Unanswered questions (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 29, 2019, 22:03 (58 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God chose to evolve humans from the start of life (and you agree He had that right of choice), He had to do it through all the levels of complexity until He arrived at humans. That is what evolution implies and, in fact, requires. To me you are totally confused in your objection.

dhw: If he “had” to arrive at humans by specially designing all levels of complexity step by step (in contrast to the biblical version of direct creation), his powers must have been limited,

I didn't say God "HAD" to design humans step by step and therefore was limited. I thought you were above mischaracterizing my statements. I said 'if God chose to evolve' as I have bolded above. My bolded preface is the key t what follows. Shame on you.

dhw: and “all levels of complexity” do not explain why he also specially designed the billions of non-human life forms and styles and natural wonders extant and extinct. Once more: you have no idea why he chose this method of designing the only thing he wanted to design, and yet you insist that it is logical.

Of course logical. What does the entire history of evolution look like? I'm simply accepting it as God's chosen method of creation. You certainly don't have to.

dhw: In your next comment, once again you skate over the massive problem set by your COMBINED hypotheses by focusing on only one:

DAVID: I've ignored it because it makes no sense. Adler's long book was exactly to establish our specialness as fully demonstrating our role as God's endpoint. It comes across as an extremely important philosophic concept. You might get a copy and read it.

dhw: I have no objection to the argument that we are special, and I accept the possibility that humans are your God’s endpoint. What I do not accept is the argument that your God specially designed the whale’s flippers, the cuttlefish’s camouflage, the monarch’s lifestyle and the weaverbird’s nest, and did so for the sole purpose of providing food until he could specially design us. Does Adler also offer this interpretation of your God’s method of producing humans? If he doesn’t, then my disagreement is not with Adler but with you.

No, Adler's prime point is our specialness is a key philosophic consideration atht strongly indicating we are God's prime purpose. Adler is one major part of all the points I've raised in accepting God as the creator of the evolution of life and humans. Never off point.

DAVID: Why should I bother repeating that evolution is obviously developing from single cells to the human brain with all those forms necessarily in between? How else would God do it? Your objections are totally illogical.

dhw: But in any case you yourself have no idea why the whale’s flippers multiplied by millions of other examples were “necessary” in order to get the human brain to evolve from single cells.

Same answer. God ran the whole process of evolution as his choice of creation.

DAVID: We have discussed a plethora of possible logical reasons for God to create humans. The only thing we can safely say with assurance is that He wanted to do it.

dhw: The only reasons you have come up with are that God wanted us to admire his works, and also wanted to have a relationship with us. Please give us your other proposals, and explain to us why these are not “squishy” or “namby-pamby”.

DAVID: I view God very differently than you, as you try to imagine Him. I see Him as totally purposeful while you constantly fill him with human thought patterns.

dhw: There is no contradiction between “totally purposeful” and purposes that we humans can understand! Are you now saying it’s not possible that your God enjoys his creations, wants our admiration and wants a relationship with us?

We have no way of really knowing how God views His creations. All you have suggested are certainly possible, and are ones I have suggested also. Not as humanizing as desiring a spectacle.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum