On the Nature of a Divine Creator: An Evolutionary Ontology (v1.3)

[ernestm]

On the Nature of a Divine Creator: An Evolutionary Ontology (v1.3)
---------------------------------------------
When I've raised issues of rational inconsistency in arguments about the EXISTENCE of a Creator, several thousand people have only responded by expressing their personal beliefs, particularly with respect to evolution. None have ever observed that a Creator could have used evolution as a tool. I first wrote about evolution as a Divine tool in my blog:
[https://yofiel.com/essays/dawkins.php]
in the context of explaining how a Creator's existence or not is unprovable, at least in terms of rational thought and the scientific method. So I looked through all the literature I could find, and I found NOTHING that explored rational deductions from considering evolution as a Divine tool.
So here I consider the NATURE of a Creator, if one exists, from a PHILOSOPHICAL perspective for the first time ever. That is, now bing 62 years old, I draw conclusions from logical reason, rather than personal prejudice, on the nature of such a being ASSUMING ONE EXISTS.
~
Even atheists should find an ontological approach helpful because, after making the assumption, one may discover new ideas or facts, in exactly the way Madame Curie discovered radioactivity. Of course in social media, such maturity in contemplation from both 'sides' is extremely rare, and only ~0.5% of all respondents in my experience.
------------------------------------------------
2 ~ ON EVOLUTION AS A TOOL
------------------------------------------------
The extent people grant such a powerful being with intelligence less than a neanderthal is astonishing. Obviously, just as we use opposable thumbs to shape the world as we desire, AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR WOULD USE EVOLUTION AS A TOOL.
~
Moreover, concepts of 'social evolution' have progressed immensely in the last century, meaning that civilization itself could have been an intentional creation. I was impressed by Engels' final contribution to Marxist dialectical materialism, "Dialectics of Nature" (1925), his last book:
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... nature.pdf]
Scientific knowledge has replaced much of Engels' postulations, so this book is not frequently read. But in this rather chaotic work of his final days, Engels does draw a very basic conclusion from dialectical materialism:- the existence of civilization simply needs, as a prerequisite, the evolution of hands connected to a brain. The rest is fairly automatic.
------------------------------------------------
3 ~ ON OUR RELEVANCE
------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the greatest puzzlement for us overall is the incredible complexity of the physical universe that enabled us to exist at all, considering how difficult it is even for life to exist as we know it. Nonetheless, however much the galaxies and stellar phenomena are dazzling, they are purely mechanical and COULD be viewed simply as a physical foundation enabling the development of life and conscious thought.
~
The complexity (or ENTROPY) necessary for our experience as living beings is just as astounding. One human brain has more neurons in it than stars in our galaxy. That makes us at least an entropic center of creation that has no 'geometric center' as of itself, according to the now jaded Copernican principle. Thus even from the perspective of our physical organization alone, our complexity makes us of particular interest to a Creator.
------------------------------------------------
4 ~ ON OUR PURPOSE
------------------------------------------------
Now one turns to arguments about our INTENTIONAL creation, in which case, the Creator would have to be conscious. What would such a consciousness be like, and what therefore would be the Creator's intention be for creating us?
~
On this, I start by considering what the consciousness of such a being would be like. On this topic, I can only refer to Nagel's paper 'What's it Like to be a Bat?' which is available online at
[https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iat ... el_bat.pdf]
From that, it is clear that any Creator would have a very different experience of consciousness than ourselves, in exactly the same way animals would have a very different experience of consciousness, assuming they do. This is because we have hormones and sensory experience of pleasure, pain, etc that such a Creator would not have. Hence, we could not consider how such a 'Creator' thinks in terms of our own emotions or experiences.
~
With respect to our own emotions, the most frequent criticism of theism hurled at me with highly emotional rhetoric is that there exists much suffering in the world. I keep repeating there is no rational reason why a Creator would care whether we suffer or not. In fact, spiritual thinkers throughout all known history, including Christ and Buddha, have been concerned about how we choose to act in the fact of suffering, not why suffering exists.
~
After having been subjected to hundreds of emotional torrents on the subject, I still end up agreeing with Locke's statement in the "Essay concerning Human Understanding," Chapter 21, Paragraph 34:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/1 ... 0615-h.htm]
Hunger, pleasure, pain, etc is the 'spring of action' without which we would be like 'unmoving rocks or stones.' Locke has a great deal more to say on it in this chapter, which I frequently read, because it is the origin whence Jefferson chose natural rights.
~
Thus if there is a Divine Creator, and further, a Creator intending to create us, then we should know from philosophy, first, that such a being needed to create suffering in order that we each discover the nature of our free will.
~
Freedom of will would indeed be the most interesting phenomenon to a Creator. The existence of suffering thus seems a natural necessity in order to make us interesting to a Divine being. That flies in the face of people who have some kind of psychotic delusion of grandeur interfering with their rational thinking process. I can only surmise such beings had some severe problems in their childhood that makes them need to criticize what exists from some kind of moral high ground, beyond natural sensibility or sanity.
------------------------------------------------
5~ ON THE CREATOR's NATURE
------------------------------------------------
So then I finally reach some actual observations on the nature of any Creator. I now make six observations.
~
(5a) PERCEPTION OF TIME, SPACE, and MATTER ~ Any Creator that might exist must have a very different perception of time, space, and matter. OUr understanding of the Big Bang is that an incredible amount of subatomic activity happened in the first microseconds of extreme heat. After that, an immense Universe, possibly infinite in size, expanded over 13.8 billion years before we even showed up.
~
(5b) PERCEPTION OF ENTROPY ~ A Creator would need perception of some entropic dimension, in string theory or something, so we could be found. Given the sophistication of natural order, I don't think it's impossible.
~
(5c) EXPERIENCE ~ Attributing human emotions to a being without our physiological makeup would appear rationally wrong, although given sufficient understanding, we may be able to identify experiences independent of perception that would at least have some correspondence.
~
(5d) ALTRUISM ~ It appears there are some very interesting aspects to altruism, including that it could even evolve naturally as a process of 'social evolution.' For example,
[https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/57/3/566/3979667]
But just because altruistic cooperation makes sense doesn't mean people will choose it. That leads me to believe there COULD be an interest in Good and Evil by a Divine Creator, as we seem to be having real problems with following the reasoning for altruism.
~
(5e) LOVE ~ The topic of 'love' for us in any philosophical sense is more complex, and one COULD argue that's as close as we could understand a Divine Creator, but philosophically speaking, such a conclusion would still have to be based on some semantic assumptions that would have to remain VERY MUCH an issue of personal belief. Nonetheless, given Engels' observation in section 2 above, interest in personal experience could more significant, from a more sophisticated perspective, than would appear likely to a person who has not thought through the ontological argument, due to prior naive assumptions.

[LuckyR]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

[ernestm]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

[JackDaydream]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

I am not sure whether it needs to be considered as a tool but more of a process. It is possible to reconcile the idea of God with evolution though because unless one takes the Biblical story literally the idea of God and evolution are compatible. My understanding is that Darwin himself did not see his own ideas as ruling out the existence of God.

Nevertheless, the idea of God is still complex as a one to believe in because it is limited to human understanding of whatever power or consciousness exists as an underlying mysterious source. There does appear to be some inherent order underlying the processes of life though rather than sheer randomness and consciousness itself seems to come from some potential source of consciousness beyond itself. I am not sure that matter could have created consciousness and do wonder if there is some higher source beyond mind and matter.

The Buddhists often recognize this even though they don't posit a deity as such. The problem with the idea of God in itself may be down to the ridiculous notions people had of God, based on their anthropomorphic projections. If there is a God, I feel that this power is probably best understood as a source, even though such words are probably restricted in being able to refer to any underlying 'divine' reality. Human beings perceive in a haze and have conceptions which shift and change according to experience and models of understanding. The idea of evolution has been a stumbling block for many in the thinking of God, but it is does not rule out the idea of some guiding 'divine' hand in the processes.

[ernestm]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

I am not sure whether it needs to be considered as a tool but more of a process. It is possible to reconcile the idea of God with evolution though because unless one takes the Biblical story literally the idea of God and evolution are compatible. My understanding is that Darwin himself did not see his own ideas as ruling out the existence of God.

Nevertheless, the idea of God is still complex as a one to believe in because it is limited to human understanding of whatever power or consciousness exists as an underlying mysterious source. There does appear to be some inherent order underlying the processes of life though rather than sheer randomness and consciousness itself seems to come from some potential source of consciousness beyond itself. I am not sure that matter could have created consciousness and do wonder if there is some higher source beyond mind and matter.

The Buddhists often recognize this even though they don't posit a deity as such. The problem with the idea of God in itself may be down to the ridiculous notions people had of God, based on their anthropomorphic projections. If there is a God, I feel that this power is probably best understood as a source, even though such words are probably restricted in being able to refer to any underlying 'divine' reality. Human beings perceive in a haze and have conceptions which shift and change according to experience and models of understanding. The idea of evolution has been a stumbling block for many in the thinking of God, but it is does not rule out the idea of some guiding 'divine' hand in the processes.

IN fact, Jack, some of my friends actually supported me in this project and made some suggestions to improvements, which includes the statement that many scientists accept the induction as possible but just don't explore it philosophically. So the purpose here is to ASSUME a Creator exists and then say what can be philosophically said, so opinions on belief remain superfluous, and as it observes, as an onotological argument that makes no claims of belief, it should be helpful to people WHATEVER their beliefs. That's what Ive been trying to do all along. I continue to have problems with people understanding that.

EVOLUTION AS THE DESIGNER'S TOOL: AN ONTOLOGY (v2.1)
~ (1) When I've raised issues of rational inconsistency in arguments about the EXISTENCE of a Creator, several thousand have only responded by expressing their personal beliefs, usually based on evolution. None have ever observed that a Creator could have used evolution as a tool. I first wrote about that in my blog [https://yofiel.com/essays/dawkins.php]. The blog states the argument from intelligent design is an induction, not a deduction.
~
Many scientists don't find it necessary to comment on that at all because of its obvious truth, But thousands expressed objections to my assertion on Facebook. Virtually of them had already decided on a wrong definition of induction, but refused to learn otherwise. After several thousand pointless attempts to educate both theists and atheists that inductions can only be corroborated or disproven, I realized a more important issue still remains:
***
What if there is a Creator, and the Creator does use evolution as a tool?
***
I looked through all the literature I could find, and I found NOTHING that explored rational deductions from considering evolution as a Divine tool. So here I consider the NATURE of a Creator, if one exists, from a PHILOSOPHICAL perspective for the first time ever. That is, as a scholar in philosophy since sitting the subject at Oxford, and now being 62 years old, I draw conclusions from logical reason, rather than personal prejudice, on the nature of such a being, ASSUMING ONE EXISTS.
~
Even atheists should find an ontological approach helpful because, after making the assumption, one may discover new ideas or facts, in exactly the way Madame Curie discovered radioactivity. Of course in social media, such maturity in contemplation from both 'sides' is extremely rare, and only ~0.5% of all respondents in my experience.
------------------------------------------------
2 ~ ON EVOLUTION AS A TOOL
------------------------------------------------
The extent people grant such a powerful being with intelligence less than a neanderthal is astonishing. Obviously, just as we use opposable thumbs to shape the world as we desire, AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR WOULD USE EVOLUTION AS A TOOL.
~
Moreover, concepts of 'social evolution' have progressed immensely in the last century, meaning that civilization itself could have been an intentional creation. I was impressed by Engels' final contribution to Marxist dialectical materialism, "Dialectics of Nature" (1925), his last book:
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... nature.pdf]
Scientific knowledge has replaced much of Engels' postulations, so this book is not frequently read. But in this rather chaotic work of his final days, Engels does draw a very basic conclusion from dialectical materialism:- the existence of civilization simply needs, as a prerequisite, the evolution of hands connected to a brain. The rest is fairly automatic. As to whether the rest of our physique is 'intentional' per se, one would have to conclude, from the process of evolution to a civilized species, that it is more 'coincidental.'
------------------------------------------------
3 ~ ON OUR RELEVANCE
------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the greatest puzzlement for us overall is the incredible complexity of the physical universe that enabled us to exist at all, considering how difficult it is even for life to exist as we know it. Nonetheless, however much the galaxies and stellar phenomena are dazzling, they are purely mechanical and COULD be viewed simply as a physical foundation enabling the development of life and conscious thought.
~
The complexity (or ENTROPY) necessary for our experience as living beings is just as astounding. One human brain has more neurons in it than stars in our galaxy. That makes us at least an entropic center of creation that has no 'geometric center' as of itself, according to the now jaded Copernican principle. Thus even from the perspective of our physical organization alone, our complexity makes us of particular interest to a Creator.
------------------------------------------------
4 ~ ON OUR PURPOSE
------------------------------------------------
Now one turns to arguments about our INTENT of creation, in which case, one needs to consider further how a Creator would be conscious. What would such a consciousness be like, and what therefore would be the Creator's intention be for creating us?
~
On this, I start by considering what the consciousness of such a being would be like. On this topic, I can only refer to Nagel's paper 'What's it Like to be a Bat?' which is available online at
[https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iat ... el_bat.pdf]
From that, it is clear that any Creator would have a very different experience of consciousness than ourselves, in exactly the same way animals would have a very different experience of consciousness, assuming they do. This is because we have hormones and sensory experience of pleasure, pain, etc that such a Creator would not have. Hence, we could not consider how such a 'Creator' thinks in terms of our own emotions or experiences.
~
With respect to empathy with our biological condition, the most frequent criticism of theism hurled at me, with highly emotional rhetoric, is that there exists much suffering in the world, therefore, God does not exist. I keep repeating there is no rational reason why a Creator would care whether we suffer or not. In fact, spiritual thinkers throughout all known history, including Christ and Buddha, have been concerned about how we choose to act in the face of suffering, not why suffering exists.
~
After having been subjected to hundreds of emotional torrents on the subject, I still end up agreeing with Locke's statement in the "Essay concerning Human Understanding," Chapter 21. I frequently read it, because it is the origin whence Jefferson chose natural rights, and the passage to which I most return is Paragraph 34, "This is the Spring of Action:"
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/1 ... 0615-h.htm]
Without hunger, pleasure, pain, etc., we would be like 'unmoving rocks or stones.' Locke has a great deal more to say on it in this chapter, for example, that hunger must continually reoccur to fuel an 'uneasiness of the soul' that enables, in its satiation, the discovery of pleasure; but then Locke says physical pleasure by itself is superseded by anticipation of its reward, leading to happiness; and that the greatest happiness is found in acting for the greater good, which enables progressive advancement of society.
~
Thus if there is a Divine Creator, and further, a Creator intending to create us, then we should know from philosophy, first, that such a being needed to create suffering in order that we each discover the nature of our free will, and thus offer to the Creator the pleasure of seeing society evolve.
~
Freedom of will would indeed be the most interesting phenomenon to a Creator. The existence of suffering thus seems a natural necessity in order to make us interesting to a Divine being. That flies in the face of people who have some kind of psychotic delusion of grandeur interfering with their rational thinking process. I can only surmise such beings had some severe problems in their childhood that makes them need to criticize what exists from some kind of moral high ground, beyond natural sensibility or sanity.
------------------------------------------------
5~ ON THE CREATOR's NATURE
------------------------------------------------
So then I finally reach some actual observations on the nature of any Creator. I now make six observations.
~
(5a) PERCEPTION OF TIME, SPACE, and MATTER ~ Any Creator that might exist must have a very different perception of time, space, and matter. OUr understanding of the Big Bang is that an incredible amount of subatomic activity happened in the first microseconds of extreme heat. After that, an immense Universe, possibly infinite in size, expanded over 13.8 billion years before we even showed up.
~
(5b) PERCEPTION OF ENTROPY ~ A Creator would need perception of some entropic dimension, in string theory or something, so we could be found. Given the sophistication of natural order, I don't think it's impossible.
~
(5c) EXPERIENCE ~ Attributing human emotions to a being without our physiological makeup would appear rationally wrong, although given sufficient understanding, we may be able to identify experiences independent of perception that would at least have some correspondence.
~
(5d) ALTRUISM ~ It appears there are some very interesting aspects to altruism, including that it could even evolve naturally as a process of 'social evolution.' For example,
[https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/57/3/566/3979667]
But just because altruistic cooperation makes sense doesn't mean people will choose it. That leads me to believe there COULD be an interest in Good and Evil by a Divine Creator, as we seem to be having real problems with following the reasoning for altruism.
~
(5e) LOVE ~ The topic of 'love' for us in any philosophical sense is more complex, and one COULD argue that's as close as we could understand a Divine Creator, but philosophically speaking, such a conclusion would still have to be based on some semantic assumptions that would have to remain VERY MUCH an issue of personal belief. Nonetheless, given Engels' observation in section 2 above, interest in personal experience could more significant, from a more sophisticated perspective, than would appear likely to a person who has not thought through the ontological argument, due to prior naive assumptions.EVOLUTION AS A TOOL: AN ONTOLOGY (v2.1)
~ (1) When I've raised issues of rational inconsistency in arguments about the EXISTENCE of a Creator, several thousand have only responded by expressing their personal beliefs, usually based on evolution. None have ever observed that a Creator could have used evolution as a tool. I first wrote about that in my blog [https://yofiel.com/essays/dawkins.php]. The blog states the argument from intelligent design is an induction, not a deduction.
~
Many scientists don't find it necessary to comment on that at all because of its obvious truth, But thousands expressed objections to my assertion on Facebook. Virtually of them had already decided on a wrong definition of induction, but refused to learn otherwise. After several thousand pointless attempts to educate both theists and atheists that inductions can only be corroborated or disproven, I realized a more important issue still remains:
***
What if there is a Creator, and the Creator does use evolution as a tool?
***
I looked through all the literature I could find, and I found NOTHING that explored rational deductions from considering evolution as a Divine tool. So here I consider the NATURE of a Creator, if one exists, from a PHILOSOPHICAL perspective for the first time ever. That is, as a scholar in philosophy since sitting the subject at Oxford, and now being 62 years old, I draw conclusions from logical reason, rather than personal prejudice, on the nature of such a being, ASSUMING ONE EXISTS.
~
Even atheists should find an ontological approach helpful because, after making the assumption, one may discover new ideas or facts, in exactly the way Madame Curie discovered radioactivity. Of course in social media, such maturity in contemplation from both 'sides' is extremely rare, and only ~0.5% of all respondents in my experience.
------------------------------------------------
2 ~ ON EVOLUTION AS A TOOL
------------------------------------------------
The extent people grant such a powerful being with intelligence less than a neanderthal is astonishing. Obviously, just as we use opposable thumbs to shape the world as we desire, AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR WOULD USE EVOLUTION AS A TOOL.
~
Moreover, concepts of 'social evolution' have progressed immensely in the last century, meaning that civilization itself could have been an intentional creation. I was impressed by Engels' final contribution to Marxist dialectical materialism, "Dialectics of Nature" (1925), his last book:
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... nature.pdf]
Scientific knowledge has replaced much of Engels' postulations, so this book is not frequently read. But in this rather chaotic work of his final days, Engels does draw a very basic conclusion from dialectical materialism:- the existence of civilization simply needs, as a prerequisite, the evolution of hands connected to a brain. The rest is fairly automatic. As to whether the rest of our physique is 'intentional' per se, one would have to conclude, from the process of evolution to a civilized species, that it is more 'coincidental.'
------------------------------------------------
3 ~ ON OUR RELEVANCE
------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the greatest puzzlement for us overall is the incredible complexity of the physical universe that enabled us to exist at all, considering how difficult it is even for life to exist as we know it. Nonetheless, however much the galaxies and stellar phenomena are dazzling, they are purely mechanical and COULD be viewed simply as a physical foundation enabling the development of life and conscious thought.
~
The complexity (or ENTROPY) necessary for our experience as living beings is just as astounding. One human brain has more neurons in it than stars in our galaxy. That makes us at least an entropic center of creation that has no 'geometric center' as of itself, according to the now jaded Copernican principle. Thus even from the perspective of our physical organization alone, our complexity makes us of particular interest to a Creator.
------------------------------------------------
4 ~ ON OUR PURPOSE
------------------------------------------------
Now one turns to arguments about our INTENT of creation, in which case, one needs to consider further how a Creator would be conscious. What would such a consciousness be like, and what therefore would be the Creator's intention be for creating us?
~
On this, I start by considering what the consciousness of such a being would be like. On this topic, I can only refer to Nagel's paper 'What's it Like to be a Bat?' which is available online at
[https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iat ... el_bat.pdf]
From that, it is clear that any Creator would have a very different experience of consciousness than ourselves, in exactly the same way animals would have a very different experience of consciousness, assuming they do. This is because we have hormones and sensory experience of pleasure, pain, etc that such a Creator would not have. Hence, we could not consider how such a 'Creator' thinks in terms of our own emotions or experiences.
~
With respect to empathy with our biological condition, the most frequent criticism of theism hurled at me, with highly emotional rhetoric, is that there exists much suffering in the world, therefore, God does not exist. I keep repeating there is no rational reason why a Creator would care whether we suffer or not. In fact, spiritual thinkers throughout all known history, including Christ and Buddha, have been concerned about how we choose to act in the face of suffering, not why suffering exists.
~
After having been subjected to hundreds of emotional torrents on the subject, I still end up agreeing with Locke's statement in the "Essay concerning Human Understanding," Chapter 21. I frequently read it, because it is the origin whence Jefferson chose natural rights, and the passage to which I most return is Paragraph 34, "This is the Spring of Action:"
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/1 ... 0615-h.htm]
Without hunger, pleasure, pain, etc., we would be like 'unmoving rocks or stones.' Locke has a great deal more to say on it in this chapter, for example, that hunger must continually reoccur to fuel an 'uneasiness of the soul' that enables, in its satiation, the discovery of pleasure; but then Locke says physical pleasure by itself is superseded by anticipation of its reward, leading to happiness; and that the greatest happiness is found in acting for the greater good, which enables progressive advancement of society.
~
Thus if there is a Divine Creator, and further, a Creator intending to create us, then we should know from philosophy, first, that such a being needed to create suffering in order that we each discover the nature of our free will, and thus offer to the Creator the pleasure of seeing society evolve.
~
Freedom of will would indeed be the most interesting phenomenon to a Creator. The existence of suffering thus seems a natural necessity in order to make us interesting to a Divine being. That flies in the face of people who have some kind of psychotic delusion of grandeur interfering with their rational thinking process. I can only surmise such beings had some severe problems in their childhood that makes them need to criticize what exists from some kind of moral high ground, beyond natural sensibility or sanity.
------------------------------------------------
5~ ON THE CREATOR's NATURE
------------------------------------------------
So then I finally reach some actual observations on the nature of any Creator. I now make six observations.
~
(5a) PERCEPTION OF TIME, SPACE, and MATTER ~ Any Creator that might exist must have a very different perception of time, space, and matter. OUr understanding of the Big Bang is that an incredible amount of subatomic activity happened in the first microseconds of extreme heat. After that, an immense Universe, possibly infinite in size, expanded over 13.8 billion years before we even showed up.
~
(5b) PERCEPTION OF ENTROPY ~ A Creator would need perception of some entropic dimension, in string theory or something, so we could be found. Given the sophistication of natural order, I don't think it's impossible.
~
(5c) EXPERIENCE ~ Attributing human emotions to a being without our physiological makeup would appear rationally wrong, although given sufficient understanding, we may be able to identify experiences independent of perception that would at least have some correspondence.
~
(5d) ALTRUISM ~ It appears there are some very interesting aspects to altruism, including that it could even evolve naturally as a process of 'social evolution.' For example,
[https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/57/3/566/3979667]
But just because altruistic cooperation makes sense doesn't mean people will choose it. That leads me to believe there COULD be an interest in Good and Evil by a Divine Creator, as we seem to be having real problems with following the reasoning for altruism.
~
(5e) LOVE ~ The topic of 'love' for us in any philosophical sense is more complex, and one COULD argue that's as close as we could understand a Divine Creator, but philosophically speaking, such a conclusion would still have to be based on some semantic assumptions that would have to remain VERY MUCH an issue of personal belief. Nonetheless, given Engels' observation in section 2 above, interest in personal experience could more significant, from a more sophisticated perspective, than would appear likely to a person who has not thought through the ontological argument, due to prior naive assumptions.

[LuckyR]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

They're pretty proud of themselves for coming up with a way to reconcile their religious upbringing with their adult appreciation of science.

The silly thing is why mainstream religious leadership doesn't flock to the idea as a way of staying intellectually relevant. As opposed to the head in the sand technique of fighting space age arguments with iron age logic.

[ernestm]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

They're pretty proud of themselves for coming up with a way to reconcile their religious upbringing with their adult appreciation of science.

The silly thing is why mainstream religious leadership doesn't flock to the idea as a way of staying intellectually relevant. As opposed to the head in the sand technique of fighting space age arguments with iron age logic.

I wish they could. Unfortunately they are saddled with centuries of doctrine on 'divine transmission' to justify prior assertions. That said, they do great charitable work and I wish people would credit them with that everytime they criticize some oddball person.

[LuckyR]

Funny. I've had plenty of conversations with folks about the idea that a god could use evolution as it's method of creation. Of course these are conversations where people are trying to reconcile modern scientific understanding with deism or even theism. Most come from religious upbringings but are currently scientists or at least have formal scientific training.

Naturally, those with fragile egos seek to "win" arguments, whereas those comfortable with their place in the world have the luxury to seek common ground and resolution of what appears at first glance to be conflict.

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

They're pretty proud of themselves for coming up with a way to reconcile their religious upbringing with their adult appreciation of science.

The silly thing is why mainstream religious leadership doesn't flock to the idea as a way of staying intellectually relevant. As opposed to the head in the sand technique of fighting space age arguments with iron age logic.

I wish they could. Unfortunately they are saddled with centuries of doctrine on 'divine transmission' to justify prior assertions. That said, they do great charitable work and I wish people would credit them with that everytime they criticize some oddball person.

I don't disagree that organized religion has various positive aspects such as cultural pride, social cohesion and charitable work as you mentioned. Though it is a matter of opinion whether those are the thrust of the enterprise or the fostering of the attitude of superiority through divine declaration, abuse of power/privilege by leadership and accumulating wealth at the expense of the simple.

[ernestm]

Wel thainks for joining in! What do your folks think about a God that'd use evolution as a tool?

They're pretty proud of themselves for coming up with a way to reconcile their religious upbringing with their adult appreciation of science.

The silly thing is why mainstream religious leadership doesn't flock to the idea as a way of staying intellectually relevant. As opposed to the head in the sand technique of fighting space age arguments with iron age logic.

I wish they could. Unfortunately they are saddled with centuries of doctrine on 'divine transmission' to justify prior assertions. That said, they do great charitable work and I wish people would credit them with that everytime they criticize some oddball person.

I don't disagree that organized religion has various positive aspects such as cultural pride, social cohesion and charitable work as you mentioned. Though it is a matter of opinion whether those are the thrust of the enterprise or the fostering of the attitude of superiority through divine declaration, abuse of power/privilege by leadership and accumulating wealth at the expense of the simple.

True. And you will find, there is free turkey available from a local church for your thanksgiving. Enjoy.