More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, September 09, 2024, 09:16 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

Black holes needed for life

DAVID: My evidence is irrefutable. Life's highly complex biochemical design requires a designer.

dhw: But apparently a conscious mind capable of designing universes, galaxies, dinosaurs, elephants, termites and conscious brains does not require a designer. Why do you think first cause, ready-made superintelligence is more likely than first cause, primitive intelligence that evolves? (Reminder: I accept the logic of both approaches, which is why I remain agnostic.)

DAVID: Your logic falls short. Only a conscious intelligent mind can produce the recognition of design that made you agnostic. Note the requirement for consciousness.

I have included consciousness in my summary. You believe that only a conscious intelligent mind could have designed my consciousness. But you believe that the conscious mind that created my conscious mind could simply be there without itself having been designed. Is that logical?

Bacterial intelligence

DAVID: Bad bacteria carry the same instructions as good bacteria. Why do you differentiate?

dhw: How can they be the same instructions if the bad bacteria kill instead of cure? Either your God instructed them to kill, or they autonomously rebelled against your God’s instructions. Or, of course, all bacteria, good and bad, were given the ability to design their own means of survival.

DAVID: Your last sentence is the answer. Good bacteria in the wrong places are bad.

I don’t know why you think bacteria which kill us are good bacteria obeying your God’s instructions which prove lethal because your God didn’t tell them where to go. If my last sentence is the answer, you are agreeing that both good and bad bacteria have the ability to design their own survival. It’s only we who classify them as good or bad. If they survive by killing us, then that’s good for them, and at the moment you are telling us that they only obey your God’s instructions. Or do you now think they have “minds” of their own?

Zombified flies

dhw: Necessary for what? […]

DAVID: You've answered your question. For us and our food supply.

dhw: So your God specially designed the fly-eating fungus as part of our food supply. Can’t see this recipe catching on. Can you?

DAVID: Yes, as part of a necessary ecosystem.

According to you, the recipe is necessary for us and our food supply. Yuck! Enjoy your meal.

Kamikaze termites

DAVID: The biochemical complexities can only come from a designing mind.

dhw: One designing mind may have designed other designing minds, like ours, or those of our bacterial friends and enemies. And we still have the same problem as above: Termites evolved millions of years before us. Explosive rucksacks necessary for the design of humans and our food?

DAVID: Eventually, yes. For all the ecosystems supporting us.

dhw: Your God specially designed explosive rucksacks, fly-eating fungi and weaverbird nests because they were necessary for our existence. You don’t find this just a little far-fetched?

DAVID: No, each for God's reasoning.

According to you, your God’s reasoning is confined to designing whatever is needed for us and our food. This means that he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to us and our food, but explosive rucksacks etc. are indispensable for us and our food. Not far-fetched?

Butterfly wing colors

DAVID: Does God need a human form of enjoyment? NO. Only you would make Him in that image. You invent God's needs.

dhw: And you simply ignore the fact that enjoyment does not denote need. What, in heaven’s name, is wrong with your own earlier proposal that your God might enjoy creating and be interested in his creations?

Not answered.

DAVID: The concept of needs is the issue. A selfless God has no emotional needs. My prior proposals are a human wish for a relationship God may not care about. (Adler 50/50.)

On and on you go about needs. Enjoyment and interest do not denote needs! But wanting to be recognized and worshipped – two of your own suggestions – do in fact suggest possible needs, and certainly conflict with your claim that he is selfless. These possible desires of his were YOUR proposals for possible reasons why he created us – they were not our wishes for a relationship. Your description of him as “benevolent” (which would suggest loving and caring) would reflect your wishes, but while you accept Adler’s 50/50, you reject it on the grounds that your God is not human in any way, although he and we may have similar attributes. Back to your schizophrenia which you self-diagnosed and now deny.