Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by Frank Paris , Wednesday, November 04, 2009, 21:02 (5497 days ago) @ dhw

You point out as a contradiction with what I've said elsewhere the following: ""I'm with Dawkins in claiming that science has utterly refuted the notion of some kind of being 'out there' or even 'within' that has a mind that can conceive complex forms and somehow 'force' them into existence according to his will."-There's a logical "and" in that statement. All parts of a statement with parts connected by "and" must be true or the statement as a whole is false. "and somehow 'force' them into existence" is the part I deny, and that makes the whole statement false. There is no contradiction here with what I've said elsewhere.-"Can we therefore now agree that both Dawkins' quotes are inapplicable to your theology?"-No. The "being that's out there" does not have the power to coerce complex forms into existence. At least apparently in our universe, and I'd guess in all universes.-"I'd like to know whether you think God ever interferes in human affairs, or is simply there for us to find."-He "interferes" the same way a Time magazine editorial does in "influencing" its readers. He doesn't interfere the way a football player interferes with the intention of the quarterback when he intercepts his pass. Also, I don't believe that God is "simply there for us to find." I believe that God actively tries to get through to us all the time, but we're so full of illusions and incrustations that we just can't "hear" him. It takes a great effort to free ourselves from the layer after layer that separates our consciousness from God's consciousness.-'You've stated that God created the "strings" so they could stick together, which is "all that's necessary to get things going", but "by accident" suggests that he didn't know what he was doing.'-I don't recall ever saying that God doesn't know what he's doing. That sure would be dumb.-"If the universe is God..."-I don't know how many times I have to deny this pantheistic belief: God is not the universe.-"If...he didn't know what he was doing when he created the strings..."-I don't recall ever saying that. I have no idea how God created strings, or even if it was strings that he created, but certainly nothing "higher" if strings indeed exist. But science doesn't even know if strings do exist yet. That's why I prefer to talk about "fundamental" particles, or better, processes. Whatever the fundamentals are, that's what God created. I don't think science yet knows what the fundamentals are, and may never know.-"...why did he create the strings?"-Or rather the fundamentals? As I explained previously, to watch expressions of his essence unfold over the aeons in evolution, so that he can be amazed by himself.-"I don't see how this fits in with life coming about by accident."-If by "life" you mean that which metabolizes and reproduces with slight errors, the fundamentals have the potential to hook up in various combinations that eventually exhibit the properties of life. The form that that takes is anybody's guess. We don't have to guess about what forms it takes on our planet. The forms are there to observe. But I have no idea whether the specific genetic code that Earthly life employs is inevitable. I suspect other solutions might be possible, but maybe not. For my theology, the answer to this question doesn't matter.-"If we put all this together, we get the following: In order consciously to fulfil his purpose, which he knew required evolution, God accidentally created adhesive strings which were incapable of evolution (because he didn't have the conscious ability, even over billions of years, to create the mechanisms of heredity and change), but somehow he knew the strings would eventually form the mechanisms by accident."-I don't think you're "putting together" what I've been saying, as I hope I've pointed out in this post. Based on what I think I've said, it sounds like you're making a lot of stuff up. Maybe I'm just a pathetically poor writer.-"All these apparent anomalies disappear if one argues that God is the conscious universe." -Those "apparent anomalies" have nothing to do with what I meant to say, at any rate. And I would never argue the pantheistic assertion that God is "the conscious universe." I'm not even sure what you mean by "the conscious universe." Conscious creatures exist in the universe, we know that for sure. But what does it mean to say that the universe itself is conscious? Personally I have no idea what that would mean.-I'm going to break this off now and finish up later, because apparently I've exceeded the 5,500 character limit.