Unanswered questions (General)

by David Turell , Thursday, May 02, 2019, 19:45 (2030 days ago) @ dhw

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Evolution of everything has taken the time it has taken. Now that your opinion is that God may have been limited or, presumably, may not have been limited (the God who is always in charge and in control), we can obviously tailor our hypotheses accordingly. And since you have no idea why he would have chosen yours, perhaps you might reconsider the theistic alternatives I have offered (e.g. humans not the one and only purpose, humans late arrival in God’s thinking, experimentation, bush resulting from free rein with dabbles)...

I don't need to know why He chose to evolve us. Since He is in charge (as I believe) it was simply His choice. I am positive we are His prime purpose. I have no reason to accept your views which are logical for you if you continue to have no fixed positions.

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: But apparently he does not offer any support for your hypotheses that your God preprogrammed or dabbled (= specially designed) every other life form etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of getting them to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed us! THAT is the section of your overall hypothesis which I keep challenging.

Adler has nothing to do with agreeing with me. I use his point of our specialness to reach my views.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I’m glad you are no longer against the hypothesis that your God may have created life as a spectacle to relieve his isolation or to enjoy, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings, and of course you are right, we can only guess. That also applies to the very existence of God.

I was never against your suppositions about God's thoughts,to which you have every right. I have the right to continue to criticize them as humanizing.