This is a response to one of my old posts from Steven Carr, that appeared on the Infidels forum. I just found it recently. I'm going to let some other people take a crack at this one.
This is where it is on Infidels: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-126163.html
In http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/05/argument-from-computers.html Victor Reppert writes :-
'The intentionality found in the computer is derived intentionality, not original intentionality.'
A long, long time ago people thought there was something special about organic chemicals, until the first organic chemical was synthesised by a human.
Victor's blog strikes me very much like somebody claiming that there was still somthing special about organic chemicals, as the organic chemical was created by a human , and so derived, not original.
Victor's point is true, but irrelevant surely.
The point is that a purely material thing can manipulate very abstract non-material things (software classes, pointers, variables etc).
If God wanted to create us as purely material creatures, but still with intentionality, then He could do so.
Perhaps Victor would be right and our intentionality would be 'derived', rather than 'original', but that does not refute a claim that God had created us as purely material things, just the same as *we* can create purely material things that can manipulate non-material objects.
So the existence of computers refutes a claim that God cannot create purely material human beings.
If Victor wants to prove that God cannot create a purely material human being , then he needs another argument to the ones he is using.