Purpose and design (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 15:59 (2773 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: He might well be pleased and have pleasure. That is beside the points I make as to his purpose. I don't care about God's thinking leading up to his choice of purpose, because I cannot find any evidence to support a supposition about it.

(Yesterday you were “sure” and “certain” – not even “might well be” – that he is pleased by some things and not by others.) The purpose IS the thinking, and it is what we disagree on! According to you, God thought: “I want to produce humans, so I’ll design millions of different organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to keep life going until I get the one thing I want”, although he could get that one thing “without any difficulty”. I suggest he may have thought something else, and I have offered you four different hypotheses, including a very different purpose for evolution, directly linked to your certainty that he takes pleasure in his creations. How can a different purpose for evolution be “beside the point”?

DAVID: He may well be pleased with the results of his creations, but whether He really is or not in unknowable for us. Why conjecture? It is only an attempt to humanize him.

dhw: Your usual escape route, and as usual I have to point out that we can’t KNOW anything about God, including whether he exists or not. Your question “why conjecture?” makes nonsense of all our discussions on every related subject, and your “one and only purpose” is no less a conjecture than my “spectacle for enjoyment” conjecture.

I have studied all the scientific evidence we have looking at what should be considered as works of God. What seems to be evidence of His purpose is my only approach. I have presented that evidence here: God prefers evolving His creations and in my entry on bipedalism suggest how He began the manipulation of evolution toward humans. You have neglected to comment on it, and instead want psychoanalyze God. This demonstrates to me why we differ so much in our discussions. I left agnosticism because I had a wide open mind in surveying the scientific evidence I've presented in two books, with much additional information in this site. I've been taught in my reading not to approach God as a person as we know persons. I study His works for purpose, not for his underlying reasons, since hey are not approachable. When you question me as to God's motives, I've politely given you my off-the-cuff guesses, which are not set in stone, although that is the way you seem to approach them as you throw them back at me.

With your background as a author and playwright, I can understand your reasons for trying to look into God's reasoning. It is part of trying to understand and portray a character in one of your plays. I don't think it fits in looking at God. That has been the role of religions, and we have both agreed they have failed. If they have failed, you will also. God, as a personage, remains concealed, which also bothers you. I'm not bothered. The evidence tells me God exists and that alone is enough to satisfy me.