Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 05, 2021, 15:30 (47 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale
DAVID: You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.

dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

The instructions make the design secondhand. What if there are mistakes as we see in current existing living biochemistry?

Please note today's entry about the 'legged' whale!!!


Introducing the brain
dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions


Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: I remember all too well that you believe we were his one and only goal (which apparently is why he created all those life forms that had no connection with us), and I remember all too well asking WHY he wanted us as his goal, so why don’t you answer?

DAVID: I've given lots of possible reasons in the past, to which you always give positive meanings I don't intend to convey. It is all guesswork about a non-human person, God.

dhw: You wrote: “You have no idea why we are here”, so I asked you why you thought we were here. When you "humanized" him by guessing that his goal was to have us recognize and admire his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, what meaning did you intend to convey? Yes, it’s guesswork, as is belief in his existence, but that is what our discussions are about! You seem to think it’s OK for you to "humanize" him in your guesses, but I mustn’t link other guesses of yours - e.g. he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest – to a possible reason why we are here (we are EXTREMELY interesting to watch), because that is “humanizing”.

I'm afraid my impression of your humanizing is unchanged. Despite my pronouncements that I deliberately do not humanize, you twist what I write to sound like humanizing. That doesn't solve your problem about my view of your imagined God. He is nothing like my God and you know it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum