Watching asteroids; possible damage (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, March 10, 2017, 19:58 (2816 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

Not limited. See my entry of today: Friday, March 10, 2017, 19:42

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?

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

And I'm saying we cannot know His nature.

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?

dhw: 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?

Because I can't fully pursue it. We do not and cannot know God's nature or personality, if we decide in advance, as I have, not to use the Bible.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/evolving-a-human-brain?utm_source=Today+in+Cosmos+Ma...

dhw: 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?

Because I do make sense to me, and you persist in misinterpreting my comments. All you are referencing are parts of a very necessary balance of nature. Yes, some of the developments make no sense on the surface, but they all contribute to balance. That is my true thought.