(July 26, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Gearbreak Wrote:(July 26, 2017 at 1:16 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You are postulating a gap answer, and it is no better than when theists use a God of the gaps.
Saying you don't know something is fine, making up woo is to fill in the gap is still a naked assertion.
If there is no need to fill in the gap with old God/s/deities/super natural, then there is also no need to add the superfluous naked assertion that the universe itself is a giant cognition. It would still as an idea be a gap answer, and still suffer the problems of "begging the question" and "infinite regress".
It is ok to ditch bad claims. In fact it is not only ok, it is a good thing. Never postulate anything with extra baggage. As I said in a prior post, if you already accept that there is no cognition named Poseidon causing hurricanes, nor a cognition named Thor causing lightening then the universe itself does not need the extra baggage gap filling naked assertion as being a giant cognition itself.
And I already explained to you that there are tons if steps between a single particle to an entire in tact life. You cannot have cognition in life by skipping those steps. You cannot treat say a quark as an entire neuron much less an entire in tact brain all by itself.
You are correct that there are lots of unknowns, but there is also alot we DO KNOW, and scientists know that atoms in non living objects are arranged far differently than carbon based life. That makes it literally physically impossible for the universe to be a giant cognition itself.
If you think that way, you might as well chalk all this up to a giant invisible pink unicorn too.
I don't have the energy to argue about something I don't care that much about. I disagree but I'm going to back off this one.
Please do, and actually you backing off is a good sign, because it should say to you, NOT ME, but to you, it is not a worthy argument to defend. Things with evidence don't need apology, or mental masturbation. Things with evidence are subject to repeated testing and falsification and peer review.
Uttering words because it sounds good to you is not evidence. Otherwise every human in our species who ever uttered a word would all be right all at the same time. I really am not treating your claim in this thread any differently than I would a standard old mythology defending theist.
