Purpose and design (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, April 17, 2017, 13:22 (2775 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is no delay if evolutionary processes are employed, and they are. Thus an appearance of delay exists, but no real delay. I raised the issue of delay and I've explained it doesn't exist.

There is no delay if there is no single fixed goal. We agree that evolutionary processes are used, but we do not agree on what they are used for! In short, I agree that there was no delay, because I do not believe that your God specifically designed the weaverbird’s nest for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he could produce humans (which = delay).

DAVID: To repeat: if He can design our universe in advance from quantum particles to eventually allow for life to appear, He can accomplish anything He wants to. I see Him filled with goal-oriented purpose while your helter-skelter approach is further treating Him like a human who watches an entertaining show.

dhw: …if you can claim that he WANTED to produce humans and everything else was related to that, I can equally claim that he WANTED a free-for-all (with dabbles), or alternatively that he WANTED to produce spiders’ eyes, monarch’s navigation, the weaverbird’s nest, […] AS WELL AS wanting to produce humans (but not BECAUSE he wanted to produce humans). This removes the contradiction between his now unlimited powers and his countless special designs that have no relevance to the one and only design you claim he actually WANTED. And you needn’t ask why he wanted them if you’re afraid of humanizing him.

DAVID: I agree that one way of interpreting God is that He is an inveterate inventor like Edison and just enjoys creating amazing creatures with wild lifestyles for His own enjoyment. We could also view that approach as a frivolous waste of effort and energy without real goals or purpose. We differ in our interpretations. I specifically see purpose in God's actions. Your view of Him is amorphous.

Firstly, your God without any attributes other than consciousness seems to me as amorphous as it can possibly be. Secondly, the ONLY “real” purpose you see in God’s actions is the production of humans, and yet you refuse even to consider what might be his purpose in producing humans! The very idea that enjoyment is a “frivolous waste of effort and energy” is quite astonishing. Having met you, I can testify to the joie de vivre you bring into your personal life and that of others, and I do not for one minute believe that you dismiss this joy as a waste of your effort and energy. Life itself is one purpose, and enjoyment of life is another purpose, so why should you assume that your God is pleased with his creations but did not create them because he wanted to be pleased by them, i.e. to enjoy them?