Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

What's unreasonable about it?  Only the alternative (self-awareness suddenly emerging from dead particles) is unreasonable/ implausible.

Have you read David Bentley Hart's book All Things are Full of Gods?

This is a strange and fascinating book about the relation of mind and matter. Oddly, it is written as a dialogue among several Greek gods, but these are gods who are fully up to date with the work of Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers and other more recent theorists on mind. 

After running through just about every known theory on the subject, the majority of the gods conclude that mind must be prior to matter. The idea that mind emerges when matter reaches a certain level of complexity turns out to have several difficulties. It's too detailed and elaborate to summarize here, but even if you disagree you come away from it much better informed. 

Hart is a Christian but he makes no arguments that are specifically Christian. His conclusions about mind being fundamental are compatible with ancient Indian thought as well, and with some modern scholars who are not with any religion.

As for the words in bold, I hope you don't see that as my view. That kind of reductionism is what I am arguing against. I don't believe in "emergent consciousness" but only in innately conscious matter.

[Jal]

Still no refutation of the OP other than, "We don't have to answer your philosophical arguments because we know more science that you."

Huh?

You also don't know shit about Christian theology. Defining God as a material being that evolved over 13.8 billion years directly contradicts historic Christian theology, which views God as an uncreated, immaterial Spirit existing outside of space and time.

Yes it directly contradicts historic Christian theology but is the only way to make sense of Scripture.  You really think I was unaware of the traditional view of God as an immaterial Spirit? Not a shred of Scripture supports that nonsense. And the burden of proof is on the immaterialists, because:
1. The existence of matter is pretty much the only thing we know for sure.
2. Extraordinary claims (such as the existence of immaterial realities) cry out for extraordinary amounts of corroboration.

BTW, the church father Tertullian (200 AD) was 100% materialist. He never accepted the immaterial nonsense. Tertullian was the first theologian known to use the term Trinity, and Philip Schaff considered him to be one of the greatest defenders of the faith.

[Jal]

What are you trying to say here? That sandwiches, nay food portions in general, have never contributed any matter to your brain? Are you trying to say that matter is never sentient/ self-aware? You're not making any sense. 

Does anyone here have something more to contribute than silly, strawman "rebuttals" ?

As head been pointed out: provide evidence that sandwiches are sentient.
Can't believe I am writing this

Where did I say that sandwiches are sentient? I was referring to the brain although, in my view, it is specifically the physical soul within the physical brain that is sentient. At Gen 2:7 God insufflated into Adam's body a physical soul - a piece of matter that He had fully awakened into acute self-awareness. The encasing body, in my view, is "essentially" unaware, that is, it is negligibly sentient (much like a plant or a rock).

[Jal]

As I said, with the sandwich I was arguing from the standpoint of atheistic pansychism, just to make a point. I shouldn't have done that, because the shallow critics here will use it as an opportunity to charge me with contradiction.

[Fake Messiah]

I literally guffawed on that one. Almost fell out of my chair. Give me a moment to recover my composure, and then maybe I'll respond.

That's because you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect: you are dumb as shit but full of yourself.

Matter is inherently conscious, but consciousness evolves in the sense of maturing. These are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless of whether consciousness is basic or matured, the argument's premise about natural selection still fails. Natural selection relies on physical cause-and-effect sequences—where physical inputs (like low blood sugar) reliably trigger physical outputs (seeking food). Adding a layer of "maturing consciousness" is functionally irrelevant to whether physical natural selection operates in a deterministic system.

I am educating people to the fact that free will doesn't make much sense unless it is defined as a force that moves matter. SOMETHING must be self-moving in principle, to get the ball rolling. If choice A is: a piece of matter moves by free will, what is choice B? Randomness? Chaotic movement, that is, a RANDOM self-movement? Choice A aligns better with our empirical experience, because reality isn't pure random chaos, it has a degree of stability to it (viz the law of inertia), a stability that is primarily interrupted when we exert free will to move our bodies in ways unpredictable to an observer (viz he saw me moving left but was not able to predict, mathematically, at what moment I would shift direction).

Again, you are using flawed physics, category errors, and a false dichotomy.

Choice B isn't "random chaos." Non-conscious matter moves via deterministic natural laws (like gravity), which are neither random nor driven by conscious choice.

You are also confusing complexity with free will. An observer's inability to predict your next step is a result of system complexity, not proof of free will. Weather patterns and turbulence are equally unpredictable to an observer, but they aren't conscious.

And so on.

[Belacqua]

Have you read David Bentley Hart's book All Things are Full of Gods?

This is a strange and fascinating book about the relation of mind and matter. Oddly, it is written as a dialogue among several Greek gods, but these are gods who are fully up to date with the work of Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers and other more recent theorists on mind. 

After running through just about every known theory on the subject, the majority of the gods conclude that mind must be prior to matter. The idea that mind emerges when matter reaches a certain level of complexity turns out to have several difficulties. It's too detailed and elaborate to summarize here, but even if you disagree you come away from it much better informed. 

Hart is a Christian but he makes no arguments that are specifically Christian. His conclusions about mind being fundamental are compatible with ancient Indian thought as well, and with some modern scholars who are not with any religion.

As for the words in bold, I hope you don't see that as my view. That kind of reductionism is what I am arguing against. I don't believe in "emergent consciousness" but only in innately conscious matter.

I understand, I think.

I mentioned the Hart book because he also rejects "emergent consciousness."

[Jal]

You are Christian and believe your god is limited in ability and finite in age, in the face of overwhelming evidence (verses in the Bible) to the contrary. Why?

Finite/ limited? Yes. Incompetent? No.  Infinitude is a Greek philosophical concept that is pure gibberish if we mean an actualized/ realized infinity. It's total nonsense. To claim, for example, that God knows an infinite number of languages makes no sense, because that's not a specific number.  Therefore He knows a SPECIFIC number of languages, wherefore He is obviously finite. It's  not my fault that Christians, for 2000 years, have been holding to stupid interpretations of the Bible.

An infinite God could not have created this world.  Why so? Because an infinitely self-sufficient God, by definition, can never need, nor want, nor crave anything, He cannot be in a state of dissatisfaction with the status quo. To claim that an infinitely self-sufficient God suffered a craving to create mankind is like claiming that an infinitely powerful God craves more power. That's total stupidity.

Also, an infinite God - a God who is a plenum innately - would merit no praise.  Why so? Because innate characteristics do no merit praise. Suppose I happen to be, from birth, the smartest and handsome guy on the planet. So I demand everyone to bow down and praise me. That would make me a jerk, right? As I did nothing to earn it? For 2,000 years, based on a Greek concept of God, Christians have been insinuating that God is this kind of jerk, and naturally critics like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, and Richard Dawkins have been making a field day of this stupid Christian view. 

How does one merit praise? Here's the only plausible definition of merit:
Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause, for an extended period of time.

The longer and/or harder the labor, the more one merits praise.    (For example the cross merits no praise if Jesus didn't actually labor/suffer on it).  My theodicy (God training Himself for 13 billion years minimum)  is the quintessential example of merit. This the ONLY kind of God who merits/ deserves worship.

You can't rightly praise God for creating the earth if He did it in seven short easy days. Heck we humans labor/suffer for 50 long YEARS, and therefore merit more praise than seven short days.

[Jal]

"Regardless of whether consciousness is basic or matured, the argument's premise about natural selection still fails. Natural selection relies on physical cause-and-effect sequences—where physical inputs (like low blood sugar) reliably trigger physical outputs (seeking food). Adding a layer of "maturing consciousness" is functionally irrelevant to whether physical natural selection operates in a deterministic system."

You are making assertions that don't make sense. You are ignoring the argument. You are conveniently using cliche-terms like "trigger" without explaining how that is going to happen in a domino effect that is oblivious to hunger and couldn't care less whether your blood sugar is running low. If an asteroid hits the earth, it's just blind causality, it doesn't care whether you felt hungry for safety and shelter.  You're not making sense. You are ignoring the argument instead of addressing it.

[Deesse23]

Do you have ANY training wrt to Hebrew language, culture or history to make ANY informed statement about what these people were thinking and what they probably meant when they wrote about "allmighty" god, living in skies, above a flat earth etc ?

[Jal]

Do you have ANY training wrt to Hebrew language, culture or history to make ANY informed statement about what these people were thinking and what they probably meant when they wrote about "allmighty" god, living in skies, above a flat earth etc ?

An actualized/ realized infinity is a stupid self-contradictory concept.  That's pretty much all I need to know. 

For a non-Christian, stupid readings are acceptable, as he has no incentive to defend the Bible.

For me, they are not acceptable.