autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, April 09, 2018, 11:34 (2418 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
dhw: 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: All part of balance of nature to supply energy for evolution to proceed over 3.8 billion years.

That simply means that the ever changing evolutionary bush of life has lasted for 3.8 billion years so far. Nothing to do with the human brain being its one and only purpose!

DAVID: On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship…
dhw: And what do you think might be the non-humanized purpose of his wanting non-humanized recognition and a non-humanized relationship?
DAVID: To have the sort of relationship we have, one requiring faith.

And what do you think is the non-humanizing purpose of his wanting us to have faith in him?

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".
dhw: 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?
DAVID: A total humanization of God! A distant God is showing off to us who marvel at his creations.

For 3.x billion years we weren’t even there to marvel! In any case, that is not what I wrote at all, though it certainly ties in with your idea that he wants recognition and he wants us to have faith in him. Sorry, but your version is considerably more humanly vain than mine, which is that he may take pleasure in his creations, and he may enjoy an ever changing spectacle.

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.
dhw: 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.
DAVID: I think it is very logical. Sorry you don't.

If you think your version is logical, why – when I challenge its logic – do you keep telling us that God’s logic is different from human logic?