More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 16:19 (782 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

DAVID: You are so confused. The entire cosmology physicists group accepts Guth's theorem. It really poses a something from nothing beginning to this universe. So that brings immaterial God into the picture, and you cringe. My disagreement with Guth is Guth doesn't decide on any cause after proving his theorem and I accept God did it.

dhw: Yes, your account of this theory has made me very confused. But I am not cringing; I am pointing out that your first-cause God is not nothing, and a first cause cosmos of ever changing energy and materials is not nothing. If Guth doesn’t consider causes, then he is dismissing both of these first-cause theories and is indeed claiming that there was nothing before the BB. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe that “the entire cosmology physicists group” accept that Guth has “proved” that something can come from nothing, i.e. there is no God, and there is no possibility of materials and energy pre-existing and causing the BB. But I can understand perfectly well the logic of the statement that there could not have been eternal past inflation, and so our inflating universe must have had a finite beginning. (Please remember the possibility that there may have been universes prior to ours, or ours may be part of what I called a "cosmos" - which might contain multiverses.)

Guth presents something from nothing with no cause given. That is the whole point. The end.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.

dhw: You don’t need to use the superficial word “entertainment”. If he watches us with interest, is it not logical to propose that he might have created life because he wanted something interesting to watch?

God does not need something interesting to watch. You just humanized Him again.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

dhw: Thank you. I’ve cut the rest of this entry because I could hardly have put the sequence more clearly myself. Conditions changed, and then came the new species “to fit”. So you now agree that new species were not created in advance/anticipation of new conditions, they came as a response to new conditions.

DAVID: God does not create following your imagination of a human God. New species were added logically when oxygen levels allowed. Each step in logical order. High oxygen must exist for complex organisms to be designed.

dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged your silly “humanizing” into this. The whole point here is that at long last you are agreeing that even in your own theory, new species could not exist until oxygen levels “allowed” their existence. Therefore species are not created in anticipation of changing conditions, but in response to them.

It works as you describe for a major explosion as the Cambrian. Those complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first. And semi-aquatic mammals must develop flippers at some point to reach full aquatic lifestyle. We disagree on the cause of the changes.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum