particles and connections (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 08:21 (99 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: All we have are theories based on our inadequate “knowledge” of all that is. But you have your beliefs, and have written two brilliant books to explain them, so I’m afraid your dismissal of any theories that contradict your own because they do not “add anything to our knowledge” rings a little hollow. You are just as much an explorer of the unknowable as I am.
DAVID: You are correct in that we both are explorers, each in our own way and yet so very different. That is what makes us reach so very different conclusions. I feel I am much more 'evidence' oriented than you are, especially in the recognition of the importance of complexity. We may not know God exists, but He is required by the complex designs we see.

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
(Robert Burns)

In relation to complexity, I accept your evidence as offering the best possible case for the existence of a designer. With regard to your explanation of evolution’s history and your readings of God's mind (if he exists), I can see no evidence for your speculations. One correction: you have reached very firm conclusions. I have not reached any. For me, a conclusion either way demands too much fiction in place of evidence, and so I see myself as much more evidence based than you. I can almost hear Burns laughing at both of us!

DAVID: You are again making religious assumptions about the description of God's powers. I've said he probably had to make Earth this way. His powers may be limited.
dhw: I make no assumptions. I simply object when you tell me that my approach limits my vision of what capacities God might have when your own approach suggests explicitly that his powers might be limited.
DAVID: Your vision of God is not limited. I try to limit mine for the simple reason that we cannot fully understand His person.

You wrote: “Your humanizing approach limits your vision of what actual capacities a creator God might have.” Now you tell me my vision is not limited! So how does my humanizing approach limit my vision of his capacities without limiting my vision of his capacities? Let’s sort this out, shall we? You have suggested that God HAD to make the world the way he did, which emphatically limits his powers. Since we “cannot fully understand His person “ (though he’s not a person, and according to you we can’t understand him at all), I don’t know why you want to impose any limits on him. And being forced to do it one way hardly endows him with the full control you always ascribe to him, but then you seem to pick and choose his attributes as the wind blows.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum