Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: ErrolErrol Date: Sep 15, 2008 08:03
On Sep 15, 2:44Â pm, tg earthlink.net> wrote:> That's really not correct. Evolution has nothing to do with why Earth
> exists, or the nature of the constants of physics. Evolution could
> work just fine in any universe where there is life, where life
> involves imperfect reproduction in a variable environment or imperfect
> reproduction where the reproduction rate is dependent on the nature of
> the progeny.
>
Yes! evolution has nothing to do with why earth exists or the nature
of the constants of physics but, for life to exist in the first place,
all the other factors have to be within a narrow range or life (as we
know it anyway) could not exist. But this is not new. it is well known
and has been debated ad nauseum. I am simply stating it as a response
to your statement that evolution does not require the assumption of
the existence of a supernatural entity. I am saying that how the
universe came into existance COULD require the existance of a
supernatural entity; and there are competing theories. The post was
about OR not evolution.
The fact that religion still exists certainly is a strong indicator
that many choose god as the simplest explanation (OR) for the
complications of existance. I believe god remains one of the simplest
OR solutions for the more mysterious aspects of creation, UNTIL such
time as there are more complete explanations.
> No, OR simply doesn't apply in that case because there are no
> competing theories with different degrees of assumption. The universe
> may be created by and old guy with a beard, or it may be a causeless
> event in a meta-universe, or we can't even formulate a meaningful
> question about it, but there's no theory there because we can't test
> any of it. It is *all* assumption.
>
Of course there are competing theories as to how the universe was
created. Big bang, steady state. That's what cosmology is all about.
Creationism is an alternative to these, because the others haven't
been fully understood or agreed upon yet. Should the problem of
precedent (what nudged the matter particle (Asimov called it a
"holon") into expanding into a universe) be ever fully understood and
proven, (or whatever proofs are needed for any other theory of origin)
then religion will have no further value as an alternative explanation
and your statement about no supernatural presence being required, will
hold true in all cases
| 
