Natures wonders: seabirds food finding flight patterns (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, April 20, 2020, 14:52 (1676 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “It might well be” has now changed to “I strongly doubt”. Perhaps you hadn’t realized that trial and error was an admission of intelligence. So the next step is to change your opinion and then to point out that we don’t know the origin of strategies that are now instinctive.

DAVID: You are quite correct. At times I don't think as deeply as i should.

Thank you for your honesty. We are all in the same boat! However, this is the point of the forum. We offer ideas for the scrutiny of others.

DAVID: Trial and error does imply intellectual analysis of experience. I don't think the birds are capable of that. You insist upon intelligence everywhere, when it may be an appearance of intelligence, and nothing more, as in cellular functions.

I do not expect you to abandon your fixed beliefs, but I do expect a fair hearing for alternatives. When you agree that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong, I am content. But the next minute you insist that you are 100% right, as in statements such as “This is not a sign of bird intelligence.”

dhw: You state unequivocally that your all-powerful God designed the bad viruses, and he did so in order to test us. How do you know either of these claims, and why would he want to test us? Nothing to do with atheism.

DAVID: Difference in interpretation as usual. My view is God knew bad viruses would appear as a result of His evolutionary process, and our big brain would provide ways to solve the problems that might arise. 'Decided to test us' is your view of what I have just written.

No it isn’t. On 14 April I wrote that I remembered you telling us that “he designed these things to test us” but since you had written that he “allowed” such things to evolve, I assumed you wouldn’t say so now. You replied “Yes, I would. Your memory of my thought about these disease challenges is correct.” And you keep saying he gave us our brains to solve the problems. When pressed, you have also conceded that he directly designed the bad viruses – as opposed to he knew they would appear.

dhw: Here’s another theory for you: God set up all the mechanisms for life and for evolution of life, and then let those mechanisms do their own thing. No “humanizing” at all here, so you’ll have to abandon that escape route, and no intellectual knot-tying trying to find a reason why he specially designed the baddies. Can you find any logical weakness in it when you compare it to the actual history of life?

DAVID: Our views of God differ widely, no surprise. Now you've reintroduce your loosey-goosey God who gives up total control. My God is too purposeful to give up total control. Both God's fit history. You are correct, not a humanizing issue at this level of discussion. Your humanizing occurs when you apply human motives to God.

So tell us why your God wants to test us. As for the silly idea of “loosey-goosey” (as if God would not be God if he created autonomous organisms) see the comments on free will under “David’s theory of evolution”
.
DAVID: You see God's actions as creating errors. I see it as God recognizing potential problems for us in how He developed evolution, so we are given a giant brain to solve issues. Why didn't the 'all-powerful God' you constantly refer to, just give us a cushy problem-free existence? Apparently not His plan. Would a non-challenged life be really enjoyable, or shouldn't we struggle a bit to have the enjoyment of discovery and reaching solutions?

I don’t have a problem with your God deliberately creating “errors” – your word, not mine - in order to see how we cope (remember, you think he’s watching us with interest). He may also have set problems for other life forms with lesser brains to solve – hence the struggle for survival as environments have changed and species came and went for thousands of millions of years before humans came on the scene. I agree with you: a cushy, problem-free existence of puppets on strings would be deadly boring for us, and also deadly boring for a watching puppet-maker even before we arrived on the scene.