Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Thursday, July 22, 2021, 13:48 (182 days ago) @ David Turell

Humans correcting errors
DAVID: My view of God's powers is not far-fetched. I firmly accept that God designs the complexity of living biochemistry.

dhw: The above does not dispute the reasonableness of your belief that your God designed the complexity of living biochemistry. It challenges the reasonableness of believing that he popped in zillions of times to individually design every new life form etc.[…]. Why do you insist on answering a question by changing its terms?

DAVID: You, as a non-believer, question my beliefs. We differ, so we discuss.

My agnosticism is irrelevant. I accept the reasonableness of your design argument, and I question the logic behind your belief that humans were his only purpose, and therefore he designed billions of years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Why do you think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each solution as each new problem arose?

DAVID: Cells cannot design for the future. The immune cells can analyze a present problems b ecaue their instructions tell them how.

Firstly, in my theory cells do not design for the future. They respond to new requirements. You always forget that existing responses are passed on, but they must have been new at one time. This is exemplified by the immune system, which “analyzes” new problems in order to find the answers. I find it hard to accept your belief that your God pops in with new instructions to counter every new problem. (Have you permanently dropped the idea that he provided the first cells with a list of instructions 3.8 billion years ago to cover every problem for the rest of time?)

New life evolves earth’s climate

dhw: […] no one would deny that the earth itself has evolved. One might ask why an all-powerful God who is in total control couldn’t come up straight away with conditions that were needed for his one and only goal – humans and their lunch – but that will only lead us round in the same circles: we mustn’t query the logic of your theories.

DAVID: Keep it simple. God, who can do anything, chose to evolve us by design.

When you say “keep it simple”, you mean we should ignore the rest of your theory: that we were his only purpose, and therefore he “evolved” everything that had no connection with us.

Does dark matter exist?
DAVID: It seems like we need a new paradigm about dark matter. I am no judge as to which theory might be correct.

I find the whole debate very difficult to follow. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” simply refer to matter and energy that we know absolutely nothing about. Does it exist? Nobody knows. If they find out what it is, they will give it a name. It’s not dissimilar to the mystery of something we call God.

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:

Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design
QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.
...agnostics & atheists leaving

Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum