More Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Thursday, May 02, 2024, 12:00 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

Double standards

dhw: You seem to have understood the term now.

DAVID: Yes, I understand your view. The problem for me is, if I give a brief answer, you immediately demand a more complete justification, as this exchange shows. I will try to be more complete.

Yes, it is highly desirable that you give at least one good reason for rejecting alternatives to your own theology, and that it should not open you up to being accused of double standards. Thank you.

Enjoyment, boredom and theodicy

dhw: […] you also think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, and he would find puppets boring, and so he allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to prevent himself and us from getting bored. But not wanting to be bored, and doing things for enjoyment apparently do not entail self-interest.

DAVID: God may enjoy creating is a possible attribute since He does create. But 'enjoy' MUST be used allegorically, since God is not human and may not want or need the emotions we have.
And:
DAVID: Boredom is a human problem. It may not affect God at all. Don't apply boredom to Him.

There is no “allegory” involved. Enjoyment is not a symbol. You know what you mean by the word, and so do I. Whether or not he has emotions like ours (including enjoyment and boredom) is a fair question. But it was you who were certain he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations, and I can’t see why he would create life if he didn’t enjoy doing it. You said he would have found puppets boring. I agree. I don’t find it difficult to believe that the conscious being you call God might find eternity boring if he didn’t have anything other than himself to think about. And I even accept the reasonableness of your idea that he wants us to worship him. It’s you who object to your own suggestions, because you also want your God to be selfless. You start with the God you wish for, and the contradictions follow.

Importance of microbiomes

DAVID: […] The plants benefit from the bug, so why complain about the evil they do. They are necessarily designed as free-acting. They cannot be puppets.

dhw: Once again, your omnipotent God is powerless to prevent evil, and you have not yet explained why you blame him.

DAVID: I initially raised here the issue of theodicy for completeness.

So please tell us why you blame him for the murderous bugs,

dhw: A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone.

DAVID: Backwards as usual. God makes the world as it is. It doesn't run independently as a show for Him. No contradictions here for your humanized form of a God.

Your usual statement of opinion as fact, and a blanket rejection of any humanizing “maybes” other than your own.

Aquatic spiders

(I am splitting the comments to clarify questions and answers.)

DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.

dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” […]

DAVID: Just-so stories, as in the article, add nothing of substance.

Why do you find it unreasonable to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if they can’t find food or they are in danger?

dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.

DAVID: Your same old blather about super intelligent cells.

Why “super”? No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.

dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?

DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.

Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.

Cerebellum helps learning

DAVID: God is the best explanation.

dhw: For what? Do you mean he gives instructions to all the cells and takes their decisions for them, or he invented the autonomous mechanism by which they are responsible for their own actions and decisions?

DAVID: The Purkinje cells, as specialized neurons, have many designed abilities.

What wonderful news! Now please tell us if you think they use their abilities autonomously or if they merely obey your God’s instructions.