autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 29, 2018, 15:50 (2219 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Answered in the other thread: Wednesday, March 28, 2018, 15:12. "Why do I have to have certainty about all of God's activities? That is your problem. You want exactitude about all aspects of how our reality came into existence so you can accept something." The balance of nature is very finely tuned by the diversity of the bush of life, as shown by the disturbances I've presented when humans interfere. These econiches require a type of design. I can only reach conclusions when I can.

dhw: But you do have certainty. You are certain not only that God exists, but that his one and only purpose was to produce the human brain. (Your one and only secondary purpose called “balance of nature” turns out to be the claim that the whole history of changing balances has been geared to the production of the human brain. The fact that humans are currently changing the balance and endangering themselves has nothing to do with your God’s purpose in designing every lifestyle and natural wonder you have listed for us.) You are certain that your God is in full control, except when maybe he is not (see bad bacteria and viruses). And you are certain that God did not design a mechanism to give cells/cell communities the autonomous means to cope with their environment, though he does give them a degree of freedom but not without help and guidelines, which is the opposite of autonomy. Nobody on this planet can provide any degree of exactitude about how our reality came into existence. That is why I am so uncertain. And that is why I point out what I see as the inconsistencies in your certainties, and have the temerity to suggest alternatives, which you reject as if you could be certain they are wrong!

You have given a very clear disposition of your point of view. You are again declaring your need for exactitude: " Nobody on this planet can provide any degree of exactitude about how our reality came into existence." But we who have come to believe can reach conclusions that satisfy us as being reasonable and believable. You see your "inconsistencies" and muddle along, which of course is the right thing for you. It must be obvious to you that I am content with my conclusions, as far as I can take them as I stick my nose into God's business. I have no evidence He is totally benign in his methods. We have the problem of evil (theodicy) and you are aware I've covered my answer to it here and in my books. Your major division with me in thought is design. I have presented here a multitude of examples of the complexity of the biochemistry of life, one such yesterday. For me it is absolute evidence that a designing mind is required, and is the prime starting point for my series of conclusions.