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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 09, 2021, 13:21 (134 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution of the universe(transferred from “Miscellany”)

DAVID: Your alternative theistic theories do not offer a god-like God.

dhw: Firstly, my theistic theories do not “question God’s existence”, secondly you have no more idea of what God is like than anyone else, and thirdly you persistently distort my alternative views of God, as you do next:

DAVID: (initially referring to cellular intelligence) I still don't understand why you want a God who does things secondhand. Another example of your weak-god theistic theories.

dhw: I don’t “want” anything. I doubt your theory that your God individually preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation etc. in the whole of life’s history, and I find it incompatible with your belief that his only purpose was to create humans. An alternative would be that he wanted and deliberately designed an autonomous system to produce the endless variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of life as we know it. If he gets what he wants, how does that make him weak?

As before I've done designs, and secondhand attempts don't work, as in telling the architect what is wanted and getting a mess.


DAVID: Most God-believing folks view Him as all powerful, all knowing, past present and future, all purposeful, etc. You always weaken and modify and make Him amorphous.

dhw: I don’t know why you are kow-towing to “most God-believing folks” when you pride yourself on your rejection of conventional religion, but in any case the image I have offered you above still has him as all-powerful and all purposeful, but deliberately creating something that he does not wish to control (as you accept when you insist that he gave humans free will). And I thought your objections were to the possible “human” thought patterns this image entails, which is the exact opposite of “amorphous”. It’s you who object to solid characteristics – though only when they differ from those you attribute to your God (e.g. he always has good intentions).

Our free will is not in any way equivalent to designing de novo forms in evolution


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!

God's goal of creating humans is obvious, as argued by Adler.

Yet again: If your God’s only goal was to design H. sapiens (plus food supply), why would he have individually designed millions of life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens? You have admitted you cannot explain such “logic”, but it is your fixed belief, and that is why we agreed to drop the subject.

Thank you, but you re-raised it.


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...

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. But I presume you are using words that mean what they say, and their meaning describes a “humanized” version which is different from the alternative “humanized” versions I offer. You have no criteria enabling you to inform us that your “humanized” version is any more authentic than any other “humanized” version, and sadly your version lands you with the bolded theory which you can’t explain, the theodicy problem which you can’t explain, billions of galaxies which you can’t explain, and therefore with little option other than to repeat the rigid beliefs and the various digressions that now make up the bulk of the relevant threads. :-(

Those of us who believe don't think God's works have to be explained, and that results in your conjuring up a God who seems unsure of himself as He experiments with possible advances.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum