Free Will: Egnor shows neurological proof - PART ONE (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 06, 2021, 09:02 (1199 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why won’t you tell us more about your interpretation of God’s “image and value” and personality? And why won’t you tell us why millions of direct operations are “easier” than the invention of a single mechanism to make all the changes?

DAVID: God is all purpose with no self-aggrandizing intents. As a designer myself it is easier to do it directly than hand it off to a secondhand design mechanism which will have to have an enormous set of instructions to produce proper results.

But you have your God preprogramming every undabbled design in the history of life. That’s a pretty enormous set of instructions, isn’t it? In my theory, there are no instructions at all. Just as humans use their intelligence to invent new things, so too would other intelligent organisms. What are your criteria for “proper results”? If your God wanted a free-for-all, then a free-for-all would be the proper result. “All purpose” sounds convincing, except that you refuse to go beyond the one and only purpose of designing humans plus food supply. (See “Miscellany” and elsewhere for your illogical combination of beliefs.) “Self aggrandizing” is of course possible (he wants humans to worship him and admire his works) but creating a free-for-all, and wanting something he can watch with interest to fill the eternal void, is not self-aggrandizing.

DAVID: I think we live in God's consciousness and He has given us some of His.

dhw: So why is that more “substantive” than your God inventing a mechanism which will produce consciousness similar to his? (NB: if he gives us some of His consciousness, then we have all the more reason to believe that he and we probably have similar thought patterns, emotions etc. Please do not ignore this parenthesis!)

DAVID: As usual I'll accept logic. I don't think He does anything to satisfy His personal emotional needs. He has none in my opinion.

If you’ll accept logic, then you will have to accept that it is perfectly feasible to argue that if our part of his consciousness produces certain thought patterns and emotions, they may well be similar to his own. Your opinion does not change the logic of the argument.

dhw: […] My point is that if everything comes from materials, it is perfectly logical for your God to have created materials from which intelligence emerges. That would be a theistic compromise between dualism and materialism.

DAVID: It is your logic, not mine. The cells act intelligently through God's instructions.

dhw: Your statement of your belief does not make my proposal illogical.

DAVID: You have your belief, I have mine, each logical to each of us.

Mine is not a belief but a proposal, and I invite you to challenge its logic. Your only response is to reiterate your belief!

dhw: […] your astonishing claim that you “know” God is nothing like a human.

DAVID: You are an amazing theologian. They know God is not anything like us, Adler certainly included. From non-belief you develop all sorts of wild concepts of Him, especially humanizing.

dhw: Nobody “knows” even if God exists, let alone what he is like. We can only speculate, which is why I offer different alternatives, all of which you agree are logical - just as you agree that your God probably has thought patterns etc. similar to ours, so do please stop pretending you never said so.

DAVID: My comments are not set in stone. I have a right to alter your misinterpretations of my comments.

How can anyone possibly misinterpret the statement that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought”? But I’m pleased to hear that your comments are not set in stone. That is why I continue to challenge them – though in this case, you have my full support!

dhw: […] if I remember rightly, you even believe that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

DAVID: Yes, consciousness is a gift from God, but I fully agree it has to arise from material which lives, with life another gift from God.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with this belief. How does it run counter to the theory that your God designed materials from which consciousness would emerge – just as humans have built machines from which artificial intelligence emerges – i.e. in your own words: bb“consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain”?

DAVID: AI is a weak example. Emergence requires the invention of life. Only God does that.

I am not discounting God! I am proposing (theistic version) that he designed materials from which both life and consciousness emerge. This = theistic materialism. What is your objection?