More "miscellany" PART ONE (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 22, 2022, 11:29 (492 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Try this: God created/designed our reality for His own reasons. Therefore, everything that appeared He did, and if He did it, He thought it was a required item for His purposes. Why design the superfluous not needed???

dhw: If he exists, of course he had his own reasons for designing our reality. However, it does not follow that he individually designed everything that appeared. Every individual human is unique, but even you would not claim that each of us has been individually designed by God!

DAVID: Of course, God does not design individual member of species!!! God designs species.

My point was what follows!
dhw: So clearly what he designed (if he exists) was the MECHANISM which produces each of us. The same may apply to all life forms and their ecosystems, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. Namely, that he produced the mechanisms which in turn produced them. Yes, whatever he created would have been required for his purposes (I note your plural) – but you allow him only one purpose: us and our food, and so your final question is precisely the question you cannot answer, which makes nonsense of your theories: YOU make him design the superfluous!!! Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Nothing in God's form of evolution is superfluous. You agree all is there for God's reasons. Humans and food are two purposes. God uses evolution for all of His creative processes. Once again you make God look stupid for using evolution.

If God exists, we agree that he has used evolution for his purposes! For the umpteenth time, what other purposes are you talking about for his “creative processes”? It is YOU who make him look stupid for deliberately designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him (sapiens plus food)!

Evolution: problems for Darwin

DAVID: Please remember, my understanding of Him is that I accept all His works as His, for His own reasons and He knows logically what He has to do to reach his goals.

dhw: You always dodge into generalizations which apply to ALL our theories! Of course his works are his, he has his reasons, and he knows logically what he has to do to reach his (plural) goals. But that does not mean he had just one goal (us and our food) and therefore he individually designed countless life forms etc that had nothing to do with his (singular) goal, and he had his reasons for doing so! Once again, your comments are equally applicable to all my alternative theories, which at least have the merit of explaining the dead ends which you cannot explain. Please stop this endless dodging!

DAVID: It is not a dodge to note all forms of evolution necessarily have dead ends. The countless forms are our food supply.
And under “How fungus attacks frogs”
DAVID: Your invented bogyman of dead ends is irrational. All evolution forms have necessary dead ends.

Why ”invented”, since you agree that there are dead ends? There is only one form of evolution we are concerned with – that of life. If your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and if as you say he is in full control and knew from the very beginning exactly how to produce us and our food, why in heaven’s name would he then proceed to design the dead ends, which are those countless form of life and food that had no connection with us and our food? You admit you don’t know, and yet still you continue to dodge.

How roots find water

dhw: I have agreed that “design is required”, but I don’t know what you mean by “spontaneous mutations”. I propose that plants, just like animals, are composed of intelligent cells. They don’t “wait” for changes. They try to find solutions to new problems. Many will fail and die (hence all levels of extinction), but some are clever enough to design their way out of trouble. An “enormous amount of time” is relative. Even your God – who should have found it all easy-peasy since he designs all problems and all solutions – managed to drag out some of his designs over millions of years!

DAVID: Back to speciation by intelligent cells. The Nobel prize awaits.

dhw: Give it to Shapiro. Why don’t you consider the logic of the above arguments, instead of just sneering? […] since it explains what you cannot explain, and since even you grant that it has a 50/50 chance of being true, you do yourself no favours by ignoring the logic of the proposal I have offered above.

DAVID: My view is just as valid as yours from the viewpoint that we look at cells from outside.

Yes, that’s your 50/50. So why do you insist on a 100% no?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum