joke:

most creation stories are denominated myth — tim wood

Some argue that creation, existence, and all of life is just an illusion. Take the phenomenon/paradox of Time for example... .

There are many things in life that are seemingly beyond reason. But once again, so is the explanation of your consciousness/itself (consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.). Quite a mystery indeed :joke:

Thank you for that. BTW, PM me on the protest thread. I never saw that.

And yes, I wont derail the OP subject matter either, only to say that it really disturbs me to see violence against those who are not considered mainstream or like themselves. Maybe there's a better word that captures the phenomenon... maybe it's 'different'. (Kind of reminds me of the ambiguous genatailia baby phenomenon.)

Anyway, maybe the only thing germane to the OP would be the emotional component/anger (people politics) that people have toward those who participate in trans gender events. Obviously, most of us would say if it's possible, let's try to do it. In the information age, we are too sophisticated not to at least try. Gee, that's probably too idealistic :smirk:

No I haven't, what's the jist of it?

The only thing I've experienced (besides getting hit-on by gay men) is dating women who've had either homosexual men or lesbian women offspring. The consistent story was that early on, they knew something was very different in/from each child's behavior. They gravitated away from typical gender based behaviors and interests, from say around year 2 onward. (The gay female liked cars; the gay male liked dolls... .)

Anyway, far from an expert in those areas...just sharing some experiences/stories... .

I just think the reality is so much more complex than it is being portrayed in this thread. — Jack Cummins

Indeed. I think that's yet another argument for precluding certain kinds of sports from this gender phenomenon. Perhaps the next question(s) could be what kinds of sports lend themselves to or are better suited for trans-humans?

Alternatively, I think Michael made some distinctions about trans men and trans men all competing together fairly... .

Jorndoe!

Thanks for your thoughts. I checked out the links. It looks like those arguments are more religious in nature v. say, a cosmological God/first cause. For instance, it talks about Omni-3 stuff which is a theological interpretation about the mind of a God, you know, apologetics stuff. It sort of begs other questions though about certain kinds of things that seem subjectively true, and what kinds of things are objectively true.

Similarly, in relation to questions about evolutionary theories and such, unlike Darwinist theories, I think 'objectively' we know that the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life have no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity enough to allow for consciousness, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is indeed far from absurd.

That also begs other questions relative to whether mathematics itself is invented or has some objective/independent existence, only to be discovered from time to time. Those universal laws that seem so 'unreasonably effective' infer some sort of abstract metaphysical existence. You know, kind of like consciousness itself... .

It certainly may be true in that some women may feel it's an unfair advantage. But my reasoning relates to biology. As such, if the trans man were say, blood tested for things like steroids, then in theory the women competition should not take exception if the test was negative.

Trans men, after hormone therapy, are stronger and faster than trans women, after hormone therapy. If the concern with transgender women competing against cisgender women is that cisgender women have an athletic disadvantage then it would be an even greater concern for transgender men to compete against cisgender women.
Michael — Michael

But do they have to continue with hormone therapy? If so, it should be a non-starter. And if that's the case, then the whole notion of competition in certain kinds of sports may be prohibited for biological reasons. Though not an exact analogy, let's say a publicly funded college precluded women from enrolment. And, say another publicly funded college precluded men from enrolment. I see equity and fairness in that scenario.

It begs other political and ethical (not moral) kinds of questions relative to whether say girl scouts should be for girls only, and boy scouts for boys only. Feel free to poke holes in my argument...this is an interesting topic...

So trans men should compete in women's tournaments? — Michael

I believe so. A trans man, being assigned female at birth (so-called biological birthright), who wants to compete with other women would have a better argument... .

:100: :up:

He comes off as a person of great erudition. It's great to have him in the forum. I hope to keep learning from him...and others too. — TheMadFool

The key phrase is "comes off". Unfortunately, there are other's including myself who would beg to differ. Physics explanations/analogies aren't necessarily in his wheelhouse.

did think about that. There seems to be an unfounded assumption in thinking that AI isn't conscious because, as we all know, by that token even human consciousness is uncertain insofar as other minds are the issue. We infer consciousness in other people - other minds - not by some kind of direct access to their consciousness (impossible as of the moment) but through how they behave and of the the cues we keep an eye out for is intelligence. In other words, a big clue, at least we think it is, that indicates the presence of consciousness (minds) is intelligence. Compare this with the intelligence AI demonstrate by beating us at our own game as it were. Shouldn't we extend AI the same courtesy and deem them as conscious too? :chin: — TheMadFool

But the problem I see ( you tell me otherwise) with the logic or analogy is that if the inference was AI to another AI life form (if the two were reasoning with each other), then you would have two man-made robots making logical inferences with each other. In that scenario I don't see how you can compare man-made robots to biological complexity, especially something from nothing (the big bang, etc.), much less than the fact that someone had to create the AI Robot to begin with, right?

In a similar way, I personally don't have a problem with Multiverse theories because in part what's driving some theories is the idea of "Anthropic Selection" regardless. Hence:

...the theory proposes that all possible physical conditions are represented somewhere among the ensemble, and the reason why our own particular universe looks designed is that only in those universes which have that seemingly contrived form will life (consciousness) be able to arise. Hence it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe so propitiously suited to biological requirements. It has been "anthropically selected". -- Paul Davies

Sounds like to me there is also some sort of logical necessity working here... ?

That's where the problem lies. Science is clear that in physical competitions especially at top level a biological female is not the same as a biological male. So the issue seems to be political. Politics decides how science is applied. — Apollodorus

A!!!

Indeed. Kind of like climate change. I've always said we need to have both far-right and far-left/ wing scientists engage in town hall debates, and duke it out until some consensus is reached. Kind of like the jury system. :smile:

That said, gosh, knowing that he/she is now running (no pun intended) for Governor of CA., if I had a choice between politics or trans-gender stuff, I see the latter as being more relevant and in her wheelhouse. Mainly because based on a recent TV interview, his/her knowledge of politics (or lack thereof)…. well let's just say that there really wasn't any knowledge there....I was astounded. I don't know, I guess in politics stranger things have happened.

All that aside, I agree, that basically the biology should be the criterion.

Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

I often think of our stream of consciousness as quantum randomness, indeterminacy or contingency in nature. Meaning, the reality exposed by quantum measurement is determined in part by the questions/choices the experimenter puts to nature. Then those choices come back to us later, as part of random thoughts from having the resultant sense experiences. Kind of like recycled water coming from a natural stream.

So, I am asking what does thought tell us about the nature of personal identity and about the underlying source of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

We cannot escape the subjective experience.

As James told us: Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as 'chain' or 'train' do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A 'river' or a 'stream' are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. (James 1890:239)

And in this subjective life of ours (a subjective truth) we have things like Qualia:

1. ineffable – they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
2.intrinsic – they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3.private – all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4.directly or immediately apprehensible by consciousness – to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally sighted person who sees red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of 700-nm wavelength is directed at you", supporters of this kind of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete description of the experience

A discussion in another thread with 180 Proof revolved around mind and intelligence. 180 Proof said something to the effect that evolution is intelligent in that it suggests an optimum strategy given the volatile situation of the enviroment. Nonetheless, he refused to accept the involvement of a mind behind evolution citing AI as instances of intelligence sans minds. — TheMadFool

It appears 180 could not square the Structuralist circle by considering abstract sentient Being, in his theory. Big mistake. In other words, not comprehensive enough... . (Ironically enough, he tends to get overly defensive/emotional about his views there. He's very sensitive about justification of his atheism.)

My response was to present a a gedanken experiment using the Turing test. Suppose you're interacting (say playing chess) with something that's hidden from view by a curtain. You examine the moves and come to the conclusion that your opponent is intelligent. Based on this piece of information (the entity behind the curtain is intelligent) alone can you infer whether your opponent has a mind (a human player) or doesn't have a mind (AI)? The answer is a big NO!. Why? Both humans (having minds) and AI (having no minds) possess intelligence and so you won't be able to tell which is which. Mind - No mind equivalency. — TheMadFool

Unless I'm misinterpreting the analogy, generally speaking Turing machine algorithms (patterns) have a lower complexity (see OP) versus that of higher complexity. In theory, while biological systems can emerge from very long, complicated chain of events and evolutionary processes, we still have a very large leap from not only explaining why the laws of physics has no evolutionary competition, but to explaining how consciousness emerges from matter.

The same argument works for evolution which bears all the marks of intelligence and so, based on this single data point, one won't be able to infer whether evolution is the product of a mind or is like AI, mindless. Hence, with nothing to go on but signs of intelligence, evolution with a mind at the helm and evolution with no such thing "...can't be told apart..." — TheMadFool

Wouldn't self-awareness itself, be able to poke holes in the analogy? In other words, you would have to ask the AI thing-in-itself to prove it lives inside of a computer simulation. We then, are seemingly no better off in determining the reality of its existence, right?

A deterministic world is a world where all pasts have the same future, but it is true in a quantum world where all pasts do not share the same future. Consider that if the nature of human will is not necessarily reducible to all of physical causation (otherwise human will is a product of the material brain which is exclusively a physical object), it must be beyond physical law.

By the way, a case can be made that if god doesn't exist, intelligence and even consciousness has to be/could be an illusion. After all, if pure random chance can produce wonders (universe, life) that some sections of the population believe could only have been the handiwork of a conscious intelligence (god) - the two can't be told apart - it follows, right?, that conscious intelligence and unconscious non-intelligence are indistinguishable and Leibniz claimed the identity of indiscernibles. :smile: So, is consciousness an illusion? Daniel Dennett should take a look at this argument. — TheMadFool

Interesting TMF! Thank you.

Randomness is not chaos. Metaphorically, one could think of randomness as say Wheeler's Cloud. Or, variations of the cosmic computer brain... . Our volitional existence, which in part is metaphysical, chooses from that which is available to us from our sense experience, intuition, and other Kantian types of apperception and reasoning... .

Can you elaborate on your notion of..." can't be told apart"?

Daniel Dennett admittingly didn't explain consciousness. He brought up some good metaphysical points though (Qualia, etc..) With respect to things-in-themselves as being illusionary, there are many things in life and nature that possess those kinds of qualities. Time, in and of itself, is certainly one of them.

I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from Amazon recently, just so I'd have a copy in my library. It's an enormous book, 738 pages, with mountains of footnotes and references. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer!

Happy Monday. If you will, any sort of synopsis or initial thoughts about that book you just bought thus far?

I was curious to see if you had any comments on my previous supposition here:

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.

Also, I forgot to add:

Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc..

Science is deeply involved in such issues but any meaning-of-life questions are deferred or subordinated to the philosopher... .

However, we can say that: ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies.

I'm confused, I guess if you are able and can show the fortitude to poke holes in my statement, then more than likely I could be convinced:

In logic, any atheist who posits God does not exist has the precarious an untenable position of defending his/that proposition.

The most prudent thing an atheist could do is to say nothing. Otherwise, he has essentially endorsed another belief system.


Please take your time and careful reply...try to resist the temptation of an emotional response if you will. Thanks.

If you haven't figured out by now Tim wood is another Einsteinian fanatical atheist :grin:

He gets very defensive about his atheism. Even more emotional than 180 !

Give it a try. Else your reply is a confused non sequitor. — tim wood

I found it to be a non sequitur :joke:

In logic, any atheist who posits God does not exist has the precarious an untenable position of defending his/that proposition.

The most prudent thing an atheist could do is to say nothing. Otherwise, he has essentially endorsed another belief system.

But I do think he's got some serious issues there. It isn't unheard off for those with certain issues to take up the study of psychology. Perhaps in an attempt to self-treat themselves? Maybe he can tell us more himself if he can muster the cour — Apollodorus

I agree . In life more often than not we find these things to be self-evident.

Yeah, when you run out of arguments you start using threats and abusive language. S — Apollodorus

Indeed. I heard through the grapevine that the moderators are considering banning him (180). No matter, it's pretty much a telltale sign that when someone has no other logical arguments, they resort to ad hominem, hence:

"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."

think "quite emotional" is an understatement. People like 180 sound like a kettle that is permanently on the boil — Apollodorus

Indeed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that unfortunately, the human condition has it that his emotions get the best of him.

Accordingly, that's yet another irony relative to Maslonian behavior, and the whole of human motivations and phenomena... .

Kind of reminds me of some Proverbs from the OT Wisdom Books in Christianity, in that many of his political narratives are akin to a dissonant trumpet blast :joke:

course. Political concerns are often what encourage atheists to be evasive of religious ideals, in combination with their irreligious personalities - they're an additive element, as opposed to a characteristic one. — Aryamoy Mitra

Indeed. I hate to say it, but also a lot of atheists some of which are on this board ( hate to call out 180 but if it quacks like a duck ...well you get the idea) get quite emotional about their belief system. The ironic thing is, if an atheist claims that God does not exist, they put themselves in a precarious and untenable position of trying to defend same.

Otherwise, I do find that your point about politics, and some athiest's emotional defensiveness as it were, are consistent with what Einstein said many years ago. As suggested in the book of Ecclesiastes, there's nothing new under the sun here:

"The fanatical atheists, are like [prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." --Albert Einstein

think we need to be as cautious as we should be open-minded about this.

Cautious because beliefs - theism included - have consequences that permeate all aspects of life and living. — TheMadFool

Sure Tmf!

Feel free to embellish in that reasoning. Thanks for your thoughts!

The issue it seems is not whether the ends [Mind, Humans, Organized Complexity] can come about with/without an intelligent agency (god/creator) working on the beginnings [Matter, Primates, Initial conditions] but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place! — TheMadFool

Tmf!

Sure. Hence my view:

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.

"The fanatical atheists, are like [prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." Albert Einstein

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome — Gnomon

Gnomon!

There's a whole lot to discuss but let me just start there. (I want to explore more from your post.)

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.

So your notion of "desired outcome" has indeed some level of logical truth to it... .