Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 18, 2021, 08:58 (922 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.

dhw: “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning […]. God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.

Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.

dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)

DAVID: 'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.

It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).

DAVID: My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.

What “altered” version? There is no authenticated version, but we both have him as highly purposeful. “He knows exactly what to do” depends on what he wants to do. If he wants to experiment, then he does it. If he wants to start off a process and see what new ideas it will lead him to, he does it. If he wants a free-for-all, he does it. According to your views on theodicy, he is far from being in full control, and in any case what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?

Immunity system complexity
dhw: The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.

dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.

DAVID: We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.

What else can we use in our discussions, other than words? If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.

dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?

DAVID: My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught.

So although nobody knows how the controls work, your teachers knew that they were preprogrammed to follow instructions, but they just didn’t realize it was your God who drew up the programmes and instructions. I wonder what they said when you told them. Or was this in the days before God told you he’d done it?