A possible God's possible purpose and nature (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 10:15 (377 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still no real response to my point. The purpose of ever-complex stages of organisms from a bacterial start is to finally design fully thinking humans. Individual survival serves that real purpose, but makes no direct contribution to evolution as a process.

dhw: So God only wanted to design humans plus lunch and therefore designed all the other organisms and their lunches, most of which had nothing to do with humans. And the fact that evolutionary adaptations and innovations enable organisms to survive, and lead to new species, shows us that survival makes no direct contribution to evolution.

DAVID: That summarized my belief.

So the process whereby the quest for survival leads to adaptations etc. which in turn lead to new species proves that the quest for survival makes no contribution to the evolution of new species. I don’t think this theory of yours is going to find many followers.

Transferred from Miscellany
dhw: Please tell us why you think [edited later] adaptation to new conditions, new methods of catching prey, defence strategies, dealing with disease etc. have no connection with survival, and why you are convinced that less efficient life forms are just as likely to survive as more efficient life forms.

DAVID: You are still confused about my view of survival as it relates to evolution. All organisms try to survive as you describe, and forms live or die by bad genes or bad luck with Raup supporting bad luck. Species die out for many reasons.

The subject is not the causes of extinction, though I propose that one of these is that a more efficient life form is likely to replace its less efficient antecedent. I have asked you why you think the less efficient form is just as likely to survive as its more efficient form. See above for your belief that adaptations, new methods etc., designed to improve chances of survival and leading to new species, have no connection with the evolution of new species.

Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently
DAVID: And Egnor who agrees with me, or me with him. 40% of physicians are believers.

dhw: So 60% aren’t, which makes it absurd for you to use your “fair evaluation” of science as a support for your minority views.

DAVID: When 90% of scientists are atheists, 40% of physicians is impressive, strongly influenced by the miracle of the human body.

But it doesn’t exactly confirm that your “fair” evaluation of science makes the other 90% of opposing evaluations unfair.

DAVID: Most of your beliefs fit atheism , as I view them. I know your belief problems include NDE's.

dhw: Then you have no idea what agnosticism is all about. I do not have beliefs as regards God’s existence or nature or purpose. I offer different theories. I find those concerning a first cause equally unsatisfactory. As regards NDEs, they are not the only psychic experiences people can have. There is a wide range, and even allowing for fraud and for self-deception, I take some of them extremely seriously.

DAVID: Thank you for further explanation of your agnosticism.

I hope this will mark the end of your assertions that any theistic theory contrary to your own is atheistic.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum