AgnosticWeb.com - Purpose and design: quantum theory and purpose https://agnosticweb.com/ An Agnostic's Brief Guide to the Universe en Purpose and design: quantum theory and purpose (reply) Quantum theory supports purpose for the universe:

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/01/quantum-mechanics-shows-that-our-universe-has-purpose/

"In our world, everything happens for a reason, a human reason. This reason is the cause of the action. But, counterintuitively, it occurs after the action. We only get the milk after having driven to the store. We only go for a walk after putting on the shoes. In philosophy, this sequence is called “final causality.”

"The world of physics is quite different. There, nothing happens for a reason. Particles have no inclinations or goals. Particle A bumps into particle B because it was first bumped by particle C. All causes precede their effects. In philosophy, this sequence is called efficient causality.

"These two views of causality appear to be irreconcilable and they lead to deep mysteries. If everything is physical, then why is causality at the higher, human, level the complete opposite of causality at the lower, physical, level? Because final causality cannot come from its opposite, efficient causality, then something must intervene between the levels. That, in turn, implies that the human level cannot be reduced to the physical level.

***

"Recent open-access research on quantum physics adds an interesting new wrinkle to this dilemma: Not only can two physically separated particles influence each other, they can influence each other through time. That is, physicists can extend entangledness through time.
In other words, two particles that are chronologically separated can influence each other such that particle A cannot be strictly said to have acted before or after particle B. Scientists believe that this result can be extended to causal entanglement. That means particle A can cause an effect in particle B after the effect has already occurred. Mind boggling.

***

"Does this resolve our old dilemma of how to account for our human ability to create final causes? It turns out that final causes can be part of the physical world after all. On that view, if we are only physical beings, we can still create final causes. But no. These quantum experiments actually imply the opposite conclusion.

"Instead of eliminating the mystery of final causality, the experiments deepen the mystery. There must be an observer in order for the entangled causality to occur and physical processes cannot observe anything. So the very occurrence of reverse causality at the physical level means there is top down influence from the human level to the physical level. Not only is quantum physics unable to explain human final causality, it cannot explain its own final causality by itself. Its final causality is a trickle down effect from the human level.

"And herein lies the rub. If human observers are necessary for physical final causality to occur, how do humans come to have the capability in the first place? This question points to a yet even higher source of final causality that extends beyond the human realm, and is responsible for the final causality that humans exhibit.

"Thus, these quantum physicists are showing that—far from final causality being a minor physical phenomena that can be explained away with an experiment—our entire universe is imbued with final causality within its very fabric and this final causality must come from some source beyond the universe."

Comment: The way I view this the quantum world, behind the wall of uncertainty, is where God hides. He based our reality on an underpinning of quantum events/particles . There He remains concealed as He prefers, requiring us to develop faith.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=33987 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=33987 Sat, 08 Feb 2020 01:24:32 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) As a convinced atheist, it always troubled me that while creationism offered an explanation of life and evolution whatever I thought of it, atheism did not. It clings to the idea that it was all a million’s to one series of chance events.
This always distressed me but not being an important person, I thought that if 'they' had no answer ... Then one day, loafing in my chair (aged 76), I resolved that if I believe/know that all things are subject to physical law, so must be life and evolution.
Suddenly excited by a flash of (rather clouded!) inspiration, I decided upon a dialectical approach to this conundrum. Having pondered in this way, I realised that my starting point must be (as it were) as if I were Mother Nature! There is nothing and no-one to help Mother Nature in this scenario.
It was obvious that while evolution was, thanks to Darwin et al., partially understood, the same cannot be said of life to any real extent. I have never considered chance – an arithmetic equation not engaged by nature – as affecting evolution. Mother Nature doesn’t ‘do’ arithmetic so chance barely exists.
All ‘events’ are the essentially automatic result of a current ‘pre-condition’. There are usually, probably two or more automatically acceptable outcomes in the terms of the then pre-existing conditions. Thus this process in not totally deterministic as it allows marginally different, immediate outcomes. These, in turn, will result in widely varying further outcomes.
So, I thought, it’s essentially atomic – must be if nature is automatic: complex (at this stage) would be impossible. Atoms, to become materials must be governed by laws (properties) that set the boundaries of their differing structures and capabilities including – most importantly – the acceptability of conjoining with other atoms that are’sympathetic in their structure. A simple example sprang to mind.
H2O !! This is the result of the interplay of entirely natural forces and materials. Before the advent of Homo-Sapiens, as far as we know, absolutely everything has been formed automatically.
So, for certain, we know that inorganic materials can and do form automatically! Life would seem to be formulated in like manner but there are other quite natural possibilities. No useful purpose for airing them here, unfortunately.
Evolution, however, is a different case.
The very simplest form of life as yet, eludes us, leaving only speculation. Nonetheless, it is possible that all life has developed from it. Assuming this to be so, that lifeform further developed when some member/s automatically accepted an additional atom or atoms. The addition/s altered the pre-existing ‘State’, just marginally and this ‘change’ modified the automatically the range of further ‘acceptability’.
In a nutshell, this process, automatically functioning in varying conditions, must inevitably result in all the lifeforms that have ever existed and any yet to appear.
Simple can only deal with simple, but, eventually, complexity is formed but is still limited to operating with only the simplest available choices. In Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens is displayed the amazing capability of the brain. Many feel that this level of complexity cannot arise in this seemingly ‘iffy’way.
What they fail to understand is that chance (iffyness!) plays no part! These bits of brain are already at a stage where the ‘rules of engagement’ can only accept very particular new configuration. The already existing ‘configurations’ take, as they must, account of the ‘directing balance’ of the organism (i.e. what it has become) in accepting further ‘additions’.
On 7th July 2007, ten full years ago, I sent the main body of my idea (in a pages long essay) to The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. Mrs Jill Abury (Sec) the Soc. biologist added the title ‘The Genesis of Evolution’. Sadly, for me, it was rejected.
Analogies are, unfortunately rarely if ever fireproof, but, if we assume here that the letters of the alphabet are incontrovertible parts of natural law and that letter ‘A’ can conjoin wth any other and all the others have limitations, I can say that A, B, C, may be an example of a natural automatic attracted set of atoms.
This base will not accept some dozen of the others but can unite with half a dozen of the remainder. Other letters may form other bases, but only with a limited selection of letters that will then influence strongly further additions. Later, the more complex word may be able to absorb what were hitherto unacceptable letters.
An example: the word Verb can become Verbal or Adverb, but the word Verb cannot retain its initial structure if it accepts letters a,d or l. ‘Verbatimly’ would represent that later complexity. I hope this is sufficient to convey my meaning.
I should, I think, make the point that are no physical laws plural. Physical law is a totality, the so-called laws are simply shades of its intrinsic all-embracing nature. I would be happy to discuss any views I post, via john.kalber@yahoo.com .

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25629 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25629 Tue, 04 Jul 2017 16:22:59 +0000 EvolutionJohn Kalber Purpose and design (reply) As a convinced atheist, it always troubled me that while creationism offered an explanation of life and evolution whatever I thought of it, atheism did not. It clings to the idea that it was all a million’s to one series of chance events.
This always distressed me but not being an important person, I thought that if 'they' had no answer ... Then one day, loafing in my chair (aged 76), I resolved that if I believe/know that all things are subject to physical law, so must be life and evolution.
Suddenly excited by a flash of (rather clouded!) inspiration, I decided upon a dialectical approach to this conundrum. Having pondered in this way, I realised that my starting point must be (as it were) as if I were Mother Nature! There is nothing and no-one to help Mother Nature in this scenario.
It was obvious that while evolution was, thanks to Darwin et al., partially understood, the same cannot be said of life to any real extent. I have never considered chance – an arithmetic equation not engaged by nature – as affecting evolution. Mother Nature doesn’t ‘do’ arithmetic so chance barely exists.
All ‘events’ are the essentially automatic result of a current ‘pre-condition’. There are usually, probably two or more automatically acceptable outcomes in the terms of the then pre-existing conditions. Thus this process in not totally deterministic as it allows marginally different, immediate outcomes. These, in turn, will result in widely varying further outcomes.
So, I thought, it’s essentially atomic – must be if nature is automatic: complex (at this stage) would be impossible. Atoms, to become materials must be governed by laws (properties) that set the boundaries of their differing structures and capabilities including – most importantly – the acceptability of conjoining with other atoms that are’sympathetic in their structure. A simple example sprang to mind.
H2O !! This is the result of the interplay of entirely natural forces and materials. Before the advent of Homo-Sapiens, as far as we know, absolutely everything has been formed automatically.
So, for certain, we know that inorganic materials can and do form automatically! Life would seem to be formulated in like manner but there are other quite natural possibilities. No useful purpose for airing them here, unfortunately.
Evolution, however, is a different case.
The very simplest form of life as yet, eludes us, leaving only speculation. Nonetheless, it is possible that all life has developed from it. Assuming this to be so, that lifeform further developed when some member/s automatically accepted an additional atom or atoms. The addition/s altered the pre-existing ‘State’, just marginally and this ‘change’ modified the automatically the range of further ‘acceptability’.
In a nutshell, this process, automatically functioning in varying conditions, must inevitably result in all the lifeforms that have ever existed and any yet to appear.
Simple can only deal with simple, but, eventually, complexity is formed but is still limited to operating with only the simplest available choices. In Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens is displayed the amazing capability of the brain. Many feel that this level of complexity cannot arise in this seemingly ‘iffy’way.
What they fail to understand is that chance (iffyness!) plays no part! These bits of brain are already at a stage where the ‘rules of engagement’ can only accept very particular new configuration. The already existing ‘configurations’ take, as they must, account of the ‘directing balance’ of the organism (i.e. what it has become) in accepting further ‘additions’.
On 7th July 2007, ten full years ago, I sent the main body of my idea (in a pages long essay) to The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. Mrs Jill Abury (Sec) the Soc. biologist added the title ‘The Genesis of Evolution’. Sadly, for me, it was rejected.
Analogies are, unfortunately rarely if ever fireproof, but, if we assume here that the letters of the alphabet are incontrovertible parts of natural law and that letter ‘A’ can conjoin wth any other and all the others have limitations, I can say that A, B, C, may be an example of a natural automatic attracted set of atoms.
This base will not accept some dozen of the others but can unite with half a dozen of the remainder. Other letters may form other bases, but only with a limited selection of letters that will then influence strongly further additions. Later, the more complex word may be able to absorb what were hitherto unacceptable letters.
An example: the word Verb can become Verbal or Adverb, but the word Verb cannot retain its initial structure if it accepts letters a,d or l. ‘Verbatimly’ would represent that later complexity. I hope this is sufficient to convey my meaning.
I should, I think, make the point that are no physical laws plural. Physical law is a totality, the so-called laws are simply shades of its intrinsic all-embracing nature. I would be happy to discuss any views I post, via john.kalber@yahoo.com .

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25628 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25628 Tue, 04 Jul 2017 16:19:42 +0000 EvolutionJohn Kalber Purpose and design (reply)

dhw: You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

DAVID: Your problem is seeing forest or trees. The nest is one tiny cog in energy production to allow evolution to continue to its current (or end) point.

dhw: To summarize this meandering discussion:
A. If you dismiss the boredom/loneliness hypothesis on the grounds that it is human reasoning about a non-human person, you will have to dismiss every single hypothesis about God’s purpose and nature, including your own.
B. Nobody knows the end point of evolution.
C. We have agreed over and over again on the obvious fact that evolution requires energy to continue from past to "current" to future (whatever it may be). That does not provide even the slightest support for the argument that God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans, and everything else was related to this purpose.

DAVID: We should stop this discussion. A. I can decide on God's purpose without humanizing Him, and giving Him emotions.
dhw: Nevertheless, like everyone else you are applying human reasoning to a non-human “person”.

B. I can decide on what I think the endpoint is.
dhw: Of course you can. Nobody else can decide on what you think.

C. Energy is a side issue you keep return to. The balance of nature relates to evolution and its endpoint only in that is supplies energy so it can continue. It does not prove humans are the endpoint and I have never said that.
dhw: It is you who keep returning to it, as in the exchange that begins this post. You do it every time I challenge the logic of your God having designed the weaverbird’s nest when according to you all he wanted to design was humans. But we should indeed end the discussion as it has lost its way.

Agreed

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25059 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25059 Fri, 05 May 2017 23:06:07 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) dhw: You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

DAVID: Your problem is seeing forest or trees. The nest is one tiny cog in energy production to allow evolution to continue to its current (or end) point.

dhw: To summarize this meandering discussion:
A. If you dismiss the boredom/loneliness hypothesis on the grounds that it is human reasoning about a non-human person, you will have to dismiss every single hypothesis about God’s purpose and nature, including your own.
B. Nobody knows the end point of evolution.
C. We have agreed over and over again on the obvious fact that evolution requires energy to continue from past to "current" to future (whatever it may be). That does not provide even the slightest support for the argument that God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans, and everything else was related to this purpose.

DAVID: We should stop this discussion. A. I can decide on God's purpose without humanizing Him, and giving Him emotions.
Nevertheless, like everyone else you are applying human reasoning to a non-human “person”.

B. I can decide on what I think the endpoint is.
Of course you can. Nobody else can decide on what you think.

C. Energy is a side issue you keep return to. The balance of nature relates to evolution and its endpoint only in that is supplies energy so it can continue. It does not prove humans are the endpoint and I have never said that.
It is you who keep returning to it, as in the exchange that begins this post. You do it every time I challenge the logic of your God having designed the weaverbird’s nest when according to you all he wanted to design was humans. But we should indeed end the discussion as it has lost its way.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25054 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25054 Fri, 05 May 2017 11:36:56 +0000 Evolutiondhw Purpose and design (reply)

dhw: You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

DAVID: Your problem is seeing forest or trees. The nest is one tiny cog in energy production to allow evolution to continue to its current (or end) point.

dhw: To summarize this meandering discussion:
A. If you dismiss the boredom/loneliness hypothesis on the grounds that it is human reasoning about a non-human person, you will have to dismiss every single hypothesis about God’s purpose and nature, including your own.

B. Nobody knows the end point of evolution.

C. We have agreed over and over again on the obvious fact that evolution requires energy to continue from past to "current" to future (whatever it may be). That does not provide even the slightest support for the argument that God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans, and everything else was related to this purpose.

We should stop this discussion. A. I can decide on God's purpose without humanizing Him, and giving Him emotions.

B. I can decide on what I think the endpoint is.

C. Energy is a side issue you keep return to. The balance of nature relates to evolution and its endpoint only in that is supplies energy so it can continue. It does not prove humans are the endpoint and I have never said that.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25048 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25048 Fri, 05 May 2017 00:32:49 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) dhw: You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

DAVID: Your problem is seeing forest or trees. The nest is one tiny cog in energy production to allow evolution to continue to its current (or end) point.

To summarize this meandering discussion:
A. If you dismiss the boredom/loneliness hypothesis on the grounds that it is human reasoning about a non-human person, you will have to dismiss every single hypothesis about God’s purpose and nature, including your own.

B. Nobody knows the end point of evolution.

C. We have agreed over and over again on the obvious fact that evolution requires energy to continue from past to "current" to future (whatever it may be). That does not provide even the slightest support for the argument that God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans, and everything else was related to this purpose.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25043 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25043 Thu, 04 May 2017 11:04:30 +0000 Evolutiondhw Purpose and design (reply)


DAVID: Humans are the unreasonable result of creation. That is my prime point.

dhw: You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

Your problem is seeing forest or trees. The nest is one tiny cog in energy production to allow evolution to continue to its current (or end) point.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25036 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25036 Wed, 03 May 2017 14:14:15 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) dhw: Why do you compare purpose and emotion? Emotion can be a spur to purpose. Boredom and loneliness can motivate a mind to invent something whose purpose is to relieve such feelings. Why is that unreasonable?

DAVID: Not unreasonable. Just human reasoning about a non-human person.

dhw: You can say the same about every single hypothesis concerning God – and you are as human as I am. At least you accept that my hypothesis is reasonable. I can see nothing reasonable in the hypothesis that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans, and therefore he designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to provide energy to keep life going because he had decided to “take his time” before designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: Humans are the unreasonable result of creation. That is my prime point.

You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25032 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25032 Wed, 03 May 2017 11:56:39 +0000 Evolutiondhw Purpose and design (reply)

dhw: Why do you compare purpose and emotion? Emotion can be a spur to purpose. Boredom and loneliness can motivate a mind to invent something whose purpose is to relieve such feelings. Why is that unreasonable?

DAVID: Not unreasonable. Just human reasoning about a non-human person.

dhw: You can say the same about every single hypothesis concerning God – and you are as human as I am. At least you accept that my hypothesis is reasonable. I can see nothing reasonable in the hypothesis that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans, and therefore he designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to provide energy to keep life going because he had decided to “take his time” before designing the only thing he wanted to design.

Humans are the unreasonable result of creation. That is my prime point.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25026 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25026 Tue, 02 May 2017 17:31:45 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) DAVID: Yes, most anything is conceivably possible, but I strongly feel God is more purposeful than emotional. I find boredom and loneliness as highly unreasonable.

dhw: Why do you compare purpose and emotion? Emotion can be a spur to purpose. Boredom and loneliness can motivate a mind to invent something whose purpose is to relieve such feelings. Why is that unreasonable?

DAVID: Not unreasonable. Just human reasoning about a non-human person.

You can say the same about every single hypothesis concerning God – and you are as human as I am. At least you accept that my hypothesis is reasonable. I can see nothing reasonable in the hypothesis that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans, and therefore he designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to provide energy to keep life going because he had decided to “take his time” before designing the only thing he wanted to design.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25019 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25019 Tue, 02 May 2017 10:51:54 +0000 Evolutiondhw Purpose and design (reply)

DAVID: Yes, most anything is conceivably possible, but I strongly feel God is more purposeful than emotional. I find boredom and loneliness as highly unreasonable.

dhw: Why do you compare purpose and emotion? Emotion can be a spur to purpose. Boredom and loneliness can motivate a mind to invent something whose purpose is to relieve such feelings. Why is that unreasonable?

Not unreasonable. Just human reasoning about a non-human person.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25014 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25014 Mon, 01 May 2017 17:57:56 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) dhw:I do not “know” anything. If you think that instead of hiding himself he guides you and may respond to your prayers, you must think him “human” enough to understand your needs and care about you as an individual. No problem if that’s what you believe. But it makes a mockery of your dismissal of any alternative view of your God because we can’t “know” (which is why we both speculate) or because it is a “humanization” that differs from your own humanization.

DAVID: His consciousness and mine can obviously communicate, although from our viewpoint it is unidirectional. I'll stick to a definition of Him as 'a person like no other person we can know'.

That does not alter the fact that your own beliefs run counter to the arguments you offer to discredit alternatives: nobody “knows” the truth, and you think he is human enough to listen to you and to care about you, but I should not speculate on boredom or loneliness because that is human.

DAVID: Yes, most anything is conceivably possible, but I strongly feel God is more purposeful than emotional. I find boredom and loneliness as highly unreasonable.

Why do you compare purpose and emotion? Emotion can be a spur to purpose. Boredom and loneliness can motivate a mind to invent something whose purpose is to relieve such feelings. Why is that unreasonable?

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25009 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25009 Mon, 01 May 2017 07:58:57 +0000 Evolutiondhw Purpose and design (reply)


David: Note that the Bible tells us He is very forgiving if you are contrite enough. The meaning of Yom Kippur!


Tony:Indeed! But it also said that at one point he regretted making mankind and wanted to destroy it.

Genesis 6:5-8

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Edit**

It is also worth noting that Genesis 9 is Biblical confirmation that God does/did indeed tinker with living creatures after the initial act of creation. He made creatures afraid of mankind which amounts to changing their basic instincts and behaviors. So, the weaver bird nest is a possibility too!


David: But God relented and made a covenant with the sign of the rainbow. The Great Flood is a sign of God changing the course of things in general.

I know a lot of people mock that (not saying you are), but then, they also forget that before the flood it had not rained, so a rainbow would have been something entirely new.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25000 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=25000 Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:35:58 +0000 EvolutionBalance_Maintained Purpose and design (reply)


David: Note that the Bible tells us He is very forgiving if you are contrite enough. The meaning of Yom Kippur!


Tony:Indeed! But it also said that at one point he regretted making mankind and wanted to destroy it.

Genesis 6:5-8

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Edit**

It is also worth noting that Genesis 9 is Biblical confirmation that God does/did indeed tinker with living creatures after the initial act of creation. He made creatures afraid of mankind which amounts to changing their basic instincts and behaviors. So, the weaver bird nest is a possibility too!

But God relented and made a covenant with the sign of the rainbow. The Great Flood is a sign of God changing the course of things in general.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24999 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24999 Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:30:59 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply)

TONY: Only this... IF it was only to cure his own boredom, why would he put up with the crap from us after allegedly coming so darn close to wiping us off the face of the earth. Why go through all the headache and heartache of it all when he could have just wiped us out if the only reason we mattered was to alleviate his boredom.

dhw: Because the crap, just like the sweet scent of love, empathy, charity, could all be part of the show. The very fact that he does NOT wipe us out suggests that he is not fed up with it. I offer this merely as one hypothesis. But if you think he’s sick of all the crap, perhaps he’s simply turned his attention elsewhere. I’m only looking for logical explanations of life’s history from a theistic perspective. Your Bible will no doubt offer other alternatives.


David: Note that the Bible tells us He is very forgiving if you are contrite enough. The meaning of Yom Kippur!

Indeed! But it also said that at one point he regretted making mankind and wanted to destroy it.

Genesis 6:5-8

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Edit**

It is also worth noting that Genesis 9 is Biblical confirmation that God does/did indeed tinker with living creatures after the initial act of creation. He made creatures afraid of mankind which amounts to changing their basic instincts and behaviors. So, the weaver bird nest is a possibility too!

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24996 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24996 Sat, 29 Apr 2017 04:51:28 +0000 EvolutionBalance_Maintained Purpose and design (reply)

dhw:I do not “know” anything. If you think that instead of hiding himself he guides you and may respond to your prayers, you must think him “human” enough to understand your needs and care about you as an individual. No problem if that’s what you believe. But it makes a mockery of your dismissal of any alternative view of your God because we can’t “know” (which is why we both speculate) or because it is a “humanization” that differs from your own humanization.

His consciousness and mine can obviously communicate, although from our viewpoint it is unidirectional. I'll stick to a definition of Him as 'a person like no other person we can know'.


dhw: Thank you for agreeing that relief of boredom and loneliness is a possible purpose underlying the creation of life on Earth.
DAVID: Where did I agree? I admit it is a possibility, but I don't agree with it.

dhw: Please read what I wrote. Agreeing that something is “a possible purpose”, means agreeing that it is a possibility.

Yes, most anything is conceivably possible, but I strongly feel God is more purposeful than emotional. I find boredom and loneliness as highly unreasonable.


TONY: Only this... IF it was only to cure his own boredom, why would he put up with the crap from us after allegedly coming so darn close to wiping us off the face of the earth. Why go through all the headache and heartache of it all when he could have just wiped us out if the only reason we mattered was to alleviate his boredom.

dhw: Because the crap, just like the sweet scent of love, empathy, charity, could all be part of the show. The very fact that he does NOT wipe us out suggests that he is not fed up with it. I offer this merely as one hypothesis. But if you think he’s sick of all the crap, perhaps he’s simply turned his attention elsewhere. I’m only looking for logical explanations of life’s history from a theistic perspective. Your Bible will no doubt offer other alternatives.

Note that the Bible tells us He is very forgiving if you are contrite enough. The meaning of Yom Kippur!

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24993 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24993 Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:58:09 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply) DAVID: I have never said God does not think like us. All I have said is He is very different from us. it is the emotional side of His thoughts that I question.

I find it difficult to draw a clear line here between thought and emotion. If God thought to himself, “I’m interested” or “I’m bored”, I really can’t see why one is acceptable to you and the other not.

Dhw […] can you see anything in the history of life that contradicts the relief-of-boredom hypothesis?
DAVID: Back to humanizing Him. IMHO a purposeful God is never bored.

Having a purpose is a good way of alleviating boredom. You suggested relief of loneliness as a possible purpose, and I’m quite happy to see that as an alternative motive if you prefer it.

dhw: As for your idea of a conscious relationship, that ran into difficulties when you insisted that your God remained hidden and we must not “humanize” him. Not much of a relationship if the partner isn’t contactable and we have nothing in common.
DAVID: How do you know He is not contactable? He may listen to prayer and respond in ways we do not recognize at first. I feel He has guided my life. I can't tell you why.

I do not “know” anything. If you think that instead of hiding himself he guides you and may respond to your prayers, you must think him “human” enough to understand your needs and care about you as an individual. No problem if that’s what you believe. But it makes a mockery of your dismissal of any alternative view of your God because we can’t “know” (which is why we both speculate) or because it is a “humanization” that differs from your own humanization.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that relief of boredom and loneliness is a possible purpose underlying the creation of life on Earth.
DAVID: Where did I agree? I admit it is a possibility, but I don't agree with it.

Please read what I wrote. Agreeing that something is “a possible purpose”, means agreeing that it is a possibility.

TONY: Only this... IF it was only to cure his own boredom, why would he put up with the crap from us after allegedly coming so darn close to wiping us off the face of the earth. Why go through all the headache and heartache of it all when he could have just wiped us out if the only reason we mattered was to alleviate his boredom.

Because the crap, just like the sweet scent of love, empathy, charity, could all be part of the show. The very fact that he does NOT wipe us out suggests that he is not fed up with it. I offer this merely as one hypothesis. But if you think he’s sick of all the crap, perhaps he’s simply turned his attention elsewhere. I’m only looking for logical explanations of life’s history from a theistic perspective. Your Bible will no doubt offer other alternatives.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24986 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24986 Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:51:40 +0000 Evolutiondhw Purpose and design (reply)

DHW: Like David, I have problems with this concept of Christ, but even if I were to accept the basic premise that your God’s son was the start of the creative process, I would still like to know why God created the system that produced this vast variety of material life forms, including humans with their advanced consciousness. I cannot see anything in your earlier post that would invalidate the hypothesis of life as a means of alleviating his boredom: the process began with himself and nothing besides himself, what he created produced a huge and ever changing variety, there were and are elements of randomness that he either could not or would not predict…and unlike David you are not afraid to attribute human thoughts to him - after all, we are “in his image”. So once again (with apologies for harping on about it), can you see anything in the history of life that contradicts the relief-of-boredom hypothesis?


Tony: Only this... IF it was only to cure his own boredom, why would he put up with the crap from us after allegedly coming so darn close to wiping us off the face of the earth. Why go through all the headache and heartache of it all when he could have just wiped us out if the only reason we mattered was to alleviate his boredom.

I didn't think you would find boredom as a reason.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24982 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24982 Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:02:40 +0000 EvolutionDavid Turell Purpose and design (reply)

DHW: Like David, I have problems with this concept of Christ, but even if I were to accept the basic premise that your God’s son was the start of the creative process, I would still like to know why God created the system that produced this vast variety of material life forms, including humans with their advanced consciousness. I cannot see anything in your earlier post that would invalidate the hypothesis of life as a means of alleviating his boredom: the process began with himself and nothing besides himself, what he created produced a huge and ever changing variety, there were and are elements of randomness that he either could not or would not predict…and unlike David you are not afraid to attribute human thoughts to him - after all, we are “in his image”. So once again (with apologies for harping on about it), can you see anything in the history of life that contradicts the relief-of-boredom hypothesis?

Only this... IF it was only to cure his own boredom, why would he put up with the crap from us after allegedly coming so darn close to wiping us off the face of the earth. Why go through all the headache and heartache of it all when he could have just wiped us out if the only reason we mattered was to alleviate his boredom.

]]> https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24980 https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=24980 Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:18:29 +0000 EvolutionBalance_Maintained