autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, February 12, 2018, 14:54 (552 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I agree with you. The bush of life tells me He wanted it. But I see a purpose in the unnecessary appearance of the human brain with consciousness.

dhw: Thank you for your agreement. As we keep repeating, EVERY organism post bacteria is “unnecessary” if by necessary you mean for life to survive.

Which of course should raise the issue, as I always do, of why multicellularity ever appeared. Therefore something or someone pushed evolution. Chance didn't do it. God isan obvious answer.

dhw: I know you see a special purpose in the appearance of the human brain with its additional degrees of consciousness, and you would not be human if you didn’t wonder what that purpose might be. You have therefore speculated that maybe he wants a relationship with us (but remains hidden), and that he wants us to study his works, and also that he watches us with interest. However, if in turn I dare to suggest that he watches us with interest, as he does the rest of the ever-changing bush of life, you tell me that is “humanizing”. Your other excuse is below.

And why not. That is what you do constantly.

DAVID: How do you/we know how God thinks. We don't.

dhw: No, we don’t, so why are you so firmly convinced that God does NOT think like us, and therefore your illogical explanation is more valid than my logical explanations?

DAVID: Because they are logical at a human level, which probably is not at a God level.

dhw: Why “probably”? Nobody knows.

So why try? Just accept His works.

DAVID: His logic could certainly be the same as ours, but we do not know that. I give the best explanations I see from the standpoint of God's purpose. I don't see you using purpose or God's goals in your thinking. And certainly not spectacle for His pleasure. I think He is beyond that level of purpose.

dhw: You don’t see me thinking about God’s purpose, but you do see me thinking about God’s purpose! And you think it’s not his purpose, even though it’s not only the same as one of those you suggest (I’m quite happy to say he watches with “interest” rather than “pleasure”) but also offers a logical explanation for the whole higgledy-piggledy bush. And I would add that humans are probably much more “interesting” for him than any other species.

I'm sure they are.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum