autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 09, 2018, 15:28 (247 days ago) @ dhw

[/i]

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

dhw: 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!

The brain is the most complex organ to develop in evolution. How can you deny that it is the pinnacle of the process?


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.

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

First, He is not human. He is purposely hidden, so that you must come to believe in Him. If the faith requirement were not an issue, He could perform an obvious miracle and convince all of us. That would be a humanized God!


dhw: 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.

How do we know God 'enjoys' at all. Do you accept the view of religions that God is 'loving'. That is a hopeful human assumption.


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.

dhw: 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?

Because God is not human. Therefore your human assumptions about Him are all human and not applicable.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum