Consciousness: and brain damage (General)

by dhw, Monday, January 22, 2018, 13:33 (2495 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I’m surprised that someone who is so dedicated to his faith in a purposeful God that he has written two brilliant books about it, should nevertheless be unwilling to discuss what his God’s nature might be.

DAVID: I maintain my unwillingness on the basis of Adler's contention that God is a person like no other person. I cannot consider human characteristics in Him.

dhw: You “cannot”? Of course you can, and you do (e.g. he watches us with interest, sets us problems, and wants a relationship with us). Nobody in his right mind would believe that a being who can create a whole universe is like any other “person”, but that does not mean he has no attributes in common with the beings he has created. Why bother to call him a “person” in the first place? Could it be that you are unwilling to consider another hypothesis (even though you acknowledge that you can find no fault in its reasoning) because it presents a logical threat to your firm belief in things you cannot “know” – such as the hypothesis that God’s only purpose in creating billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders was to provide energy until sapiens arrived?

DAVID: If you read Adler you might gain some understanding of the position. I can give God a goal (the brain) without attempting to personalize Him as you persist in doing. I do offer opinions about Him. I know that, but I do not know His underlying core positions. Religions claims He loves us. There is no proof, as an expmple of human wishful thinking. Does He respond to prayer? Adler says 50/50 chance. That is a reasonable point of view. Do you think God is humanlly logical. What is your proof?

Nobody “knows” your God’s underlying positions. There is no proof even of his existence, let alone of his purpose or his nature if he does exist. You needn’t shove religion at me. It is irrelevant to our discussion, which concerns your insistence that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could fulfil his sole purpose, the production of the sapiens brain. When I point out the illogicality of such an approach and offer an alternative, which you agree fits in with evolutionary history as we know it, your answer is your God’s logic must be different from ours. I don’t see how this justifies dismissal of my hypothesis. If you are happy with Adler’s 50/50 chance that your God listens to us and answers our prayers, why can’t you be happy with a 50/50 chance that your God has enjoyed life’s ever changing spectacle for its own sake, and not just for the sake of producing Homo sapiens (for reasons you “cannot” consider for fear of humanizing him).