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

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 15, 2021, 21:43 (1255 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Another goal was food supply. The human goal was an endpoint of an evolutionary process which was created from one stage to the next, each stage supported by ecosystems of food supply.

dhw: I have always included food supply. Please explain why your God could not have specially designed humans and their food supply without first designing the brontosaurus and its food supply, plus the 99% of other organisms and their food supplies that had no connection with humans.

I have to remind you, an evolutionary process builds new stages from the old and in our case this evolution adds complexity at each stage. Brontos are part of a stage.

DAVID: I won't deny my vision of a very purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing on the way to His goals.

dhw: So you agree that your version is a control freak. Meanwhile, what are the other goals apart from humans and their food supply? Why do you believe that a God whose goal is to create a free-for-all is not purposeful and does not know what he is doing on the way to fulfilling his goal of a free-for-all?

Free-for-alls by definition have no specific goal in sight. You are not logical.

DAVID: And free will among all animals with a brain shows we are not automatons. He certainly lets us do our own thing.

dhw: Precisely. He was happy enough NOT to control our behaviour. And so, by analogy, I propose that he might also have been happy enough to give organisms the means to design their own adaptations, major and minor, not to mention their own lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders.

DAVID: Your form of God, not mine.

dhw: I know your beliefs are fixed. I am merely pointing out that if he was willing to give up control of our behaviour, it should not be inconceivable that he was also willing to give up control of evolution. At least that would offer you an explanation for all the different, higgledy-piggledy, non-human varieties of life forms that came and went, and it would relieve you of the problem of why your God with his good intentions deliberately designed all the murderous bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering.

It doesn't compare. Control over forms advancing to human beings is not the same as organisms controlling their everyday activity. Again, no logic.

dhw: Why should what you want be what your God wants? When you read a book, do you want to know the end of the story before you start? Please answer.

DAVID: Of course not, I don't read the last chapter first.

dhw: So it’s possible that your God also has the pleasure of following stories without knowing the ending in advance.

dhw: Perhaps he enjoys the excitement of DISCOVERY, just as I do when I’m writing. You offered the analogy, and I am explaining to you how it may well fit in with your God’s own thought patterns.

DAVID: My version of God knows exactly what He is doing and where He is going. Again your humanized version appears. Why do you want Him so human He mirrors us? His person is not in any way like ours.

dhw: You have no more idea what he is like than I do. But why do you think my version has him mirroring us? I am proposing that some of OUR characteristics mirror HIS – not the other way round! If he exists, HE is the creator. A lot of humans know exactly what they are doing and where they are going, but you have just given us an analogy between your God’s creativity and my own. Why do you now assume that your analogy is wrong, and that there is no way your God could enjoy the same excitement of creativity and discovery that I enjoy?

I doubt it. You are humanizing the God I think about. Keep your God, I'll keep mine. We both have a right to our own versions.