A possible God's possible purpose and nature (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Thursday, June 03, 2021, 12:22 (56 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (transferred from “Miscellany”): Again you return to suggesting God gave them [cells]inventive capacities. Your God-lite approach. […] my God is purposeful and direct, not your namby-pamby wishy-washy humanized form.

dhw: The image of God that I am proposing here is both purposeful and direct: his purpose is to create a free-for-all (not just one single species plus food supply), and his direct method is to design cells with the intelligence to work out their own means of survival. This fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it. If you dismiss such a God as God-lite, namby-pamby and wishy-washy, you should perhaps examine your own values, especially bearing in mind that you believe he gave humans free will to work out their own means of survival.

DAVID: Our free will is part of God's purposeful activities.

Then do please tell us your God’s purpose in giving us free will. And please note that creating an evolutionary free-for-all could also be part of your God’s purposeful activities. It depends on what his purpose is!

Chaperones required
DAVID: You are again imagining a weak God without knowledge of living biochemistry. In that case, how did He start life?

dhw: If he exists, he must have INVENTED living biochemistry. In keeping with your own belief that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns similar to ours, let me ask: Did humans say: “I wanner fly” and immediately come up with the winning formula? Why is it weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy to experiment and learn new things? Why shouldn’t your God – who according to you had a wish to create - have set out on a project of creation that would lead him both to create and to learn something new, and why shouldn’t our conscious minds be a reflection of the mind of what you believe to be their creator? You are desperate to impose your own image of a God who knows everything, is always in control, has only one goal, always has good intentions...Where do you get these ideas from? (David's bold)

DAVID: Again a perfect description of your very humanized God. The bold questions my belief system. God's works tell me He is as I believe.

Whether he is “humanized” or not is irrelevant. You have no more idea that I have about which thought patterns and emotions we might have “inherited” from the being you believe created us. Your beliefs do not answer one single question that I have asked above. Now please tell me how his works disprove my suggestions and prove that your own “humanized” image of him is correct.

DAVID: Your view is God did not know how to create life until He experimented. But He could easily create a life-allowing universe or was that an experiment also?

I am offering experimentation as ONE theory, to explain why he might have created all those billions of galaxies and all those millions of life forms which you cannot explain. I see absolutely no reason why an eternally conscious mind should not wish to have a desire to create something new which he might find interesting. On what grounds do you reject this possibility? (Please don’t come up with “humanization” again – see my previous comment.)

DAVID: Humans are here, a result so unusual Adler uses it as proof of God. What we are is not necessary for natural survivability.

dhw: I have no quarrel with Adler's logic, and our dispute here is not over God’s existence but over your illogical concepts of his purpose, methods and nature, which you tell us are not covered by Adler.

DAVID: You dragged in concepts not in Adler's argument for God. Why? He is simply one of the strong proofs for God I accept as a part of my belief system.

It is you who dragged in Adler in order to divert attention away from your illogical theistic theory of evolution and back to the existence of God.

DAVID: I've offered reasonable answers to your questions which your rigidly closed mind won't accept.

dhw: […] No, you have not offered reasonable answers. You can’t explain why, if your God’s purpose was to design you and me and our lunch, he would have created millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with you and me.

DAVID: Silly, the bush provides our lunch to eat. Without it we starve. You are illogical.

dhw: That is the CURRENT bush, which – as you yourself pointed out with perfect logic, and as I have quoted ad nauseam – has no connection with PAST bushes. So why did he create PAST bushes to feed “extinct life” which, in your own words, “has no role in current time”?

DAVID: Again spliced up evolution. Bushes of the past fed organisms of the past. Pure logic.

Thank you for repeating the obvious absurdity of your theory that your God's purpose was to design you and me and our lunch, and so he designed millions of life forms and their lunches which had no connection with you and me our lunch.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum