Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]You seem incapable of realizing how human you envision God to be.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]In each of my theories I propose a particular theistic approach to evolution in order to explain the facts: experimentation, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, deliberately creating a free-for-all as being more interesting than a puppet show (though always with the option of dabbling). I don’t see these “human” approaches as being any more “human” than your own belief that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or – as you have now told us – that he wants us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]As explained in the other thread God's possible reactions to his creations are secondary events, never on purpose as a cause of creation.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I’m not talking about reactions! I asked you what was his purpose for creating humans, and the above was your answer.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The simple answer was His right to produce thinking beings for no other purpose than that.[/i]
> 
> You have proposed that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and he might have produced thinking beings so that they could think about him and recognize him etc. I find these theories perfectly acceptable, and have asked why you consider them to be less “humanizing” than my own. Opting to have no theories at all about his purpose is, of course, another option.
> 
> [b]Brain expansion[/b]
> DAVID: [i]Our brain came with excess neurons or shrinkage could not logically have occurred. That cells had to be used and then had to be thrown away makes no sense. [/i]
> 
> You keep ignoring my explanation, so all I can do is repeat it. Our brain came with more neurons than those of our predecessors. I propose that those neurons would have been added for a specific purpose, though we can only speculate on what that might have been. (Weirdly, you proposed the purpose was to give us free will, as if our earlier ancestors were all automatons.) However, as the brain was no longer capable of further expansion – probably because that would have involved major changes to the anatomy – complexification took over from expansion and proved so efficient that cells [b]which had been essential in the past now became redundant. Hence shrinkage.[/b] You have accepted this explanation, but now you ignore it again.
> 
> DAVID: [i]As we civilized our brains had constant expansion of use. Our brain arrived with the complexification mechanism in place, to be used as required, as you agree.[/i]
> 
> Yes, that is precisely what I propose: our new uses were implemented through complexification and not through the addition of new cells. And complexification proved to be so efficient etc., as bolded above. What’s the problem?