autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 12:54 (193 days ago) @ David Turell

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

You were trying to explain why your God had to design the weaverbird’s nest etc., and as usual came up with your “balance of nature”, which only means that life has gone on for 3.8 billion years. It does not mean that every organism, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the 3.8 billion years of life so far was designed to produce sapiens’ brain. Unless you can explain why the weaverbird’s nest etc. were all essential for the production of the human brain, your “balance of nature” argument is a complete non sequitur and should be confined to current ecological problems.

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?
DAVID: 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!

Fine, but you have not explained WHY he wants us to have faith in him, which is what I asked.

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.
DAVID: 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.

We don’t even “know” whether he exists, let alone what is his nature and his purpose. But you say he wants recognition and a relationship with us. Why is his desire for recognition less human than his desire to produce something he can enjoy?

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

Your “assumption” is that he created the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going for 3.x billion years until he could fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain, which he did because he wants us to recognize him and have faith in him and have a relationship with him (while hiding himself), though somehow not in a human way. And these assumptions are not human because…….because you have read God’s mind? Or he has told you he wants recognition but does not want enjoyment?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum