Purpose and design (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 25, 2017, 09:47 (2768 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW:[...] I’m interested in your reference to God “maturing as an entity”. This would seem to fit in with the idea that God did not start out as the eternal know-all but, like ourselves, keeps learning from experience. This implies limitations, but is it what you mean?

TONY: I am not sure 'limitations' is the right word any more than 'entertainment' was. Using power for the sake of using power is not wise, and one of God's four cardinal qualities is Wisdom. (Wisdom, Justice, Power and Love). So while I do not believe he is limited in terms of power, I believe that, in his wisdom, he saw that doing things another way would have been detrimental in the long term, possibly in ways we do not even have the capacity (mentally or technologically) to comprehend currently.

I would still like to know what you meant by God “maturing”. Limitations do not have to refer to power. My specific interest is in the question of whether you think that prior to creating the universe and life, your God already knew everything that could possibly be known, or he learned and maybe still learns from experience.

Xxxxx

Tony: Some things are done strictly for the benefit of the creature in question. However, just because the bird's nest is not strictly for humanity's sake, the bird itself DOES fill a vital role in keeping the earth alive, and thus, giving the bird a means to stay alive does fall into the larger category of benefiting humanity specifically and all life in general.
DAVID: Thank you. dhw for some reason cannot see this.
DAVID: What I have left above is the part of Tony's statement that I was applauding.

All forms of life fulfil a role in “keeping the Earth alive”. I don’t think anyone on this planet would disagree. That has nothing whatsoever to do with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution.

dhw: […] This does NOT mean that your God personally designed the weaverbird’s nest – Tony’s post leaves it open as to whether the bird did this by itself […]
DAVID: Tony does not speak to how the nest was designed, or by whom.

Correct. So there is no support for you there.

dhw: I know you are desperate for support from Tony, but:“Humans, as the prime goal of all creation, or even of evolution, is truly just silliness, even according to science which claims everything is still evolving” (Balance Maintained, 1 April under “God and evolution”). Thank you, Tony. David for some reason cannot see this.

DAVID: We are both trying to interpret Tony. I think He would accept the appearance of humans as a major purpose of God.

If God exists, I would also agree that the appearance of humans is A major purpose. But I do not agree that it is THE one and only purpose and everything else, including the weaverbird’s nest, the jumping spider and the parasitic wasp, was personally designed by your God and was/is related to that one and only purpose.