re: #192 Political Atheist

I think you discount the science behind the mans ideas. This was presented as fact, but as a possibility based on certain hints that science, not religion, not entertainment has certainly uncovered and proven. Nothing was misrepresented. You might find the show itself to be a better indicator. That would include the interviews with the science people.

In any case the idea serves well to show us that the chance of a far larger more powerful entity in the universe existing should not be limited to or by religion, it’s texts or spokespeople. Pointing out the flaws in a work of man to judge the likelihood of the existence of god is severely misplaced.

I don’t ‘discount the science behind the mans ideas’, I discount that the discussion of a thinking universe IS science. It is not.

Here’s the description of one episode:

When Does Life Begin?: June 5 at 10PM

We can all trace our lives back to a beginning. But what defines the beginning? Is it the moment when two cells unite? Or does something have to know it is alive before its life can begin? It is a debate scientists and religious leaders have been battling over for centuries, but with the birth of new technology, scientists have been able to probe the question deeper and deeper. There is groundbreaking evidence showing that inside all of us are traces of cells from our relatives, blurring the lines between the beginning of one life and the end of another. Some scientists believe life doesn’t truly begin until we are conscious. But when does consciousness begin? One child psychologist’s experiments suggest true consciousness may not begin until the age of five once children become aware of how the world perceives them. Does life begin after we are able to walk and talk? The argument extends beyond human life. Technology is giving birth to new life forms made of nonliving things. One computational neuroscientist is building brains for robots. Can a machine become alive if it can think, feel, and move on its own? Perhaps the only way to know when life begins is by going back to the beginning of life on earth 4 billion years ago. How did non-living chemicals first become alive? And could Earth still give birth to a new life-form: one comprised of all of humanity in a globally connected network.

Just because there are scientific facts and ideas in the discussion does not make the discussion ‘science’, nor is the topic necessarily ‘science’.

I think you discount the science behind the mans ideas

What man? Are you saying the ideas are those of Morgan Freeman?