More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 09:05 (779 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

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

dhw: The whole point is that we both disagree that something can come from nothing, and so we both agree that Guth’s theory, as you have presented it, fails to “prove” that there was no before the BB. The end, I hope.

DAVID: We theists applaud Guth. His theorem strongly suggests God.

So according to you theists, Guth proved that there was nothing before the Big Bang, but that suggests that God existed before the Big Bang, and so God is nothing. And you even believe that nothing might have created universes before ours – a possibility which would also apparently prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

NB I am not attacking Guth, because I only know what you have told me about his theory. You said yourself that you didn’t understand it. All I understand is the point that past inflation could not have been eternal, and therefore our inflating universe must have had a beginning. That makes sense to me. I wish you would leave it at that.

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?

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

dhw: I used the word “want”, not “need”, and watching with interest is also human, and there is nothing wrong with your own proposal that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we may mimic him in many ways.

DAVID: Wants implies needs.

I want (not need) to live to be a hundred and be happy. I need food and drink to survive. Meanwhile, why is “watching with interest” not humanizing, and why don’t you answer the bolded question, and why do you keep ignoring your belief that your God probably “has thought patterns” etc.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: 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.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

Late addition:
Teaching a goldfish to drive

QUOTE: "Animal brains are flexible enough to adapt to new situations, a fundamental characteristic of all brains, neuroscientists say.

dhw: Thank you for yet another example of the autonomous intelligence of our fellow creatures.

DAVID: this shows that current brains of all animals can learn new physical tricks.

dhw: And it shows us that they are “flexible enough to adapt to new situations”, just like ours!

DAVID: But this not the prefrontal cortex of new sapiens brains 315,000 years ago.

dhw: Who said it was? You now proceed to repeat all the subjects already discussed ad nauseam on the “cellular intelligence" thread. There is no point in repeating my replies.

DAVID: Fine. Our sapiens brain prepared for our current use, didn't it?

I don’t know what you mean by “prepared”. All brains have evolved to be used “currently”!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum