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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 08, 2021, 16:10 (435 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your usual rush into generalizations that fail to tackle the issue raised by your particular theory. Of course evolution as a process invented and designed by your God is perfectly reasonable – even to agnostics like myself. And an all-powerful, all–purposeful God is equally reasonable. But, for the thousandth time, what is not reasonable is to claim that your all-powerful, all-purposeful God had only one purpose – to design humans – and therefore designed billions of galaxies and millions of life forms etc. which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: How were the life-necessary elements created?

dhw: That is the origin of life, and over and over again I grant you that those elements may well have been designed by your God. That does not explain THE BOLD!

DAVID: How do you know so definitely the whole universe was not necessary?

dhw: Necessary for what?

Obviously to create a universe fine-tuned-for life.

DAVID: Humans are here, note the bold, and only we can think a God might exist.

dhw: Definitely true. How does that explain THE BOLD?

The bold is your weird illogical complaint. It is my logically developed position.

dhw: I went on to list other problems thrown up by your illogical theories, and also pointed out that your version of God was no more and no less “human” than my own.

DAVID: My God is not human in any sense.

dhw: He has good intentions, he wants total control, he knows what’s coming, he wants to create, he is always logical, he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours....Perhaps he wants us to admire his works, to have a relationship with him...

We must use human terms to describe a non-human God. That doesn't make my God in any way similar to your very humanized version.

DAVID: We've been over all of this before, and does not need repeating. Your need to have my God human is only to overcome your obvious humanizing of a weak-god theory who experiments, lets organisms evolve secondhand on their own, decides purposes on the fly and generally comes across as not sure of himself.

dhw: Why is an experimental scientist “weak”, or a God who wants to see what will happen if he creates intelligences that work things out for themselves, or a God who wants to create things he will enjoy creating? And why are these a purpose “on the fly”, and do you honestly believe that everyone who sets out to create something interesting or to learn something new must automatically be “unsure of himself”?

Once again you present an amorphous God who is very human, not like the God-image true believers have. You are from the outside looking in, asking for a changed God not in the accepted form. Your approach is why can't He be this way not that way? Is agnosticism just querulous?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum