Living in a fallen Darwinian world

[harvey1]

The universe is in a fallen state. The thorns and thistles in Genesis 3 is an apt metaphor that the Darwinian world is the fallen world of Genesis 3. Under natural selection plants evolve thorns and thistles as a protective mechanism. I don't want to debate Genesis, rather I'd like to see why people think "Adam" (call it biological consciousness) couldn't in principle be responsible for a fallen world when a true understanding of time and space are not fully understood. I have no problem with consciousness being a causal factor in answering why the world is in this Darwinian state.

[harvey1]

[Replying to Tcg]

So, again, I define a "pre-fallen state" as a preceding state that lacked "thorns and thistles." Of course, by saying that I'm saying that the Genesis account captures something important about the past in that it wasn't physically necessarily the case that physical consciousness would evolve into a world having thorns and thistles. My question is why consider that physical consciousness could not have played a causal role such that physical conscious beings could have existed without there being thorns and thistles? Why must I prove there existed a state lacking thorns and thistles when we already know that the universe is much older than plant life? Why, in principle, could it not be true that the history of life simply failed to have been in a Darwinian struggle for existence since its origins (pictured as having "thorns and thistles") due to factors that are causally related to physical consciousness existing in the universe? Assuming our current scientific and philosophical perspectives what makes that impossible or very unlikely?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg]

So, again, I define "fallen state" as a preceding state that lacked "thorns and thistles." Of course, by saying that I'm saying that the Genesis account captures something important about the past in that it wasn't physically necessarily the case that physical consciousness would evolve into a world having thorns and thistles.

I thought you didn't want to discuss the contents of Genesis? I am confused because you say you don't, but continue to do so.

My question is why consider that physical consciousness could not have played a causal role such that physical conscious beings could have existed without there being thorns and thistles? Why must I prove there existed a state lacking thorns and thistles when we already know that the universe is much older than plant life?

I'll repeat your claim:

• "The universe is in a fallen state."

You continue to avoid an attempt to support it.

Why, in principle, could it not be true that the history of life simply failed to have been in a Darwinian struggle for existence since its origins (pictured as having "thorns and thistles") due to factors that are causally related to physical consciousness existing in the universe? Assuming our current scientific and philosophical perspectives what makes that impossible or very unlikely?

It is your duty to support your claims, not mine. Shall we return to the first or is this your admission that you can't support it? Until we can get past this claim, which is foundationally to your argument, we can't proceed.


Tcg

[harvey1]

[Replying to Tcg]

How am I discussing the contents of Genesis? I just stated:

Why must I prove there existed a state lacking thorns and thistles when we already know that the universe is much older than plant life?

Are you saying that one must believe in Genesis to believe this is true?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg]

How am I discussing the contents of Genesis?

You did so right here:

Of course, by saying that I'm saying that the Genesis account captures something important about the past in that it wasn't physically necessarily the case that physical consciousness would evolve into a world having thorns and thistles.

Certainly you remember the post that contained this claim. If not you can follow the link back to it.


Tcg

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 14 by Tcg]

You misunderstand what I'm saying here. I hold that Genesis (and Paul's original sin doctrine as well) is important to understand the role that physical consciousness played in the introduction of thorns and thistles into nature, but that's just some helpful context as to why I am interested in discussing the conceivability that physical consciousness played a causal role in terms of why there are thorns and thistles in the universe. However, in terms of this discussion, we already know that there weren't always thorns and thistles, which opens up the question on whether it is physically necessary that there had to be had factors related to physical consciousness been different. We don't need to discuss Genesis to discuss this issue.

I must say that I've never seen a crew so adverse to discussing a topic before. It's kind of surprising to me. Is there anyone interested in a discussion on this topic? If not we can close it if that option exists.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 14 by Tcg]

You misunderstand what I'm saying here.

Not at all. I'm not the one who forgot that you referred to the contents of Genesis after claiming you don't want to do so.

I hold that Genesis (and Paul's original sin doctrine as well) is important to understand the role that physical consciousness played in the introduction of thorns and thistles into nature, but that's just some helpful context as to why I am interested in discussing the conceivability that physical consciousness played a causal role in terms of why there are thorns and thistles in the universe.

Is this claim that is based on the contents of Genesis another non-reference to the contents of Genesis?

However, in terms of this discussion, we already know that there weren't always thorns and thistles, which opens up the question on whether it is physically necessary that there had to be had factors related to physical consciousness been different. We don't need to discuss Genesis to discuss this issue.

And yet you continue to discuss Genesis.

I must say that I've never seen a crew so adverse to discussing a topic before. It's kind of surprising to me. Is there anyone interested in a discussion on thiz topic? If not we can close it if that option exists.

I've been discussing it for a few posts now. It shouldn't surprise you that fellow posters expect you to support your claims. I'm still waiting for you to support your first one.


Tcg

[harvey1]

TCG, it is not necessary that you respond to every single letter that I write. This makes your response needlessly too long. You're spending more time than you have to.

So, let me put this in a deductive argument for you:

1) Def. A fallen world is a universe having Darwinian outcomes (e.g., thorns and thistles).
2) Def. A pre-fallen world is a universe prior to a fallen world.
3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in a fallen state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in a fallen state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as thorns and thistles.

Now, in a different thread I was talking about cavils, and this thread is already a perfect example of them.. Notice how this argument doesn't refer to Genesis but you incessantly insisted it was. If you don't want to argue a point because you're afraid of the conclusion being correct then just say so.

[Neatras]

3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in a fallen state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in a fallen state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as thorns and thistles.

You really need to provide justification for these three claims. What you've done so far is merely assert. We can't discuss while the parameters are so lopsided. Why would anyone accept that physical consciousness was somehow responsible for "thorns and thistles" if you can't even define the methods by which physical consciousness is a "causal agent".

Not to mention your constant repetition of "Darwinian evolution" doesn't inspire confidence that you actually have a viable grasp of the concept of evolution itself; it wouldn't surprise me at all if your worldview is distorted enough that you don't understand why the three premises I quoted are poorly defined and completely unjustified.

[Tcg]

Notice how this argument doesn't refer to Genesis but you incessantly insisted it was.

This is the first presentation of this argument, how could I have insisted it relies on Genesis, yet?

In point 1., we find this: "(e.g., thorns and thistles)."

In post 1 we find this: "The thorns and thistles in Genesis 3 is an apt metaphor that the Darwinian world is the fallen world of Genesis 3."

<bolding mine>

Now I will point out that once again you are basing your argument on concepts from Genesis.

What is missing yet again is any support for your claims. You continue to assume the universe is in a fallen state and expect others to do the same.

You complain about cavils, what I see is a reminder that you are responsible to support your argument. I've yet to see an attempt.


Tcg

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 19 by Tcg]

1) Def. A fallen world is a universe having Darwinian outcomes (e.g., poisons and parasites).
2) Def. A pre-fallen world is a universe prior to a fallen world.
3) The universe is much older than the time in which it was in a fallen state.
4) It is physically possible that physical consciousness could have played a causal role in putting the world in a fallen state.
5) Therefore, physical consciousness may be at least partly responsible for Darwinian outcomes such as poisons and parasites.

The above addresses your objections.