DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 02:06 (3445 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Maybe what he [God] wishes is an unpredictable outcome. If he thinks like us (as you have maintained), he'll enjoy the excitement of the unpredictable. Do you get as much enjoyment watching sport, films etc. when you already know the outcome in advance?-Not likely. I don't know if God is omniscient, but I think He is all purposeful at heart.
 
> dhw: I am debating with you here on a theistic level. With my theist hat on, it makes perfect sense for God to invent a mechanism that will do its own inventing, but your imagination is limited to a specific concept of God: namely, that he knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it (with a dabble here and there). And what he wanted - in your scenario - was to create humans. It's not even clear why he wanted to create humans.-Don't you like being here with the sentience we have? Don't you enjoy our existence? You sound very ungrateful to me. Do you have another suggestion of something or some one for Him to create? You think He doesn't have purposes? Why bother going to the trouble of a universe and all those animals and plants? Just fiddling around I guess. Phew! 
> 
> DAVID: Not the point in my mind. It is the vast landscape of possible proteins to form life. The odds against finding the proper ones are enormous, but they were found. We are living. That strongly suggests design and guidance to the right choices. I see no other third possibility when considering chance or design. Origin of life must be part of the theorizing in thinking of God's possible role. Ignoring OOL removes part of the equation.
> 
> dhw: But we have laboured this point a thousand times. And a thousand times I have repeated that it is a major reason for not embracing atheism. The reverse side of the argument is the mystery of OOG - the Origin of God. You have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. Atheists have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. That's why agnostics sit on the fence.-You don't like my use of 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt'? A reasonable solution to the issue of 'why' is to reason to the best solution to the question. If you accept cause and effect, and understand the question of 'why is there anything?', there has to be a first cause, which must, per force, be supernatural. Just because you cannot get yourself to image that possibility, does not mean that it is illogical. Show me a fallacy in my line of reasoning.