particles and connections (General)

by dhw, Monday, February 13, 2017, 13:20 (162 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Just to clarify, then: God set out with the purpose of creating humans, but he couldn’t do it without creating weapons of mass destruction or without the millions of species, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct whose purpose was to keep life going for the sake of humans. And his purpose in creating humans was to get them to solve problems, but we shouldn’t ask why, and he wants a relationship with us, but we shouldn’t ask what sort of relationship is possible if he and we have nothing in common and he hides himself in the quantum world.
DAVID: Of course we can discuss how we relate to God, and wonder how He relates to us. You are taking my approach to a silly extreme, which is fair enough in any debate.

I don’t know why it’s “silly” - though it’s certainly fair enough - to question how a relationship can be possible without contact and without common ground. If you can’t answer, then perhaps you should face up to the possibility that there may be something wrong with your approach (e.g. perhaps God has actually endowed us with some of his own traits).

DAVID: Your 'weapons of mass destruction' are Earth's requirements for life. It suggests God could not make the Earth in any other way. Perhaps He has limits. Your humanizing approach limits you vision of what actual capacities a creator God might have. We can only work with what we actually know of our reality.

Please reread what you have written. First you say that perhaps he has limits (he had to use weapons of mass destruction to create life), and then you tell me that it’s MY approach that imposes limits on him! It’s YOUR approach that imposes the limits. I merely wonder why a God with limitless powers couldn’t find a less destructive way to create life.

DAVID (referring to Musser’s article): The answers you seek are not present. That was the point of presenting Musser.

If I am trying to make sense of a confused set of arguments, I’m afraid it’s not very helpful to be presented with a long article which answers none of my questions but shows that everyone else is confused, including you (see your next comment), although you are convinced that somehow or the other it all makes sense.

DAVID: Psychokinesis is wooly thinking. My guess is still God uses quantum mechanics as the basis of reality. How? I don't know because I don't understand quantum mechanics an more than Feynman did. BUT quantum mechanics IS the base.

I simply asked how an immaterial being could “control” (your term) matter, so why is psychokinesis woolly thinking? You have often suggested that beings communicate by telepathy in the afterlife. The principle is the same: the power of thought. You don’t know how God does it, but you know it’s not by mental power, though your God is all mental power?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum