Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 27, 2021, 14:37 (32 days ago) @ dhw

Insect smell receptors

DAVID: As above all we can know is that they act as if intelligent. You can't argue past that.

dhw: An atheist can therefore say that all organisms look as if they are designed and you can’t argue past that. All our theories are based on extrapolations from what we know, but they remain theories. God the designer is one theoretical explanation for the appearance of evolutionary design; cellular intelligence is one theoretical explanation for the fact that cells appear intelligent; and cellular intelligence is one theoretical explanation for the appearance of evolutionary design, to which may be added one theoretical explanation for cellular intelligence: namely, God the designer. We constantly theorize “past” what we know.

Fair enough


Plant cell regulators

DAVID: My theory is not disconnected through accepting God's works. [...]

dhw: In the context of life’s evolution, God’s works - if he exists - consist of every form of life that ever existed (no matter how they were all produced). And so you accept every form of life that ever existed! Your theory is that every form of life was specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their lunch, although 99% of them had no connection with humans or their lunch. Please stop conflating your God’s works with your theory about why and how he produced them.

Stop giving us your tunnel-visioned God. The giant bush of life, produced by God was necessary to fill out His plans for evolution. The bold fits.


Cosmic filaments spin
DAVID: You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection to your belief that he designed the universe. In that context, it is his existence that is the BIG question. But if he does exist, I object to your belief that he would have designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct and millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct solely in order to design H. sapiens plus lunch.

DAVID: God is my belief as to why we are here. How do you explain us?

dhw: I have no objection to your belief that, if God exists, he designed the system that produced us and every other life form that ever lived. In one of my alternative theistic explanations, I even allow for us being his goal: experimentation would explain the great variety of unconnected life forms that preceded us. Another theistic explanation is that the idea of a being like himself came to him later on in life's history. A third theistic explanation is that he set in motion a free-for-all that began with the comparatively rudimentary form of intelligence of single cell organisms and, over thousands of millions of years, evolved through that intelligence into increasingly complex and intelligent organisms, culminating in ourselves. Three theistic explanations (regardless of atheistic explanations) for you, which you have heard over and over again, and which you agree are all perfectly logical.

Logical only for a weak humanized God: has to experiment, no initial goals, no control over goals (free-for-all), as I've explained before, and you always avoid mentioning. Do not distort my position about hour God.


dhw (under “Jupiter and Saturn have fevers”): You agree that all these alternative explanations are logical, but prefer to cling to your fixed set of incompatible beliefs.

DAVID: The bold is always your escape valve. I have agreed your theories are logical only if applied to your humanized God. Obviously you position is so weak, you must leave out that part of my thinking.

dhw: I have never left out this silly objection. You have agreed in the past that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions similar to ours, and you confirmed this only last week: “I am sure we mimic him in many ways as your statement shows, but just how much is unknown.” So you humanize him as a control freak who is single-minded, has one purpose, knows how to achieve it, plans it all advance, and always has good intentions. You even compare yourself to him through your experience of designing things. See also the thread on “A possible God….”

You can't make my God 'human' by calling Him a 'control freak' a small percentage of humans, when God is anything but human. The god you describe is unsure of Himself, not in any sense God-like.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum