Bacteria, God & Double Standards (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 07, 2015, 21:30 (3425 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that we CAN only study mechanical responses, because thought processes in all organisms including ourselves and your dog can - at least for the time being - only be deduced from their results (e.g behaviour). And I keep pointing out ad nauseam that if two postulates are equally likely, i.e. that intelligent behaviour might or might not be caused by intelligence, it would be logical to keep an open mind rather than dismissing one of them as “absolutely wrong”. (I am not asking you to believe it.)
> 
> You have repeated my own argument that “we can never enter the “mind” of a bacterium (if it has a mind)”, just as we can never know if God exists unless he reveals himself unmistakably. Absolute proof in both contexts is impossible. I respect - though I do not share - your opinion that the God postulate is more likely, but once again I remain totally baffled by your dismissing as “absolutely wrong” a postulate which you agree is just as likely as your own. I wonder how you would respond to someone who says God's existence and non-existence are equally likely, but theists are “absolutely wrong”.-Good arguments, but since the odds are on the surface 50/50 I have a right to take a firm choice and choose one for strong belief, which I have done. Call it faith if you will. One other point I keep repeating is the fact that our bodies are made up of trillions of little machine cells that work and respond perfectly on their own to all sorts of stimuli so we can live, if lucky, to eight score and ten plus, very automatically. Our cells are an exact reproduction of the single-celled organisms we evolved from. Therefore the single cells are also automatons. Remember it is DNA all the way down (!) to paraphrase Hawkins' funny tale.