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

by dhw, Saturday, June 19, 2021, 11:20 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ... You have said yourself that brontos had no direct connection to humans. They were a “stage” on a different branch of the bush.

DAVID: I know. But all branches go back to Archaea. You lack any concept of continuity. Each stage must have branches of food supply. Brontos are now birds and lizards, here with us and supplying food. Back in bronto's time we were mouse sized, but on the way. That was our stage at the time.

dhw: So although past food supplies were for the past and extinct life has no role in current time, every life form in the history of life’s huge bush was specially and individually designed as part of the goal of specially designing humans plus lunch. You have no idea why your all-powerful God chose this method of designing humans plus lunch, which were all he actually wanted to design in the first place, but you find it logical.

DAVID: What is logical is my accepting God's works, of which evolution is one. I can't ask Him why He chose to evolve us, but it is my assumption He did.

And it is your assumption that he also individually designed millions of other life forms and their lunches etc. which had no connection with humans, but you can’t ask him why he did so although his one and only purpose was to design us and our lunch. You just have to accept that you have no idea why he would choose such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and you expect others to accept it too.

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: […] 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?

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

dhw: You’re fond of the phrase “slicing and dicing”, and that is precisely what you are doing. The subject is God’s goal. His goal would be the joy/excitement/pleasure of watching what the free-for-all will lead to. You accidentally hit on it when you drew the analogy with my own creative processes.

DAVID: God does not have human desires [...]

dhw: […] how do you know that we do not have desires similar to your God's?

DAVID: How do you know we do?

I don’t. That is why I offer alternative theories to explain the course of evolution. You reject all my alternatives as if you knew God’s nature: “God does not have human desires.” Your personal beliefs, stated as if they were facts, do not offer any reason at all for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical theories about his nature, purposes and methods.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum