More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, November 06, 2016, 13:31 (2727 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The moment we start to speculate about God’s purpose, we are bound to humanize him! God creating life in order to produce humans so that he can have direct relations with us is humanizing him. God hiding himself in order to test our faith is humanizing him. What is the point of prayer if you are praying to something that has no attributes and with which we have no common ground, as you state below?

DAVID: I start off by accepting Adler's admonition: God is a person like no other person. He cannot be conceived of in any human terms. We do not know if he has emotions like ours. Of course He may have purposes, if He is a conscious being.

This whole discussion centres on your insistence that God has a purpose: “Why multicellularity is a question you can’t answer, unless you admit to purpose, which you refuse to do. The human purpose answers the question.” (Wednesday 2 Nov.) Now all of a sudden you want to downgrade the importance of purpose! “He may have purposes, if He is a conscious being.” According to you, he has been the universal consciousness for ever and ever, the conscious first cause, and his purpose was to produce humans. But I have no objections if you are now willing to accept that your beliefs are no less "humanizing" and no less interpretive than my hypotheses.I would simply ask you to drop those arguments if you genuinely want to discuss God’s possible purpose for evolution.

DAVID: Being concealed may or may not be a test of faith. That is our human conclusion, which may be wrong about his intent. You've forgotten we have consciousness also. We can relate: He is concealed but that does not mean consciously disconnected.

A one-way relationship with a hidden being doesn’t sound very direct to me, or do you believe that he actually reveals himself to those who have faith in him? But yes, our human conclusions may be wrong about his intent. You may be wrong to say his intent was to produce humans with whom he could have direct relations, and I may be wrong to suggest that his intent was enjoyment.

dhw: Please tell me which of the mainstream religions advocates a God without any human attributes.
DAVID: Of course religions give Him human attributes. I don't follow religion.

Then please don’t quote religion at me if I offer a view of God’s purpose that is not found in “mainstream religion”.

DAVID: Again, common ground with God does not exist! That was explained to Abraham. I am in His image, as you know I believe, through consciousness only. Dhw: Consciousness without attributes may as well not be there. It is you who constantly bring up the subject of God’s purpose, but why talk about purpose at all, since purposefulness is a human attribute?
DAVID: As above, God, a special person, can have purpose. We can know Him only through His works! His motives are a guess. His emotions are a guess. His desires are a guess.

Agreed. It is therefore absurd to complain that his creation of higgledy-piggledy life as a spectacle for his own enjoyment is not just as possible a purpose as his creation of life geared solely to the production of humans with whom he can have direct relations. And once again, it is equally absurd to claim that the one hypothesis humanizes God and the other does not.

DAVID: BUT, only a planning mind could have created this universe and living beings who are capable of holding this discussion.

For the sake of this discussion on the nature of God and his possible purpose - which is the challenge you issued to me – I have of course accepted the hypothesis of God’s existence.