Natures wonders: seabirds, ants and viruses (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, April 23, 2020, 13:40 (1673 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've not changed. You've made your usual stretches. God must have allowed viruses to mutate on their own, which is what we see, or as you suggest, He might be driving the changes. So we come back to debating about God's personality. I suspect He is nicer than that.

dhw: Now, instead of directly designing the virus, as he did last week, we have God allowing viruses to do their own thing, just as he allows us humans to do our own thing. So let’s drop the mantra that he is in total control of everything, and acknowledge that he is willing to sacrifice control.

DAVID: What we know scientifically is viruses have the capacity to mutate. I'm currently assuming God allows it, as we have the brain/soul complex to fight it. The entirety of evolution is a vast subject. I follow certain precepts: God is an exacting designer and produced vast complexity from initial life, which started out as quite complex. That does not mean He may allow some minor freedoms, but I see nothing as a major freedom of design.

I’m glad you used the word “currently”, since your views change so frequently – last week he apparently designed the viruses and did so in order to test us. I think you mean that he does allow minor freedoms (like human free will, and mass-killing viruses). I know you see nothing as a major freedom. Nor can you “see” God personally designing the weaverbird’s nest, but you insist that he did. None of us can “see” any of the theories on offer, and that is why we are debating the logic of all of them.

dhw: The debate about his personality relates to his motives, which according to you must stop at the point of wanting to design H. sapiens. Anything else is “humanizing”, although – more of your unequivocal statements you wish you hadn’t made – he may well think like us and probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: We must think of God as a person in an allegorical way. It is obvious to me you have no idea how much you think of God in humanizing terms. As for my 'unequivocal statements' of course I made them without regret. But from the standpoint that God is a personage like no other person, while from your humanizing view, you delight in thinking you have caught me humanizing Him myself. He thinks as we do in His own an analogical way, never really like us. As for desiring to create humans, it is beyond questioning for those of us who believe.

I don’t have a problem with his desire to create humans. I have even offered you two explanations of evolution that fit in with that desire. You cannot possibly know how God thinks, so do please stop pretending that he can’t think like us or “really” like us, whatever that means. And please remember that I offer various alternative explanations of evolution, the logic of which you keep accepting. You cannot reject them just because they are humanly logical and “currently” you think your God cannot think in humanly logical terms, even though at other times you think he can.

dhw: My point was to show how close you are coming to the concept of your God creating a spectacle for himself to watch with interest:

DAVID: An other humanizing comment: Spectacles are for amusement and entertainment. Taht dosn't matter to my concept pf God.

I didn’t use those words – I used the words you yourself have used before: “with interest”. However, your concept of God is that he is all-purposeful. And you believe H. sapiens was his purpose for creating life. So what do you think was his purpose in creating H. sapiens?

DAVID: All depends on your clear view of God.

dhw: Nobody has a clear view of God, who may not even exist, but I’m pleased to see how very close you are coming to accepting the idea of a God who watches with interest a spectacle he created for himself to watch with interest.

DAVID: Glad you are pleased, but you are not discussing my real view of God.

You have told us several times that you are sure he is watching us (also “with interest”). If that is not your “real” view, please tell us what is.