God and evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 15:35 (205 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: This does not change the fact that you are the one who insists on exactitude, whereas I offer alternatives. ....You had two proposals: 1) he couldn’t produce humans at first because of his limitations. 2) He has no limitations, you can’t find a clear explanation, and why should you have to explain it? Either/or. And you keep insisting on your either/or, despite having rejected 1) as “totally off reservation”. Are you now withdrawing your hypothesis that God may be limited, or is it still either/or?

I am aware of Tony's comment about 'preparation'. He is a strict Biblical constructionist, but it is an important point. God may have used the time for preparation, and not be at all limited, but 'limited' still remains possible for me. I am still either/or, but inclined to feel more attracted to Tony's opinion.

DAVID: I don't have any others. "He must have" is a requirement you have invented for Him.

dhw: “Must have” refers to your “main”, which means there are other purposes that are secondary. I presume, then, that you mean “only”, not “main”.

Humans are his only purpose.


dhw: I have already offered you a different main purpose, which fits in perfectly with your theory that he is hidden and is observing us: namely, that he created a spectacle for himself to watch.
DAVID: Humanizing again, and you can't know that.

Nobody can "know" anything. It is a hypothesis. ... But we cannot “know” that purpose, any more than we can “know” God’s purpose in creating life itself, any more than we can “know” whether God exists. ALL our hypotheses, including your own, are based on interpretations. If an interpretation fits the facts as we know them, I suggest it has a better chance of being true than an interpretation for which you cannot find a clear explanation, as below.

My clear explanation is that humans are Gods sole purpose.


dhw:You agree that ALL of them fit the facts as we know them, but you reject them because they conflict with your suppositions, which you acknowledge do not make sense, i.e. for which you cannot find a clear explanation.
DAVID: I agree your suppositions fit the history. But they do not emphasize the goal of humans that God has. My clearest explanation is that God does not see a 'delay' as we do.

dhw: No, my hypotheses (why do you keep calling them suppositions?) do not emphasize what you consider to be God’s purpose, because your interpretation of God’s purpose does not explain why God designed the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle and the fly’s compound eye before he produced humans. Forget ‘delay’. There is no ‘delay’ if God’s goal was NOT confined to producing humans.

Just the opposite! Per Tony, the 'delay' was simply taking time to prepare fro humans who have dominion over all.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum