autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 13, 2018, 12:36 (554 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As we keep repeating, EVERY organism post bacteria is “unnecessary” if by necessary you mean for life to survive.
DAVID: 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 is an obvious answer.

And I always respond that evolution has progressed through a drive for survival and/or improvement, and that I too am opposed to chance, and that my cellular intelligence hypothesis (unproven, as is your anthropocentric, God-planned it-all hypothesis) allows for the existence of God as the originator. So you can stop using the “necessity” argument now. It is irrelevant.

dhw: You have…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”.
DAVID: And why not. That is what you do constantly.

Of course. We both do, in our attempts to understand your God’s possible motives and methods. So you can stop using the “humanizing” argument. It is irrelevant.

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.
DAVID: So why try? Just accept His works.

In theistic mode, I accept his works. We disagree about his possible motives and methods. According to you, one of his motives is for us to study his works. Now you’re saying just accept them. So why don’t you just accept the higgledy-piggledy bush without imposing your anthropocentric, God-planned-it-all hypothesis? Neither of us can know his logic and we can only speculate with our own. So you can stop using the “God’s logic is different from ours” argument. It is irrelevant.

DAVID: 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.
DAVID: I'm sure they are.

So since (in theistic mode) I agree that your God must have had a purpose, and we even agree on one possible purpose, you can stop using the “I don't see you using purpose” argument. It is irrelevant.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum