Watching asteroids; possible damage (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, March 10, 2017, 12:00 (2816 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since He uses evolutionary processes He may have to work at sequential plans when He discovers limits at a given stage.
dhw: If he “discovers limits”, then he is experimenting, which was the second alternative I offered you, i.e. he wanted to produce a being with consciousness like his own, but he didn’t know how to do it (as opposed to his knowing it all in advance, and only dabbling if organisms needed “correcting”).
DAVID: I don't view it as experimenting. His purpose is always before Him as He oversees the evolution. If you study planetary theory, it is explained that Earth and the other three inner metallic/rocky planets were formed by being bombarded by bodies (planetismals) […] Remember, in my approach I ignore the Bible's description of absolutely all-powerful.

That does not in any way alter the fact that if he has to adapt to new discoveries at a given stage, whether in relation to asteroids or to the production of humans, he has not got it all planned in advance, and therefore he must be experimenting in his attempts to find the right combination. Since you have no hesitation in limiting his powers, why are you so frightened of the idea that his knowledge might also be limited?

DAVID: Yes, we both use human judgement, but your constant humanizing is not equal to the possibility that God must put up with some unintended consequences.

I don’t know what you mean by “not equal to” etc. Your theory that your God is unable to control the consequences of his own actions and must “put up with them” is no more and no less human than my hypothesis that he IS able to control the consequences of his own actions, and has chosen this particular method because it suits his purpose, which may not be just to produce humans but to produce the great spectacle of life as we know it.

dhw: Why is it narrow reasoning to inquire into God’s possible motives, attitudes and nature, but it is not narrow reasoning to say that he does not have a “smidgen” of evil in him (as if you knew him personally) but he may have been powerless to avoid the evil consequences of his quest to produce humans?
DAVID: No human knows a personage like God. Free will has consequences. Should God have made us all saints with limited emotions?

That is a complete non sequitur. We are talking about God’s nature, not human nature.

dhw: you have offered some thoughts as to why he produced humans: 1) he wanted a relationship with us (but keeps himself hidden from us and doesn’t have any human attributes for us to relate to); 2) he wants to watch us solve the problems he couldn’t solve himself (but we mustn’t call that a spectacle). What else have you offered?
DAVID: It is your spectacle, not mine. Why must you know why He wanted to create us. Isn't the fact of our creation, enough? If He didn't do it, who would?

It is you who constantly harp on about all God’s actions being purposeful, and you wrote: “I would also like to know for sure why he produced humans. I've offered several thoughts.” If you would like to know, and you offer your thoughts on the subject, why are you suddenly so coy about the question? Could it be because your thoughts on the subject are so illogical that you’d rather not pursue it?

dhw: I don’t know why you call your faith in your evolutionary scenario “developed” when you admit that you wander all over the place in trying to justify it,
DAVID: On the contrary I've firmly stated God uses evolutionary processes to create.
dhw: But you wander all over the place (your own expression) when you try to explain why he had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct to keep life going until he was able to dabble with the pre-human brain, or pre-humans were able to switch on his 3.8-billion-year-old programme for brain enlargement.
DAVID: I'm not wondering. You keep denying my reasonable theory that a balance of nature is required. And his dabble is identified:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/evolving-a-human-brain?utm_source=Today+in+Cosmos+Ma...

As I keep repeating, with my theist hat on I don’t have a problem with the human dabble theory. But as I also keep repeating, your evolutionary balance of nature theory (as opposed to current problems, in which human interference has upset the balance we think is right) simply means that life keeps going, favouring one form of balance or another. You have honestly admitted that it doesn’t make sense to you that your God should have specially designed the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s tongue, the monarch’s lifestyle in order to keep life going till he could dabble with the pre-human brain, and you have admitted that you wander all over the place when trying to find an explanation, so why not just leave it at that?