Unanswered questions (General)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2019, 15:10 (1935 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: That reply makes no sense. If God chose to evolve then the history of evolution tells us what He did.

dhw: Of course it does: if he exists, the history tells us that he created a huge and ever changing bush of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. What makes no sense is the claim that all of them were specially designed, and yet his only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens.

Makes perfect sense to me because I assume He designed all of it. His end purpose was humans.

DAVID: Again distorting 'my no idea' which always means I don't know why He chose evolution as His method.

dhw: As his method for what? Evolution for you means special design of every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder. So you don’t know why he chose to specially design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder if his only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. Please stop trying to hide your theory behind the word “evolution”!

I'm not hiding behind 'evolution'. God chose to evolve the universe, the Earth, asnd all of life!

DAVID: Your questions about God's 'other purposes' is your fertile mind attempting to humanize God. Note the discussion in: Reading God's divine nature Part II

dhw: If you use the term “primary purpose”, it automatically means there are other secondary purposes. Elsewhere you have said that designing H. sapiens was his only purpose.

DAVID: A prime purpose of course means there are secondary ones , but all support creating humans: creating a universe which will support life, creating life which is self sustaining with the right resources on a designed Earth.

dhw: But humans are not the only life form that the universe supports! You have said that humans were his main or prime or primary purpose for creating life. What were his secondary purposes for creating life?

I'm not sure there were any. I'm still with Adler.

dhw: Which is it? I have given a detailed response to the article on God’s divine nature. Your insistence on purposefulness is already a humanization, and your insistence that you actually know what that purpose was, and that all other life forms were specially designed to eat or be eaten by one another until he achieved his only purpose, is the result of your fertile mind attempting to impose your anthropocentrism on your God.

DAVID: God can have purpose without humanizing him as you constantly attempt.

dhw: Fine. That does not explain why, if his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing billions of other life forms (plus lifestyles plus natural wonders) to eat one another.

Same chorus: you accept above that He created the bush, which led to humans. I view teh bush as a requirement for food supply.