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

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 13, 2021, 18:31 (228 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There you go again, chopping evolution into unrelated time segments.

dhw: There you go again, dodging the issue. How can past food supplies for past organisms that had no connection with humans have been essential for humans?

I dodge nothing. Each early bush fed each early population. This current bush feeds us. Simple logic looking at a continuous evolutionary process from bacteria to us. Stop slicing!

DAVID: And my complaint is your weak analogy. Purposeful design to reach a goal is very different than designing most animals and us who then act on their/our own.

dhw: Let me put the above parentheses to you again. Hypothetical purpose based on your belief that God gave man free will:
GOD: Let’s see what intelligent human beings will do if I give them the freedom to behave as they like.
Hypothetical purpose based on my proposal of cellular intelligence:
GOD: Let’s see what life forms cells will produce if I give them the means to do their own designing.
In both cases, your God deliberately gives up control. I know you don’t believe it, but that is because you have a fixed idea of what your God wanted and did. My suggestion that he wanted a free-for-all, and therefore created a free-for-all, fits in perfectly with the history of life, with all its higgledy-piggledy comings and goings.

Again you have demonstrated an imaginary God fit to your doubts about Him. My fixation is to analyze historical facts of God's works and accept what He did with purpose. My
God know the outcome. We are here, very different than anything else ever appearing. Therefore we are an obvious goal. Adler's reasoning. You are imagining an amorphous God. That is your rigid position. We are arguing about totally different Gods, that we have chosen to
believe in, only yours is without belief.

DAVID: In any debate the opponents certainly discount alternative theories and show how they are distortions or unreasonable extrapolations of known facts.

dhw: But they should not distort the theories themselves: my theories and my logic are never an attempt to exclude God, the God I present is both powerful and purposeful, and terms such as weak, namby-pamby, wishy-washy etc. are an irrational denigration of my alternatives: a God who experiments, or a God who wants to create a free-for-all, will provide us – as you readily admit – with a logical explanation of the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: A complete distortion of my objection to your God. Let's call it a dodge. Note the bold. I have repeatedly told you I think you theories are logical only if a humanized God is accepted as the source.

dhw: And I have repeatedly told you that the God of my theories is no more humanized than your own.

You can distort my version of God any way you wish, but I present a very purposeful God who keeps on His course, and you call Him a control freak. Just because there are human control freaks doesn't make Him human. And free will among all animals with a brain shows we are not automatons. Her certainly lets us do our own thing. Your quote above: "GOD: Let’s see what intelligent human beings will do if I give them the freedom to behave as they like." fits the point.

DAVID: A God who uses a free-for-all has no idea of the ensuing endpoint.

dhw: That could be part of the attraction.

DAVID: To a purposeless God. So you wrote your plays with no known ending to tie it together?

dhw: You clearly have little grasp of the creative processes. The analogy is far better than you think. When I start to write a play or a story, I normally have no idea how it will end. Part of the fascination of the whole creative process is finding out where it will lead. Perhaps this is one of those “thought patterns” you have said we probably/possibly share with God.

Beautiful description of a writer's imagination. Perhaps why I've never tried fiction. I would want a conceived endpoint to tie it all together. Explains our differences about our God's personality. Personal history: as an older brother in the back seat on long car trips, I told him made up tales with no known ending to keep him interested, not "are we there yet?"

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum