autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, April 08, 2018, 11:00 (193 days ago) @ David Turell

Once again I have juxtaposed entries in an attempt to keep the arguments clear.

DAVID: You cannot seem to recognize that the human brain arrived and is not needed for survival, a major point of your view of bow evolution works.
dhw: You "cannot seem to remember" that no multicellular organism is “needed for survival”, as bacteria have done very nicely since the beginning.
DAVID: Again you have twisted the argument about survival. Nothing beyond bacteria was necessary, therefore it was arranged as a required advance, which is strong evidence for a designed advance.

If God exists, then of course he designed the initial mechanisms for advance. That does not mean he specially designed the weaverbird’s nest and millions of other lifestyles and wonders extant and extinct for the sole purpose of creating the brain of Homo sapiens!

DAVID: I see his purpose in the appearance of humans, who recognize Him. (dhw's bold)

And under “ant care” you wrote: "I don't think I will in any way leave my point that humans were the obvious purpose."
dhw: You can’t tell whether my hypothesis is correct or not, but you will stick to your own hypothesis. Perfectly fair. But not a reason for rejecting my hypothesis.
DAVID: Your humanizing Him is a good enough reason.

Dhw: […] he wants us to recognize him, he wants a relationship with us (although he remains hidden). And I don’t have a problem with this interpretation, though it is every bit as “humanizing” as the desire to create an ever changing spectacle which he can watch “with interest”. (You object to the latter because only you are allowed to “humanize” your God.)
DAVID: On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship…

And what do you think might be the non-humanized purpose of his wanting non-humanized recognition and a non-humanized relationship?

DAVID: ….but that is not the same as your idea that He wanted to watch a spectacle of diversity, which implies to me God is a 'showoff' in your view, saying "look what I can produce in variety".

Sorry, but that is plain daft. Unless there are other gods watching, who the heck could he show off to? Have you never experienced the pleasure of creating something you enjoy? And what do you enjoy more: a spectacle in which every item is predictable, or one in which you are constantly being surprised?

Dhw: I have offered you other logical explanations for humans (a late afterthought, ongoing experimentation), but you stick rigidly to your basic premise that the whole higgledy-piggledy bush was designed just for this one purpose. (You have not come up with any other "secondary" purpose.)
DAVID: As for a group of other goals, with humans as the primary one, all others are basically secondary and subordinated to that one, as balance of nature, the one I offered. I might ask why do you want me to produce a group of other God's purposes. He might not have any.

A short time ago you denied that you regarded the human brain as God’s only purpose, and I challenged you to name other purposes. All you came up with was “balance of nature”, which turned out to be geared to the production of the human brain. Therefore God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest plus a few million other special designs extant and extinct in order to be able to produce the human brain. The only explanation you have offered for this illogicality is that God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. mine). Maybe it’s not.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum