Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 05, 2017, 19:37 (2634 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You yourself have devoted a lifetime to delving into all the questions we discuss. You have even written two brilliant books about them. Why? Both of us are driven by a desire to make sense of the world we have been lucky enough to experience. We don’t and can’t know if God exists, or what he is like if he does exist, but we examine the world in order to find clues. That is why you tell us we are his “purpose”, we matter to him, he wants a relationship with us (you ask why else would he have given us our consciousness), he is a God of tough love who wants us to solve the problems he has set us. But you resent it if I offer you a different view – only then do you bridle at the attempt to delve.

Your view constantly attempts to humanize Him. That is my objection to your delving. I simply state He wanted humans simply because humans are here, and based on how all primates have survived without our big brains, there is no reason for us to appear, unless evolution was driven to do it. After that I guess at His thinking without much faith in knowing if an y of my guesses are correct.

dhw: You have a fixed concept of your God, and the reason why you regard it as pointless to delve into his nature is not that we cannot know it, but that you already have your beliefs and resent any reasoning that throws them into question.

You are reasoning according to your view of God at a distance. My statement above is all I am comfortable with.

DAVID:...Evil is the result of what He has created: the physical forces of Earth, the evil in freedom-of-choice imperfect humans. That He allowed these results means He does not care if they happen. He has given us the power to try and solve those problems, and we are doing just that.

dhw: Once again, you present your own interpretation of your God’s intentions and attitude, but you tell me not to delve.

You can delve all you want. I will accept only what I think fits the framework of my conclusions. If you can point out necessary changes in my framework, have at it.

dhw: If there really is one supreme being who created the universe and life, then of course he is not human. But that does not mean he has nothing in common with humans.

DAVID: What we have in common I believe is consciousness, nothing more. I believe consciousness could not develop from natural causes by itself, but from a pre-existing consciousness.

dhw: That is a good argument for the existence of God. But consciousness needs to be conscious of something. Hence my next question:

dhw: What authority do you have to reject the possibility that there is something human about him?

DAVID: I don't reject it, but since we have no way of knowing, any guesses are wisps of nothing. Humans are here. That is a fact. That is solid. that leads me to say God wanted to produce humans. Anything beyond that is 'angels on the head of a pin'.

dhw: And the duckbilled platypus is also here, which leads me to say that if God exists, he wanted to produce the duckbilled platypus. So what? You do insist on putting ‘angels on the head of a pin’. Read your own statements above about God’s nature and purpose and attitude. You just don’t want me to offer alternatives.

The platypus is not comparable to humans. Our presence is of highest significance. As for angels and my statements of God's possible thoughts see below: they are just flimsy guesses. I have no objection to you proposing whatever you wish. I have every right to pick it apart from my point of view. We are both rigidly apart in our approach to understanding God.

dhw: It is just as presumptuous to proclaim that he has no traits in common with humans as it is to proclaim that he does have such traits. We can only look at our world and try to extrapolate explanations from what we see. If God exists, why – in our speculations – should we NOT view the creation as a reflection of its creator?

DAVID: I've given you my reflections as far as they can go with any degree of logic. You are the unbeliever who wants to uncover his thought processes. I accept Him without digging into that side of the considerations. I really don't understand why you bother. Are you seeking ways to approach a belief in him?

dhw:Yes, you have expressed your own beliefs, including your insistence that God has no traits in common with humans. And I have asked you how you and Adler can possibly make such a presumption. Your answer is to tell me not to delve. As regards why I do delve, see my first response above.

I have not stated that God has no traits in common with humans. He may very well. But since He is such an unusual personality, like no personality we know, all we can come up with are humanized guesses. Have I given you some possible God-points-of-view? Yes, because you asked me to do it. Do I firmly believe those guesses? No. My complete approach is simple: humans are here, therefore God wanted us here. We relate through His consciousness and ours. Period. Going further is nebulous.