possible God's possible purpose and nature:human complaints (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Thursday, June 03, 2021, 12:27 (52 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He finds the tradeoffs as mistakes while I see them as brilliant designs which result in creating speaking thinking humans.

dhw: A convincing account of how our evolutionary advances also created problems for our anatomy. It’s a shame that you have included the article under the heading of “A possible God’s possible purpose and nature” – but perhaps you did so in order to distract us from the problem of theodicy. It’s also a shame that the author talks disparagingly of a “rational designer”. You both seem to be obsessed by the idea that the only possible form of God is an all-powerful being who always knows exactly what he wants and how to create it to perfection. You believe it, he doesn’t, and neither of you is prepared to think out of that particular box. I have done my best in the other two posts to offer rational alternatives to this vision of God (if he exists) that fit in logically with life’s history. In particular, the theory of the intelligent cell allows both for theistic and atheistic interpretation, as well as offering a possible solution to some of the difficult theistic questions arising from the theory of evolution itself, including theodicy and these examples of so-called bad design.

DAVID: Why were you surprised in the other "God's possible purpose" thread I believed in a powerful, purposeful God? Here, as you discuss the author of the book, you note He thinks as I do: God is powerful. Surprise! Most folks as believers or as atheists think of God as I do.

Of course God, if he exists, is powerful and purposeful! What “surprise” are you talking about?

DAVID: This highlights your underlying belief that the only way an imagined God should be is more like us. But the author does think like you in a way. A perfect God shouldn't make mistakes. That is only human perception often proven wrong in the past and will be in the future in a discussion of theodicy.

You have hit on the point, and then missed it! Both you and the author have espoused the view that God is supposed to be “perfect” and therefore doesn’t make mistakes. He seizes on what he regards as mistakes. It’s not clear from the article whether this means he is an atheist or he is saying that God isn’t perfect. You, on the other hand, believe that God is perfect and therefore what may seem like mistakes are not mistakes, and one day, for example, we shall solve the problem of theodicy by finding out that all the specially designed nasty bugs that have caused untold suffering to man and beast had a a beneficial purpose. All I am doing is offering alternative views of your God and of evolution in an attempt to find logical answers to some of the questions raised by your illogical beliefs, as analysed in the other threads.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum