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

by David Turell , Friday, June 04, 2021, 16:08 (1266 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Your attempts at logic in regard to God and His works always assume a God with human weaknesses. To repeat I have one fixed view of God who knows exactly what he is doing and follows fixed purposes. Yours is constantly amorphous as you juggle ideas in mid-air, nothing fixed except strong doubts about God's existence.

dhw: I do not regard any of my theories as presenting a God with weaknesses: I do not regard experimental science, a desire to learn something new, creation for the enjoyment of creation, interest in one’s own creations, or the design of a free-for-all as opposed to a puppet show, as weaknesses. You are absolutely correct in calling your views fixed, and this is a major obstacle to any discussion of their illogicalities. You are also absolutely correct in saying that my own theories are not fixed, though I strongly object to the term “amorphous”. Each alternative that I have presented has a very clear shape, and even you accept that each one fits perfectly into the history of life as we know it. As for strong doubts about God’s existence, they are no stronger than my doubts about the ability of chance to fashion the complexities of the living cell, and my doubts about God are also strongly modified by my openness to the possible implications of certain psychic experiences. My seat on the fence is indeed firmly balanced, which is nothing to boast about, because one way or another I am in the wrong. However, someone whose position is fixed should at least be able to provide logical reasons for his beliefs. You do so admirably in defending the argument for God’s existence, but when it comes to your God’s possible purpose and nature, and your theories concerning theodicy and evolution, I would say that “amorphous” is not a bad description, except for your strong and inexplicable belief that every life form and econiche in history was specially designed as "part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food supply.

The bold requires an explanation I've used before. There MUST be a designer to explain the complexity of living biochemistry. But God's purpose can only be inferred from studying
His works. Our inferences differ so our conclusions differ. As a result your imagined God looks nothing like my imagined God.