New Miscellany 1 & 2: humanizing, intell., Milkdromeda etc. (General)

by dhw, Monday, June 09, 2025, 10:58 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

Humanization

dhw: Why do you think he gave humans free will?

DAVID: So we could communicate with and about Him.

Thank you. Since you tell me to ask God for the answers to all the questions relating to your illogical theories, communication with him is clearly not possible. (If he won’t tell you, he certainly won’t tell me!) Earlier you distorted my theories of your God’s purpose by making it sound as if he “needed” enjoyment and “needed” to experiment. However, your response fits in neatly with your earlier answer that he may want us to recognize and worship him, which unquestionably suggest a need or, at the very least, a human-like desire for attention. My point is that you cannot provide your God with any sort of purpose without humanizing him one way or another, so once and for all, please stop pooh-poohing my alternative theistic theories on grounds of “humanization”.

Animal intelligence: the opossum

dhw: You insist that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, so please tell us why you think your God would have found it necessary to design the stupid opossum and give it special lessons on feigning death.

DAVID: Part of a necessary ecosystem.

You have told us that every ecosystem has been created for our benefit. Even if we forget the countless millions of ecosystems that came and went long before we existed, do you really think your God specially designed the opossum and specially designed its death-defying strategy just for our benefit?

Bacterial antibiotic resistance

dhw: Why would your God give single cells autonomous intelligence but take it away when single cells form communities?

DAVID: Teamwork!!! Survival on your own requires that in singles, but not in teams of cells.

dhw: Difficult to follow. Why should individuals lose their intelligence when they form a team?

DAVID: Teams of cells rely upon each other.

Of course they do. And how would they rely on each other if they were unable to absorb, share and process information, and communicate with one another in order to decide on and coordinate their actions?

Atheism

DAVID: […] But you clearly dislike a God who works in designs for future use.

dhw: Even if that were true, it still wouldn’t make me an atheist!. […] What I do dislike, however, is any theory that makes no sense and is full of contradictions, e.g. by postulating a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient designer whose design is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. […]

DAVID: I am using the accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God. And you?

dhw: Whereabouts in the Bible does it tell us that humans evolved from a common apelike ancestor, and that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species he never wanted, and that despite his omnipotence and omniscience he could not control the nasty bacteria and viruses he had inadvertently created?

DAVID: Viruses and bacteria were especially created.

Even worse! And is God’s special creation of murderous viruses and bacteria part of the “accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God”? How about the other items on my list?

Milky Way not hitting Andromeda

dhw: The combination of these quotes is hilarious. As usual, we have sensational new discoveries, which actually teach us that the conventional view of a merger is absolutely correct (though initially “it may not be right at all”), and the conventional timing of 4 billion years may be right, but it might be wrong. That’s progress for you.

I’m sorry you couldn’t laugh with me about this.

DAVID: […] dhw will comment why did God make such a big universe if His only interest is us on Earth? My answer is God knows what He is doing and for some reason unknown to us the universe's size is required.

dhw: Your own bewilderment should alert you to the possibility that his sole purpose can’t have been to create one planet sufficiently fine-tuned to sustain us and our food. Another possibility is that there is no God, and the first cause is eternal matter and energy constantly combining into different forms that eventually produce the combinations necessary for life. I find both first-cause theories equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: Our brain should convince you a designer God exists.

As you know perfectly well, I accept the rationality of the design argument. But this solution to the mystery of the brain, and indeed all life, creates an even greater mystery – how could the superintelligent mind of an immaterial designer have come from nothing and simply existed forever?

Biochemical controls in plants and animals

DAVID: this study shows how interrelated plant and animal metabolisms are.

It’s a fascinating subject. Since all life is believed to have descended from single cells, we shouldn’t be surprised at similarities and common elements, and I shall never forget a conversation I had with a tree surgeon, who had absolutely no doubt that trees were sentient and communicative. It’s clear from some of the articles you have posted that this extends to other plants, with examples of symbiosis and strategies that could only come about through some form of intelligent awareness.