(December 5, 2017 at 4:16 pm)SteveII Wrote:(December 5, 2017 at 2:20 pm)wallym Wrote: Oh, no problem. That was a pretty much what I was talking about, and a, b, c, and e have all come up. And with the priority given, assuming I'm guessing what those words mean correctly, origins of existence/universe seems to be the big one that are rooted in something tangible. Because we're fairly confident existence exists. The other things, free will, morals, values, etc..., I think whether or not they exist is debatable. A debate that is strengthened greatly by having the 'natural theology' thing to build off from.
Well, regarding (d) there are many Christian philosophers that think this is a very promising line of inquiry. If consciousness is not identical to, but more than, brain function, there are interesting questions about supervenience, emergent properties, immaterial and how that can be in a purely naturalistic framework.
Regarding the whole enterprise of natural theology, you mentioned in your opening post "If that domino falls, and some nerd explains the origins of the universe...?" I think people have the impression that natural theology arguments are just waiting around to be disproved by science and assume a trend in that direction. However, I think the opposite is true. Scientific discoveries in the last 100 years have fueled old arguments (for example b and c) and created new ones (like d).
Most scientists and most philophers are atheistic, and remain unconvinced by the apologetics of natural theology.
