More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Thursday, November 04, 2021, 07:40 (206 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance.

dhw: Since we are the last species to appear so far, the term is far less problematical than "goal", because it is not necessarily synonymous with purpose. So let’s make it nice and clear, shall we? You wish to drop the term "goal". Are you now saying that you no longer believe that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, and you no longer believe that every single life form and food which had no connection with humans was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food? This will at last rid us of the mantra which has caused so much repetitive discussion.

DAVID: The red part which you wish me to discard will not be discarded. I've changed the word goal to endpoint of God's evolution, and remain with my initial interpretation of God's actions. We are here only because God wanted us here, and He chose, for His own reasons, to evolve us from bacteria. All clearly and logically demonstrated from the history God created.

dhw: But what is not clearly and logically demonstrated from life’s history is why, if your God’s one and only goal was to design us and our food, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food! As you will certainly go on ignoring this question (because you have no idea how to answer it), let me just ask you why you wish to change “goal” to “endpoint”.

DAVID: Because my answer to your constant illogical question is God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own reasons, unknown to us…

And according to you he also chose to evolve countless other life forms that had no connection with us, and again you have no idea why.

DAVID: ….and 'endpoint' fits that thought better than goal. 'Goal' implies achieving something over time as if it might be difficult to achieve. God's endpoint implies He knew how to get there all along, but chose stepwise for His own reasons.

Goal means purpose (e.g. your God started out with the aim of producing humans). Endpoint means completion. It could refer to the fulfilment of a purpose, or it could mean simply the end of any kind of process (e.g. you think humans are the last species that evolution will produce after its higgledy-piggledy history). Both could take a long time or a short time, be difficult or not difficult, entail knowing or not knowing how to get there, and both could entail steps along the way. By refusing to discard the red, you have made it clear that you only mean “goal”, so all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: Faith in science finding answers is OK for me. I'll alter theory with new discoveries.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with science finding answers! I am simply pointing out that both you and Dawkins have come up with diametrically opposite, unproven conclusions, and you both dismiss any alternatives because your minds are closed.

DAVID: I've viewed all alternatives and chosen what I think are reasonable. […]

dhw:. […] And that is why I find both of you equally blinkered, since you both adhere to unproven theories and sneer at each other for adhering to unproven theories.

DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.

QUOTES: "But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists.”

The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.”

DAVID: the brain behavioral algorithms require then input of specific information. How was that provided by natural evolution? Not by Darwin style chance mutations.

Just like you, the authors simply ignore the theory that all of these wonderful feats originated through the intelligence of tiny brains working out how best to cope with the world around them. (And the theory does not preclude the existence of a God who gave them their intelligence.)

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum