Unanswered questions (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 01, 2019, 07:03 (2032 days ago) @ David Turell

Once again I wrote but somehow failed to post this reply yesterday, so once again my apologies!

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. (David's bold)

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,

DAVID: 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 to what follows. Shame on you.

In effect what you said was that if he chose to do it this way, he had to do it this way, and this way according to you was that he had to specially design billions of non-human life forms in order to keep life going until he specially designed the succession of particular complexities that led to H. sapiens. Not only do you have no idea why he made this choice, but also if he “had to” do it this way, then he had no choice, and if he had no choice, his powers were limited. At best, then, since you believe he created everything from the start, he chose to limit his own powers.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

The entire history of evolution looks like a vast bush of different life forms etc. extant and extinct, with humans as the latest of many, and of course if God exists, he chose to use evolution as his method of achieving whatever his purpose might have been. But if humans were the ONLY thing he wanted, it is hardly surprising that you have no idea why he chose to create them in the manner described above.

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.

DAVID: 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.

Never off point in relation to belief in God (the design argument, which I accept as logical) and to belief that humans were the “prime” purpose (also logical, though “prime” does not mean one and only). Totally off point in relation to your hypothesis that your God specially designed (i.e. preprogrammed or dabbled) every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder with the sole purpose of specially designing humans. Yet again, it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses which you yourself cannot understand, and clearly it is no use calling on Adler to support it.

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?

DAVID: 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.

Do you really think that wanting admiration and wanting a relationship is less human than wanting enjoyment? It was you who offered the painter analogy, so I don’t know why you are now so against it. We have no way of really knowing whether God exists, let alone how he views us. But there is still no contradiction between “totally purposeful” and having purposes we humans can understand. If you do not wish to discuss his possible purposes, there is no point in constantly harping on about his purposefulness!