Purpose and design (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 26, 2017, 09:35 (2551 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: All forms of life fulfil a role in “keeping the Earth alive”. I don’t think anyone on this planet would disagree. That has nothing whatsoever to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution.
DAVID: I was applauding: "does fall into the larger category of benefiting humanity specifically and all life in general." Nothing more. It does not support my anthropocentric thesis by itself. See my entry on fine tuning: Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 14:59

It does not support your anthropocentric thesis at all. Nor does fine tuning, which supports the case for design, not for anthropocentrism.

DAVID: We are both trying to interpret Tony. I think He would accept the appearance of humans as a major purpose of God.
dhw: If God exists, I would also agree that the appearance of humans is A major purpose. But I do not agree that it is THE one and only purpose and everything else, including the weaverbird’s nest, the jumping spider and the parasitic wasp, was personally designed by your God and was/is related to that one and only purpose.
DAVID: I don't expect you to agree. Everything we see is designed to produce life which resulted in humans. The result speaks for itself.

It also resulted in dinosaurs, which went extinct, and in the duckbilled platypus, which is still here, and in countless other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant. If the result spoke for itself, there would be no disagreement. But perhaps you would clarify whether there is or is not a shift in your thinking. Do you now regard humans as A major purpose or as THE only purpose?

DAVID: I am not aware of any other of God's purposes, but I admit some might exist.

Nobody is “aware” of any of God’s purposes. We can only speculate on what they might be. Will you therefore now agree, as you did once before, that the relief of loneliness might have been his purpose in creating life?

dhw: If God exists, I would also assume that he had a purpose in creating life, including humans. What is “pure” purpose?
DAVID: 'Pure' as in 100% committed.

Have I ever argued that if God exists, he is only half committed to his purpose? This is getting silly.

DAVID: Stating God has humanly bored solved nothing about His purpose. He wanted an introspective consciousness capable organism.

It is not a “solution”, it is a hypothesis to explain why he created life. Creating a consciousness like his own has resulted in the most complex, unpredictable and riveting spectacle of all – the best possible antidote to boredom. Creating an introspective consciousness for no reason whatsoever tell us nothing about his purpose.

DAVID: I don't read Tony's comment as you do. His list of attributes is not the one you give. He may well have emotional depth, but it is beyond us to know.
dhw: Back you go to unknowability. His existence and his purpose are also “beyond us to know”. But if you believe your God is capable of emotion, you cannot dismiss the possibility that he is capable of boredom, interest, love, hate etc.
DAVID: We cannot know which of your list, if any He experiences. He should be interested in His creations, which is not really an emotion, if He is the designer.

Still harping on about unknowability. We needn’t faff around trying to define what is or isn’t “emotion”. If he is capable of interest, he is also capable of boredom and/or loneliness.