Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Chas]

Show me a fraction of that 80% (regarding that intelligence) and I'll be satisfied. Gimme 1%, a half a percent? What's designed? What about it's "operation" suggests intelligence to you? 80% is pretty high confidence for such a statement, there has to be some meat on those bones.

Well for me, it started out with personal, "numinous experience" stuff that made me question initially (can't give you that, unfortunately). Later, exploring neuroscience and other areas of psychology and consciousness studies, I couldn't find anything that made me confident that researchers in neuropsychcology, endocrinology, immunology, etc currently have the answers to the hard questions of consciousness. Integrating a lot of learning led me to the neutral monist perspective, which led me to Hammeroff and Pemrose's "Orch OR theory. This theory ties in quantum theory and seems to explain certain things, particularly related to memory. Further, taking this information considered in light of computer science and new revelations of genetics studies, makes me feel that reality could look a lot like a holographic simulation. And with theories (with experimental data http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24...BYyVRbDXZg) proposed stating time is potentially illusory, coupled with the potential of a multiverse, it makes me wonder if we are not experiencing the game play of a simulated life on this planet that was captured in it's entirety (all possibilities) at once, but is being experienced by our awareness in "real time".

I know this all does nothing to actually describe anything about an intelligent designer, influence, however, you asked what makes me question it, so that's it... So far...

That's all fun, but where did the designer come from?

It's either a natural process (like evolution) or you have an infinite regress.

---

Just to be difficult, if I were to play devil's advocate, I might say: the same underlying physical processes are responsible for both, aren't they?

So, again, if you were to look at what I'm referring to you would see that neutral monism refers to the "view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things. Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff, in the form of neutral elements that are in themselves neither mental nor physical; these neutral elements might have the properties of color and shape, just as we experience those properties, but these shaped and colored elements do not exist in a mind (considered as a substantial entity, whether dualistically or physicalistically); they exist on their own."

I see no reason to believe any of that. It is Platonism on steroids.