P
- Status
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Oh, rightā¦
Of course we can. We can draw conclusions about the leaves in forests too. But donāt you think the claim āthere are an infinite amount of particles/leavesā is unfounded? And as Iāve said (I think), even if we accept inductions pertaining to infinity, I donāt think this would put such conceptions on par with knowledge. Christians donāt want to induce God, they want to know him. See what I mean?
Iām not sure what you mean in that last sentence. Physical laws arenāt things, theyāre explanations. Specifically, they are explanations of the relationships of things, and we have no reason to expect there to be an infinite amount of anything. Would you agree to this?
If thatās the case, then the agnostic position holds firm. You agree with us when we say that God canāt be known, correct? If you doā¦then what were we arguing about?
This is where I have trouble following you. Youāve heard the principle of āextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenceā right? If the amount of evidence one must produce is proportional to the significance of the entity that is to be proven, then God must require an infinite amount of evidence, himself being infinite.
By the way, do you consider an induced entity to be a known entity in any meaningful sense?
As far as this sort of speculation goes, he may be able to help us know him. He could make our minds capable of grasping infinity, and voila, we could know of him.Do you agree to those terms, or are you committed to the idea that even if God exists, He would not even have the power to let us know about Him? (Sounds like an awfully impotent omnipotent being to me!)
T
tonyrey
Guest
If we have evolved **solely **due to **irrational, irresponsible **processes you need to explain how we are rational and responsibleā¦
You still have to explain how this miracle has occurredā¦
Ifā¦!
The theist believes good and evil are facts which determine our eternal destiny whereas the atheist believes good and evil are subjective opinions which disappear with us at deathā¦
S
Sair
Guest
In exactly the same manner as natural selection produces the illusion of design in the natural world. You claim that such processes are āirrationalā and āirresponsibleā (which sheds an interesting light upon the workings of anthropocentrism, but thatās a subject for an entirely different thread) when in fact these processes can be understood rationally, at least. What could make more sense than the continuation of genetic traits and thus physical characteristics that strengthen the survival prospects of a species? Itās hard not to see the evolutionary advantages of the human brain. Our capacity for self-awareness, for rationality, for imagination and empathy, may all be understood as products - perhaps by-products, even, a shiny little bonus - of the interplay between the structures and chemical components of the brain. To prove that this is not the case, weāll need to discover some aspect of the human brain or body that could be called the seat of the soul.
Quite a contemptuous āifā you have thereā¦but perhaps itās time to throw the question back to you - why do you insist that there must be a non-physical, transcendental explanation for human moral behaviour? Why do you seek meaning for human life beyond the parameters of human beings themselves?
But you havenāt said how these different beliefs, which I already mentioned anyway, make a difference to the quality of their actions. Is it necessary to believe in an afterlife and an immortal soul to be a āgoodā person? Or is it enough to know that our actions have consequences in the observable world?
T
tonyrey
Guest
What makes you so sure it is an illusion?
They can be understood rationally but if these processes produced rationality they cannot be rational or (intellectually and morally) responsible.
Donāt you think the brain has any evolutionary disadvantages? Immense complexity is a handicap when it comes to survival. Monocellular organisms have survived since the dawn of life whereas many multicellular animals have become extinct.
You are assuming the mind needs a **physical **link with the brainā¦ that all causes are efficient and not final, i.e. teleological or purposive.
Not contemptuous, just dubious.
Not only moral but also creative, intellectual, artistic, scientific, philosophical, personalā¦ and spiritualā¦Because I donāt believe man is the measure of all thingsā¦
It is certainly not necessary but goodness is seen as an objective reality rather than a human concept or convention. It is hard to see how good and evil fit into a purposeless scheme of things.
Iām afraid not. There is so much unfinished business in this short life of oursā¦ particularly diabolical evil, monstrous injustice and undeserved suffering. It becomes a tale told by an idiotā¦ signifying nothingā¦
S
Sair
Guest
Certainly there are disadvantages - the human brain is a huge energy-consumer, for starters, it takes an extraordinarily long time, in animal terms, to reach maturity (if it ever does!), and it has been known to frequently manifest negative conditions like depression; but almost everything in the natural world is a double-edged sword that way. There are always trade-offs and compromises when it comes to survival.
Certainly I see no reason to suppose that it is something other than the physical substance of the brain which gives rise to the phenomena of consciousness, creativity, empathy, etc. How this happens is a subject of continuing research, and I certainly donāt lay claim to any special knowledge in this regard. However, I donāt think it is unreasonable to suppose that the aforementioned phenomena are likely to be by-products of the physical development of the brain.You are assuming the mind needs a **physical **link with the brainā¦ that all causes are efficient and not final, i.e. teleological or purposive.
Not contemptuous, just dubious.
No more do I. To claim so would be to deny the fact that we are only part of a much larger entity, namely the universe. However, when we are speaking of human concerns, it makes sense to do so within a human frame of reference - and getting back to the OPās claim regarding the problem of evil, I would say it makes a whole lot more sense than referencing an inscrutable divine beingā¦
And is goodness seen as an objective reality? Surely that depends upon the context. What is good in some circumstances may not be good in others. One can espouse a set of values, and thus anything that accords with those values could be considered āgoodā - but most values are a matter of subjective experience. If we can point to shared values - such as the value of sentient life, for example (I think we can safely assume that most people of sound mind tend to prefer being alive to otherwise) - then we can have common ground upon which to build a system of ethics.
Ah, I was wondering when that old chestnut would surface. Itās been my experience that most theists canāt or wonāt comprehend how it is possible for an atheist to find meaning and purpose in life. Certainly, if youāre looking for an overarching, unifying purpose to the universe, itās probably hard to find one outside of religion. But I donāt think the universe itself needs a purpose or an ultimate end in order for us to find purpose in our own lives. The pursuit of happiness seems to me to be an entirely rational purpose - this entails the happiness of others as well as myself, of course, since I am an inherently empathetic person, and happiness is all the greater when it is shared. And Iām not talking about superficial, transitory pleasures, although they certainly have their place. What I mean is the deep and lasting pleasure and satisfaction that comes from nurturing relationships, engaging in creative endeavours, learning about ourselves and our world, realising our abilities and strengths - these are the things worth treasuring, worth fighting for, the things that make life worth living.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I agree that āthere is an infinite amount of particlesā is unfounded. But Iām not talking about inferring to infinity ā infinity has nothing to do with inference. Induction has to do with the step from āthis x is aā to āall xās are aās.ā Induction, as regards God, would move from āthis thing is a thing God can doā to āall things are things God can do.ā Likewise with knowledge: āthis thing is a thing God knowsā to āall things are things God knows.ā
More basically, to inductively infer the existence of God is to observe certain things which God is the best explanation of. A choir of angels appearing in the sky might be explained naturalistically, but the existence of a (seemingly invisible) being of tremendous power is certainly a better explanation for such phenomenon. Youāre right, that it takes a few steps to get from there to the existence of God. But the properties of God can be conceived of a priori, and the empirical observations would fit neatly into such an a priori conception.
A similar process occurs when I infer that another person has consciousness, just like me. I cannot possibly observe this consciousness, so I have to infer it. From my experience of my life, I can abstract (a priori) the necessary non-subjective characteristics of a conscious being. Since the people around me seem to have these characteristics ā the phenomena that emanate from them look like phenomena that seem to emanate from me ā I infer that they have conscious experiences.
Oh, I couldnāt agree more. We donāt want to know *that *God; we want to know God. But the fact that such a relationship is possible certainly amounts to inductive evidence for Godās existence. (Similarly, the fact that I am having a conversation with you seems to speak in favor of your existence.)
Well, whenever you infer God, you infer His existence as an explanation of phenomena, just like the law of physics is an explanation of phenomena. Likewise, the existence of an actual cup of coffee in front of me is an explanation of my phenomenal experience right now. If a physical law is not a thing, then what is it? Iām not presuming to say that it is a thing, nor would I presume to say that God is a āthingā. But a physical law is as real as any object.
Is it infinite? I donāt know. The laws underlying nature seem to be more infinite than anything else we know; thatās for sure. For an x instance of a law of nature, you can expect an x+1 instance, and that is what induction means. When it comes to leaves on a tree, we have reason to believe that there will not be an x+1 instance, somewhere down the line. But do we ever have such an indication that, at some point in the next *n *years, our x+1 instance of observing a law of nature **wonāt **fit into our previous observations?
āKnowā and ācomprehendā are not synonyms. One can have a *justified true belief *in the laws of physics, but this does not entail that one comprehends the laws of physics. I can be justified in the belief that āGod can do anything logically possibleā without being able to give a full account of the set of all the things God can do.If thatās the case, then the agnostic position holds firm. You agree with us when we say that God canāt be known, correct? If you doā¦then what were we arguing about?
Now, if you want to talk in terms of priority of definition, however, I might agree with you. How can you know x, unless you know what x is ā that is, unless you *comprehend *x? Here, we are talking of the knowledge of essences, however, not the knowledge of propositions. When I say that āI know Godā, what I mean to say is that I am āfamiliar withā God and that I have a justified belief in God (whether the belief is true, of course, I cannot objectively speak to). I am not saying that I can in every circumstance describe God, nor that I can in every circumstance distinguish what-is-God from what-is-not-God.
The existence of an external world is awfully significant, wouldnāt you agree? And yet, the amount of evidence we can produce to support the āexternal world hypothesisā is very slim, if you remove all the evidence that is blatantly question-begging. Why doesnāt this extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence? (This, by the way, is the question I would ask David Hume, if he hadnāt up and died).
No one ever can verify that they know something, if thatās what youāre asking. We cannot talk about āknown entitiesā, with any real accuracy.
Alright, then: how do you know that He hasnāt already done this?
M
mangy_dog
Guest
In between the blah, blah you mentioned about Godās 4 main qualities not being infinite because of our perception (I paraphrase).Good thing you didnāt. Pascalās Wager isnāt only weak and extremely vague, itās irrelevant. It argues that believing in God is the most rational of two options (false dichotomy), but rationality has nothing to do with truth. At times, it might be rational for us to believe a lie because a person who is usually trustworthy said it. Again: rational belief =/= truth.
That depends on what you mean by āGod.ā As he is traditionally defined, God has at least three (and sometimes four) major omni- qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and sometimes omnibenevolence. Now, assuming that we can define āpotency,ā āknowledge,ā āpresence,ā and āloveā so that theyāre applicable to God, we would still be hard-pressed to prove that God has such qualities; in fact, I would say such a feat is impossible. Any display God could provide us would only be a finite sample of any given infinite quality, and as Iām sure you know, no amount of finite units will ever add up to infinity. Saying that God must be infinitely powerful because he performed miracles would be like saying there must be an infinite number of leaves in a forest because, frankly, we donāt have the time to count them. At most, we could say that God has a lot of power, but there is no ground for assuming he has infinite power. The same goes for the other omni- qualities.
If this standard of evidence is accepted, then we canāt prove there is an infinite amount of anything, so we wouldnāt be justified in believing in God. As you know, āknowledgeā is ātrue, justified belief.ā I donāt think there is a justification for belief in God, so I donāt think God or any other gods can be known.
Iāve never heard that. In fact, some on this very forum speak out against that line of thinking. They claim God created the laws of logic. Indeed, how can God be without bounds if he is bounded by logic? Donāt you think this presents a problem to Godās supposed omnipotence?
Again, we need justification.
How do we know they are miracles? I mean, how do we know that they canāt be explained in naturalistic terms? Could you offer examples? Make them recent and documented examples, if you could.
Right., but it sure makes those religions, including yours, look a lot like businesses competing with each other to sell similar products. And I do mean sell.
Correct. I was just pointing out why ID arguments are to be avoided.
I concede that the will is not related to bodily passions in its common usage. However, Iāve heard willpower spoken of plenty of times in the emotional sense, like āI willed my team to victory.ā Or perhaps even āI lost the will to live.ā
This is getting interesting, and Iāll think it over a bit. Could you give examples of actions we do āunemotionally?ā
It is impossible for a finite, created being to impirically ascertain Godās infinite qualities. This does not however preclude from understanding that God cannot have any limits. Only God gathers the qualifications for the job of God. That there are no other gods, is a moot point.
Once you think that God has a finite quality, youāve [disqualified] Him from the position of God.
Iām sure you have other discombobulated discertions in this thread but, to tell you the truthā¦Iāve suspended the reasoning to assent to His will.
You should try it some time.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
Sair
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
So you regard natural selection and random mutations as more powerful than intelligence?
I think we have progressed beyond that stage.
How do you think the capacities of the brain originated?
But natural selection alone does not account for an increase in complexity.
Social interaction in itself does not seem to explain how or why the power of abstract reasoning developed. It is a leap from the tangible to the intangible, from the particular to the universal, from the singular to the infiniteā¦ We take it for granted that we can grasp the concept of the universe but it is an incredible achievement for a minute dot in the vastness of space and time.
The fact remains that purposeless activity produces purposeful activity because, as you say, it is not directed by any external intelligence or towards an ultimate goal. Since the raw material is supplied by random mutations it must also be a process which is primarily fortuitous.
Its purposes are instinctive whereas ours are rational are not determined by physical events.
It is a logical possibility but no one has explained how consciousness emerged or the mechanism(s) by which it functions.
So the right to life is just a human convention which does not reflect the intrinsic value of being a person?
.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Donāt you value the existence and beauty of nature? Isnāt this planet valuable in its own right? Why should the value of everything depend on what human beings think? Do you believe, like Schopenhauer, that it would be better if life had never existed on this earth?
I think the motives are the same, e.g. to make others and oneself, happy but the context is different. The atheist is restricted to unfinished business!
The purpose of life for the theist is not diminished but increased because it is not terminated by death - which is often untimely and premature.
Freedom - without which life loses most of its value. It is the result of being able to choose what to think and how to live.
Natural disasters are the result of natural laws without which life could not exist.
The greatest human achievements are not concerned with survival or explained by domestication. Belief in life at all costs is not the highest ideal of man.
We can and do command them to alter and probably even destroy this planet eventually. We are superior to the entire universe because of our insight and awareness whereas it is blind and purposeless.
Fortuitous events are not associated with the power to bring order and organization out of chaos! The power of reason is required to reach the conclusion that everything - including the power of reason - is unreasonableā¦
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Iāll get to you soon, Prodigal. You might have noticed that I havenāt been around as muchā¦Iāll probably be taking a break from this forum soon.
These two problems result from one observation: It doesnāt make sense for Christians to say that God must be but then say that he can do anything. Why canāt he use his omnipotence to resign from his position by destroying said omnipotence? Why canāt God limit himself? Also, there are more basic dilemmas such as: Can God make a squared circle? Or a circular triangle? Can he make two plus two equal five?
Whenever I or anyone points out these problems, there are always those who say that weāve failed to understand what the Church means by āomnipotent.ā When I ask what the Church really means, I get no response. I wonder if itās ever occurred to these people that they, in fact, are the ones limiting God preemptively, and not us.
No, you didnāt paraphrase, you misinterpreted. I said that we canāt know God because we canāt perceive infinity.
Exactly.
Actually, it does. Infinite power simply doesnāt make sense. Can God create a rock so heavy that even he canāt lift it? If he canāt, heās limited. If he can, thereās something he canāt lift, so heās also limited. Can God destroy himself utterly? If he canāt, heās limited. If he can, heās limited because of his failure to regenerate after utter destruction.
These two problems result from one observation: It doesnāt make sense for Christians to say that God must be but then say that he can do anything. Why canāt he use his omnipotence to resign from his position by destroying said omnipotence? Why canāt God limit himself? Also, there are more basic dilemmas such as: Can God make a squared circle? Or a circular triangle? Can he make two plus two equal five?
Whenever I or anyone points out these problems, there are always those who say that weāve failed to understand what the Church means by āomnipotent.ā When I ask what the Church really means, I get no response. I wonder if itās ever occurred to these people that they, in fact, are the ones limiting God preemptively, and not us.
I donāt think I ever made that point.
Ironically, youāve used reason to conclude that it would be best to suspend reason to consent to Godās will. Needless to say, this seems like a contradictory process, if not self-refuting. You and your ilk are always quick to perform awkward maneuvers, usually to convert others or maintain an outdated edict from 2000 years ago, and then shed responsibility by claiming you are doing Godās work. Itās like a kid digging a hole in someoneās yard and then claiming that his parents told him to do it. Invariably, the mantra is that these people are only being humble by not taking responsibility for suchā¦errā¦ācharitableā actions, but sometimes the actions are not so charitable.
S
Sair
Guest
To the same extent that natural forces demonstrate themselves to be more powerful than human-made - actually it would be more correct to say human-directed - forces. I think you overestimate the capacity of human intelligence, certainly in its present form.
Again, I think you overestimate the capacity of our human intelligence. I donāt see much evidence that we have, as a species, progressed much beyond interpreting the rest of the world exclusively on our own terms.I think we have progressed beyond that stage.
Why not? It has been shown to do so on a small timescale in laboratory experiments involving bacteria. Given a multibillion-year timescale, is it so hard to suppose that animals as complex as naked apes arose through natural processes?
One of the theories for the development of human intellect is that it arose out of the necessity of negotiating social relationships. If you study monkeys or apes, who physically lack the capacity for vocal language as we use it, you can see that their societies are still very political. The more complex the brain structure, the more nuanced the behaviour - and thus the more complex the mental capacity required to interpret it. Thus complexity begets increased complexity. At some point in this developmental process, we would have become capable of conceptualising others as beings fundamentally similar to ourselves, not only physically, but psychologically. That is what empathy is all about.
I have never disparaged or devalued our ability to understand the natural world. I think youāll find that organised religion has the monopoly on that! However, there is a very wise saying that goes along the lines of - the more we know, the more we realise we donāt know. Understanding the universe also involves understanding our own limits.
Are you disagreeing with my argument here? Iām still not seeing any reason to suppose that purpose must arise from purpose.
Certainly we have the capacity to override certain of our instincts, but instinct is still a powerful driving force in human behaviour. We certainly donāt apply rational analysis to our every action. The fact that reason has been grafted onto our animal nature doesnāt make us any less animals.
Nor has anyone demonstrated precisely how or why consciousness can, much less must, exist independently of physical matter. I believe the subject is still open to debate!
Essentially, yes. The rights we accord to others are directly related to the rights we think we ought to have, or would like to have. Itās a form of the golden rule. The primary reason we can understand the concept of the āintrinsicā value of life is because we value our own lives and the lives of those close to us, and because we can reasonably suppose that other people do the same. Any threat to the rights of others implies a threat to our own rights, precisely because we can appreciate our fundamental likeness to other people. Consider the pains that were taken to classify slaves as āotherā than their masters; likewise, the efforts that are still made to define women as inferior to men in societies that oppress women. If a situation is convenient to the ruling class, every effort will be made to differentiate the ruling class from the oppressed, so as not to compromise the perceived ārightsā of the rulers by continuing to deny the rights of the oppressed. So, yes - rights and values remain subjective concepts for humans. You might also consider, in this light, the rabid efforts of the religious right to deny significant numbers of fellow humans the comforts of married love, simply because they are homosexualā¦
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
It is not simply because they are homosexual, as if to say that its merely a matter of taste. It is rather because homosexuality is opposed to their true nature; ie, the fact that they are a man and a women. That it is a disorder of what they really are, and opposes the fulfillment of what they are, is the only reason why religious people oppose it. Religious people oppose homosexuality as much as they oppose a mans desires to have sex with animals or a tree. These things are disorders of our sexuality.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
It is not simply because they are homosexual, as if to say that its merely a matter of taste. It is rather because homosexuality is opposed to their true nature; ie, the fact that they are a man and a women. That it is a disorder of what they really are, and opposes the fulfillment of what they are, is the only reason why religious people oppose it. Religious people oppose homosexuality as much as they oppose a mans desires to have sex with animals or a tree. These things are disorders of our sexuality.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
And we instinctively believe we should have those rights because of the nature of our being persons rather then just objects. Its because of our experience as āpersonsā that we develop a sense of moral truth, because there are things in life that truly offends and oppresses the nature that is a person. As persons we attempt to seek that which fulfills our nature as people because thatās what the nature of being a person compels us to do. Thus we gain an instinctive or intuitive sense of the greater good, as a result of having the nature of being personal. This is not just a matter of opinion. Its an objective fact of our being personal that leads to the unhappiness of being treated like object. Thus in being personal we understand that our value is greater then that which is an object. The fact that we can oppose that which fulfills our nature as people, leads to our awareness of right and wrong and that there is that which fulfills our nature as people, rather then just objects. And thus we experience the feeling of guilt when we gain knowledge of the fact that we have undermined the value of a person and the greater good in treating them as mere objects of our desire.
The experience of Guilt, that there is such thing, only makes sense in terms of objective moral values. Given this fact, it makes me wonder why sombody would attempt to oppose objective values.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Objectively speaking, why would physical reality alone feel it necessary to develop human intellect in order to negotiator social relationships? This is a purposeful response that presupposes knowledge of a particular problem. Sounds like a teleological argument to me, and teleology is not suppose to be the subject of empirical science.
S
Sair
Guest
Perhaps I didnāt make the point clear enough.
Homosexuality is not a matter of choice or taste, for the majority of homosexual people. It is part of their nature, and itās also a characteristic that many religious folk latch onto in order to deny homosexual people certain basic needs and, yes, rights, as we understand them.
Allow me to elaborate. Given everything Iāve been saying previously about the evolution and domestication of humans to point where we are no longer bound by the ālaws of the jungleā in the sense of our basic survival, it doesnāt behove the churches to classify human sexuality in terms of a single biological function, and say that if you canāt fulfil that function, you canāt have anything else that goes along with married love. Moreover, it doesnāt make sense to condemn nonprocreative sex in a world that contains nearly 7 billion of our species.
Human sexuality, at its best, is a powerful expression of love, and all of us, whether we acknowledge it or not, need love for and from others in order to be fully alive. To say that a certain portion of our fellow humans donāt deserve to fully express their love because they are ādisorderedā is exactly what Iām talking about - itās using their difference in one respect to deny them a need they have in common with everyone.
S
Sair
Guest
I certainly do value the existence and beauty of nature, but I am the one doing the valuing, because of my subjective experience. Others of our kind only value the natural world as something to be exploited for personal gain, so itās doubtful whether they get that whole beauty thingā¦nor indeed do they recognise that other sentient creatures besides humans need the natural world for their own survival.
The value of everything doesnāt depend just upon what humans think, because values are related to needs and desires. Humans have the ability to infer that others have the same needs and desires as ourselves, so we can understand why others would value - or at least need - certain things, even if we ourselves donāt. Moreover, deriving a value from a need requires a consciousness of the need, not just an instinctive fulfilment of it. Sometimes we only realise how much we value certain things when we no longer have them.
As to it being better if life had never existed - well, in order for it to be better, it has to be better for someone or something. If life had never existed, there would be no suffering, but there would also be no sentience around to appreciate the lack of suffering. I can certainly see how it would be better for many other species if humans had never existedā¦
What you speak of as unfinished business, I assume, refers to the perceived injustice of cutting short a life in its prime, or perhaps the failure of human institutions to administer justice in this life. Certainly itās comforting to think that injustices will be corrected in our ānext lifeā - but why do we not do more to correct them in this life? I do wonder how belief in an afterlife affects peopleās behaviour. I think this is also why Marx called religion the āopium of the massesā - because belief in attaining everlasting paradise makes people more accepting of hardship in this life.
I think, with regard to unfinished business, there are many ways that the purpose of our lives can continue after our death, even if we have no immortal souls to carry on our own consciousness. Work that we do in our lives can be taken up by those who come after us, whose ideals we helped to shape; ideals will persist longer than the lives of people who held them.
So, in short, I donāt think the absence of an afterlife, as such, stips our lives of purpose.
Yes, freedom certainly is a double-edged sword, isnāt it? Nevertheless, I still think you are inferring conscious intent from unconscious forces.
Command and use are different things. We use the laws of physics to our advantage, but the ways we use them are bound by the limitations imposed by those very laws.
Your second phrase is problematic, to say nothing of mightily arrogant. Firstly, not all humans have a great capacity for insight and awareness - does that make those who do have these things āsuperiorā to those who donāt? In understanding, yes - in other ways, perhaps not. Secondly, you are intrinsically claiming that there is a higher consciousness responsible for our existence - otherwise it makes no sense to say that we are superior to the natural forces that gave rise to our existence and awareness, and which retain the power to destroy us. I always think āsuperiorā is a word that should be used with great caution, because it is very context-specific.
What āfortuitous eventsā do you mean? Weāve already covered the non-randomness of evolutionary selection. It is an explicable process, not just a series of chance occurrences. And if indeed reason is required to understand what you term the āunreasonablenessā - certainly the lack of conscious direction - of natural phenomena, then perhaps we could say the universe has come full circle?
- Status