Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Saturday, December 26, 2020, 10:56 (1217 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, […] Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

DAVID: It is not my way. It is God's way as history tells us. […] What you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal. Since we are here against all chance ideas, Adler's thought and mine are entirely logical.

Yet again you omit fifty per cent of the premises that make your theory illogical. We ended this discussion under “Fish to land animals” with an amicable agreement two weeks ago, and yet you still continue to edit your theory and protest that it is logical. I listed and acknowledged the logical premises, including Adler’s, and pinpointed the two that were not:

dhw: So far so good. But now we come to the illogical parts of your theory: 1) if God’s ONLY PURPOSE was to create H. sapiens and his food supply, why would he have chosen to directly design millions of life forms and food supplies which died out long before the first humans came on the scene and which had no connection with humans? 2) How could millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans have been “part of the goal of evolving humans?”

[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw:

Please stop backpedalling.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls? […]

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

As above, I see nothing illogical in your individual basic premises. It is their combination which leads to you having no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method to fulfil your version of his purpose.

The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!