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

by David Turell @, Friday, June 04, 2021, 15:58 (51 days ago) @ dhw

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

DAVID: Our huge brains allow free will of a vast magnitude, compared to other animals. I simply accept it as part of God's purpose in making humans. We ARE His purpose, and His underlying reason is open to guessing provided by theologians' guesses.

dhw: You “simply accept” that your God deliberately gave us the freedom to do our own thing, but you cannot even consider the possibility that he might have given other organisms the same freedom. You are happy to “guess” that God’s purpose in designing the brontosaurus was to design you and me (all life forms are “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”), but you refuse to guess why he might have designed you and me.

All independent animals have free will to follow their wishes. We all know that. Why do you accuse me of not knowing that? I've offered guesses as to God's reasons. Why constant repetition seeking for more guesswork?


Chaperones required

DAVID: As above we each have our own positions on God's personality.

dhw: Mine are fluid, yours is fixed. Now please tell us how his works disprove my suggestions and prove that your own “humanized” image of him is correct.

I don't consider my fixed view of God as having Him mimic a humanized form. Your so-called fluidity is exactly how you humanize Him as His desires wander all over the place.


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.

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

DAVID: You needn't repeat your discontinuous slicing and dicing of a continuous evolutionary process which I believe was/is run by God's design.

dhw: If you tell us that over millions of years, your God specially created millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with us, and he did so because we would have starved without them, I’m afraid you must expect me to point out that there is a slight problem of logic in your thinking.

I think all of evolution has a connection to us. You are the evolution slicer and dicer. We both admit we came from ancestor Archaea.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum