autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 05, 2018, 14:59 (317 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll stick with the point that multicellularity is a much more fragile form of life that requires a diversity that produces a balance of nature for a food supply. Bacteria are also widely diverse and are better built for survival. This points out the differing needs for diversity. Diversity as a goal in itself is not a reason for its existence.

dhw: The purpose of diversity would therefore seem to be to provide different foods so that different forms of life can survive or not survive. Sounds to me like diversity for the sake of diversity.

Somehow in disagreeing you sound like you agree: diversity does provide the food needed for survival. The factftaht some fail to survive is not the point.

Dhw (under “Cambrian Explosion”): You still haven't offered any explanation for your refusal to consider such a possibility.

DAVID: I see God as specifically purposeful and you seem to imagine Him as as a rambling character. A good reason for my refusal.

dhw: I imagine him as no such thing. If I organize a football match in which the course of play and the result are unknown, but which will provide a spectacle that I can watch “with interest” (your words), does that make me a rambling character? If God exists and created life, I would most certainly regard him as specifically purposeful, and if the outcome of his work was an ever changing bush of life, including humans, I would certainly not dismiss the possibility that his specific purpose was an ever changing bush of life, including humans. How does that make him a “rambling” character?

Again ignoring the necessity of providing food/energy for everyone who survives. He has purpose in arranging for diversity so evolution can cover 3.8 billion years.

dhw: We are simply trying to find explanations that fit the facts as we think we know them.

DAVID: And they seem to end up at a metaphysical level.

dhw: I’m sorry, but I don’t know what point you are trying to make. All attempts to look beyond the physical world can be called metaphysical, and so in discussing the possible intentions of a possible God, of course the discussion is metaphysical! How does that make your interpretation of your God’s intentions more valid than mine?

Because He is my God. You don't accept God, and keep trying to humanize Him. He doesn't think like you and I do.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum