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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 09:15 (1 day, 11 hours, 29 min. ago) @ David Turell

Humanization

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

DAVID: So we could communicate with and about Him.

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: My God is an obvious contrast to yours. I do describe ways in which He might relate to us and we to Him.

You have described ways – enjoyment and interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped – which are every bit as “human” as my own.

DAVID: You describe His 'interest' in free-for-all in a way that strongly suggests entertainment…

You said yourself that he must enjoy creating or he would not do it, and interest in his own creations does not imply entertainment. Would you describe a parent’s interest in their child’s activities as “entertainment”? But who knows? Your God might be a sadist! You've already made him look like an inefficient fool.

DAVID: His need to experiment shows a lack of directed purpose.

It is not a “need” if his purpose is to create new things, get new ideas, make new discoveries. But he may also experiment in order to find the best solution to a problem – e.g. if his purpose is to create a being that will recognize and worship him, he may try to create a combination of cells that will give one of his creatures the necessary level of consciousness.

DAVID: My God has none of this. What appears to be experimentation in God's evolution is actually the development of many interacting ecosystems as resources for humans.

And so for 3.X billion years he designs species and ecosystems, 99.9% of which have no connection with humans and have to be destroyed if he is to fulfil his sole purpose. Please stop dodging the absurd illogicality of your theory.

Animal intelligence: the opossum

DAVID: Part of a necessary ecosystem.

dhw: do you really think your God specially designed the opossum and specially designed its death-defying strategy just for our benefit?

DAVID: You are magnifying a tiny cog in a tiny ecosystem. Yes.

It is you who magnify it by insisting that your almighty God gave this tiny cog special attention – as if the opossum could not possibly have learned a trick through its own observation of a simple event.

Bacterial antibiotic resistance

DAVID: Teams of cells rely upon each other.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: We agree except I think they do it automatically, no ‘thought’ involved.

That is precisely the point on which we disagree! Please explain how a team can absorb, share and process new information, pass it on to another team, and cooperate in the taking and implementation of individual decisions relating to individual new conditions, and yet be unaware of everything it is doing.

Under “biological controls in plants and animals”, I wrote: “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.”

DAVID: An intelligent awareness designed by God.

Thank you. You now accept that as well as bacteria, plants and animals (= cell communities) are possessed of “intelligent awareness”. I have always allowed for your God as its designer. Why do you exclude the opossum?

Under Atheism

DAVID: I am using the accepted conceptual form of the Biblical God.
And:
DAVID: Viruses and bacteria were especially created.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: The Bible does not discuss ape ancestors. Bacteria and viruses are necessary for all the good they do.

You left out your God’s inefficient design, and I’m surprised to hear that the Bible tells us God specially created murderous bacteria and viruses because of the good they do.

Under Milky Way not hitting Andromeda

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Always existed is my position. Why is there anything?

Why would there always have been a superintelligent mind that had no source?