Miscellany (General)

by David Turell , Friday, October 01, 2021, 15:08 (940 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: So your God designs all the changes that lead to speciation in order to ensure the survival of the respective life forms, but evolution does not come about because of your God’s efforts to ensure that the respective life forms will survive.

My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver

Reductionism
DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

dhw: I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

DAVID: I didn't ignore your first cause. You know my belief is in an eternal God designer. I know your disbelief, which to me defies logic.

dhw: Not “disbelief”, which means rejection. I am an agnostic. Now please explain to me the logic behind your belief that consciousness requires a designer, but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. Since there was a start to reality in our BB from nothing it requires a cause, and therefore an eternal mind

Newborn brains

DAVID: The pre-homo brain had existing areas that eventually acquired specific uses.

dhw: The pre-sapiens brain was smaller than the sapiens brain, and required more and more cells once there were new skills to be mastered. Eventually, when the brain reached optimum size, complexification took over from expansion, and so such advances as spoken language entailed additional complexification (rewiring). Yes, the areas were there by then, but the rewiring was not “built in”, as bolded above.

Agreed areas used more were interconnected by more rewiring.

Guth and David on “time”

DAVID: I am unchanged. Your bolded comment makes the point. We do not know of any prior BB's. Our BB may be the only one ever!!!

dhw: And it may not be, as you have acknowledged: “I hadn’t considered the possibility of prior BB’s seventeen years ago. With that point made, it is obvious there was prior time within prior possible BB’s.”

DAVID: Yes, possible time in possible previous BB's doesn't change past statements or make them untrue at the time they are made.

dhw: It certainly doesn’t change your July statement that: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.” However, I can’t follow your logic in maintaining that in July your statement was NOT untrue, whereas in August/September/October it WAS/IS untrue. May I humbly suggest that you have now changed your mind, realize that your July statement was untrue, and therefore – perish the thought – back in July you made a mistake and your statement was wrong. I suggest you drop the subject.

The context at each time was correct so the statements in the context of their times were correct. An example is Darwin. At his time he was fully correct for the knowledge available. Research now shows his deficiencies.