Purpose and design (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 00:39 (846 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You and I are consciously discussing God. Isn't that a relationship to Him? I have my own form of praying to Him. I get comfort from my belief in Him and the way it explains the mysteries of existence to me. As for your comments above the break, what an extreme from of humanizing God by offering to describe Him as bored. God is pure purpose, pure intent. It is not all coming and going.

dhw: We can consciously discuss fairies at the bottom of the garden, but it hardly constitutes a relationship to them. If God exists, of course purpose is primary, but what in heaven’s name is “pure purpose, pure intent”? The term is meaningless.

It is not meaningless. I view God as very determined and firmly sets out goals for Himself.

dhw: What has never fallen into place is your insistence that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder was related to the production of humans.

Once it is accepted that humans are the main purpose, it all falls into place. You just don't see it as a reasonable conclusion.

Tony: Self-awareness, introspection, abstract reasoning ability, a sense of time, place, and purpose, the drive to create, emotional depth, etc.
DAVID: I can accept this statement, even the 'emotional depth' in a general non-specific way.

Just as you cannot have non-specific purpose, you cannot have non-specific “emotion”. If your God is capable of emotion, he is capable of boredom, interest, love, hate and any other feeling we humans are capable of.

I don't read Tony's comment as you do. His list of attributes is not the one you give. He may well have emotional depth, but it is beyond us to know.

dhw: In order to cope with things you don’t understand,
‘Tis recommended you stick your head in the sand.
(New Texan proverb)

I'm allowed to stick with Adler: He is a person like no other person. He may not even be willing to respond to our prayers.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum