Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 23, 2018, 13:31 (87 days ago) @ GateKeeper

dhw: “The choice is between a conscious first cause (your God) and a non-conscious first cause (an impersonal universe).” You think your God “has produced many universes over eternity”, but if I suggest there may have been many universes over eternity, you say we have no evidence. True. And the evidence we have is of a “possible” origin of this universe, but even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded the big bang. You say a conscious first cause. Maybe. And maybe an unconscious first cause.

DAVID: The complexity implies there must have been a conscious planning designer. Unconscious cannot design.

dhw: First cause unconsciousness somehow evolving consciousness is just as logical or illogical or believable or unbelievable as first cause consciousness somehow just being there, but they are both first causes.


Agreed, and you can't pick one.

GK: yup. People that force us to pick one or the other are the problem. The answer is clearly, a definitely, maybe, either or both. ;-)


David; Let's start with the premise that there is/was a 'first cause', not its type. Will you accept that much?


GK: for me, the first cause is an unknown. any conclusion on 'first cause", being "something" or "nothing" is a line of logic based on "nobody knows". It's a flawed conclusion and does nothing for the best descriptors he can have on how the universe works.

we are here now and we can safely assume we came from the universe. The best if/then statement I can come up with is "if we classify humans as alive and the universe is more complex, then how do we classify it?" non-life? really?


In what way do you suggest that the Universe is more complex than life? (Seriously, no sarcasm, I am just trying to wrap my head around what you actually believe, and sometimes language gets in the way.) At scale, how is it any more complex than solar-system sized Atoms?


GK: yeah, sorry 'bout the writing. I write as if I am talking I guess.

Lets start off with the basics. How can humans be more complex than the biosphere?


I am going to assume, for a moment, that you are using the default dictionary definition of biosphere. Unfortunately, I still have to answer your question with a question. The definition of biosphere excludes living organisms, being the region in which organisms live. So, I must ask if you are including or excluding other organic life when you use the term biosphere.


GK Standard definition. Humans are part of the biosphere.

"including inorganic parts" gets tricky. I need water, oxygen, and photons. They are inorganic. that just upped the complexity another step.

But I guess, for now, we can isolate the system, for ease of communication and understanding, to just the biosphere.

Ok. Well, water, o2, and photons are all non-organic, so of course they are included. So, the follow up question is how do you get from inorganic(relatively simple) to simplest organic(Highly complex), without adding more information? And if you do add more information, where does it originate?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum