Unanswered questions (General)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 01, 2019, 19:34 (515 days ago) @ dhw

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.


dhw: 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.

He may have decided to limit his powers by choice, or He was limited. It doesn't matter. He evolved humans over the time it took. You now have stated my opinion the way I view it.


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.

dhw: 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.

You understand my view above and deny it here. Weird. Adler is on point in my decision making. If we are so special, we were an obvious prime objective in creation


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.

dhw: 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!

I'm not against any interpretation of God's reasons at a human level. I just point out they are humanizing and may not apply. All we do is guess.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum