More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 12:54 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

Chimps /'r’/ not us
Discussion switched to “Giraffe plumbing”.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

“Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food. Full control clashes with your belief that he had no choice other than a life system he could not control. If you mean full control of evolution, you offer the absurdity of his having one goal which he deliberately did not fulfil until he’d designed countless life forms that had no connection with his goal. The history therefore invalidates the goal you impose on him. Logical “in his own way” means nothing when you say his logic is like ours and you can’t find any logic in your own theory. I’m not sure what you mean by “loving?”. Awareness is not the same as caring, but since you say he tries to correct the errors he didn’t want, I’ll take this as meaning that he does care for and love us, which is touchingly human of him.

DAVID: Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you.

dhw: I offer different views, which are no more “supposed” and “invented” and “humanized” than yours, but have the great advantage of logically explaining the course of evolution, as you admit.

DAVID: Same twist: I only admit your form of a humanized God makes your theories about evolution logical for you.

You have agreed that my different suggestions are also logical for you – it is the human thought patterns you object to, although you agree that he and we probably/possibly share thought patterns, and we “mimic” him and have the same logic.

DAVID: My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

dhw: We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

DAVID: Doesn't answer my point. The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.

The goal in all these would be enjoyment of and interest in the creation of life outside himself. That explains the ever-changing history of life on earth. Experimentation and/or new ideas are alternatives to explain the specialness of humans while at the same time explaining all the other life forms that had no connection with humans.

Secret life of cells
QUOTE: Because these tools can reveal structures that have never been seen before, researchers are often left with new mysteries to solve.

DAVID: It makes sense of my view that life's processes are entirely automatic reactions and decisions, designed by God at life's first appearance.

dhw: […] I wonder what reception you would get if you gave a lecture on the subject to your scientist colleagues.

DAVID: Agreement.

I can just see the announcement in yesterday’s newspapers: “Top scientists, meeting in Hempstead, Texas, have agreed unanimously that every evolutionary innovation, and every decision taken by every immune system in every human, was preprogrammed by God 3.8 billion years ago.”
And the announcement in today’s newspapers: “Sorry, folks. Mr. Turrell has just woken up.”

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: I've discussed these problems before. The human female pelvis is far from ape-like to accommodate big brain birth and upright posture. How did this develop in a chance evolutionary scenario? Not likely. There are several players involved: Mom, Pop and baby DNA all adjusting on their own, unless a designer is at work.

Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum