More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 16:14 (761 days ago) @ dhw

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.

dhw: I have done no such thing. I have offered you four separate theistic theories to explain the history of evolution as we know it. ONE of them was your God experimenting, and you categorically rejected the idea because you just happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes” – just as you happen to know all his other non-wants and non-needs. But here you have recognized that your God “might try out different approaches to different designs”. If it is possible that he would do so, then I suggest that it is possible that he would do so.

I'll stick with the above possibility, not that God must experiment as is your approach. You have constantly stuck with God experimenting, and I see God as knowing all His goals in advance and how to achieve them.

dhw: I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

DAVID: Since I accept God's actions, I see no reason to explain His reasons which I cannot know. It is your problem, and your sole need, not mine. That is why I logically told you to ask God.

dhw: It is not your God’s actions that you accept! You accept your own theory that he individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so as preparation for humans, although the vast majority had no connection with humans. The fact that you can’t explain the logic behind such a combination of theories might perhaps suggest that there is something wrong with it, but you have closed your mind.

History is God's doing, so of course I accept all events in past evolution are God's work and we humans are God's endpoint. Pure Adler approach. Your objection is totally illogical.

Our mind must come from mind


DAVID: […] its simplest conclusion is if we have working minds they were sourced from a working mind. This is an argument from a philosophic view and not a theological one. For completeness review the entire article.

dhw: Thanks, but no thanks. This is a very long-winded way of telling us what ID has been telling us for years, and what you and I have agreed on throughout our 14 years of discussion: the complexities are such that they can only have been designed, and if something is designed, there must be a designer. Then, however, comes the problem of who or what designed the designer, and was the intelligence top down (God the creator), or bottom up (rudimentary forms of panpsychic intelligence gradually evolving into more and more sophisticated forms)? In other words, what was the first cause?

And I simply pose an eternal mind. Required no designer. There must be something to begin it all. Top down makes lots more sense than bottom up from an amorphous mind called panpsychism, actually a recognition that a mind at work is necessary!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum