Purpose and design (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, April 20, 2017, 12:51 (823 days ago) @ David Turell

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: …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.
DAVID: 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.

Since we both believe in evolution, obviously bipedalism was part of the process by which humans evolved from apelike ancestors. There is no “instead”. But according to you, every single step (i.e. innovation) in the evolution of all organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct was deliberately designed by your God, and yet you insist that his ONLY purpose was to produce humans. This doesn’t make sense, and no amount of obfuscation about balance of nature and preference will make it any more logical.

DAVID: 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 they 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. […] 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.

My problem is not with your conviction that God exists but with your refusal to consider any other possible reading of your God’s mind that would remove the illogicality of your basic anthropocentric premise, which does seem to be set in stone. Purpose IS the underlying reason for any action. You are clearly not averse to speculating on God’s nature – your certainty that God is pleased/not pleased was offered quite spontaneously – but you erect the humanization/unknowability barriers the moment your basic premise is challenged. And frankly, since we cannot KNOW any of the answers, I see no sense either in your allowing yourself to conjecture that all God wanted was to produce humans, but in not allowing conjecture as to why he might have wanted to produce humans.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum