autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 07, 2018, 15:42 (2210 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We sure do think and analyze differently. You cannot seem to recognize that the human brain arrived and is not needed for survival, a major point of your view of bow evolution works. I see his purpose in the appearance of humans, who recognize Him.

dhw: You "cannot seem to remember" that no multicellular organism is “needed for survival”, as bacteria have done very nicely since the beginning. But your last sentence is an important dimension of the argument, which you have mentioned many times previously in the context of your God’s purpose: he wants us to recognize him, he wants a relationship with us (although he remains hidden). And I don’t have a problem with this interpretation, though it is every bit as “humanizing” as the desire to create an ever changing spectacle which he can watch “with interest”. (You object to the latter because only you are allowed to “humanize” your God.) However, this does not mean he had to specially design the unnecessary weaverbird’s nest, or millions of other unnecessary lifestyles and natural wonders that have now disappeared, in order for humans to come along and recognize him! That makes no sense. I have offered you other logical explanations for humans (a late afterthought, ongoing experimentation), but you stick rigidly to your basic premise that the whole higgledy-piggledy bush was designed just for this one purpose. (You have not come up with any other "secondary" purpose.) Your explanation for the illogicality? God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. mine). Maybe it’s not.

Again you have twisted the argument about survival. Nothing beyond bacteria was necessary, therefore it was arranged as a required advance, which is strong evidence for a designed advance. On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship, but that is not the same as your idea that He wanted to watch a spectacle of diversity, which implies to me God is a 'showoff' in your view, saying "look what I can produce in variety". As for a group of other goals, with humans as the primary one, all others are basically secondary and subordinated to that one, as balance of nature, the one I offered. I might ask why do you want me to produce a group of other God's purposes. He might not have any.