Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Monday, December 21, 2020, 12:04 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

dhw: You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them.

DAVID: Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.”

dhw: And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you have still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

dhw: It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

dhw: Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me.

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

“Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: […] As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

DAVID (wrongly attributed to dhw): They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer, and the age of the Milky Way and the fact that it took time is not the most illuminating of comments.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum