autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 08, 2018, 15:09 (2478 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you keep acknowledging that you don’t know WHY your always-in-control God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose in this roundabout way,

'Roundabout' is your human interpretation. Perhaps it is necessary. I accept God's works at face value: this is what He wanted

dhw: and your final “logic” is that God’s logic is different from ours. Sorry, I don’t regard that as a logical explanation, especially when there are alternative hypotheses that ARE logical.

Yes only your humanizing logic.

DAVID: 99% loss is part of God's pattern of advancing from less complex to more complex to the ultimate complexity of the sapiens brain.

dhw: As if an always-in-control God couldn’t find a more straightforward way of producing the one thing he wanted to produce. Or could it be that your God didn’t actually know how to produce it and so had to keep experimenting? Or didn’t think of producing it until later on? Or actually wanted to produce an ever-changing bush of life, including humans? Can you fault the logic of these theistic explanations for the higgledy-piggledy bush?

Yes, it is your humanizing approach of looking for His logic, which is not yours.

dhw: You show little reluctance to define your God as a universal consciousness who created life with the sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens so that his works could be studied, he could have a relationship with us, and could watch us with interest.

That is as far as I've ever gone in presupposing His motives. Might not be correct.

dhw: Questioning the logic of your hypothesis does not mean humanizing. Suggesting that your God created the initial mechanism and left organisms to work out their own solutions, is not humanizing.

Agreed. That theory of yours is not humanizing. No motives involved.