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

by dhw, Monday, June 21, 2021, 09:06 (1250 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again you describe evolution and claim God should not have done it that way, but He did.

dhw: “That way” is specially designing millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with his purpose […] . I don’t say he shouldn’t have “done it” that way, and you certainly can’t say he did! That way is totally illogical, and therefore I propose alternative theistic explanations (see below) for ALL the life forms and lunches which we know exist/existed. You agree over and over again that these all fit in logically with the history of evolution.

DAVID: Same illogical point. My view is still simple. God, as Creator, evolved humans from bacteria, and I simply accept the entire history of evolution. I've never understood your objections. They always sound as if 'God did it wrong'.

Your view is not simple, and you impose an illogical theory on the history of evolution. According to you, your God also “evolved” [= directly designed] millions of life forms, their lunches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders from bacteria, and 99% of them had no connection with humans and their lunch, although his one and only purpose was to evolve (= design) us and our lunch. It’s not “God did it wrong” – it’s “you must have interpreted it wrong”. Especially since you insist that your God acts logically!

dhw: […] Please stop hiding behind my agnosticism as if that gave any sort of credence to the illogical theory which you like to state as if it were a fact.

DAVID: So your objection is I don't accept your version of God's reasons and purposes.

No it isn’t. My objection is to the illogicality of your own theory, and to your pretence that my own theories (which you agree are logical) can be dismissed because I am an agnostic.

DAVID: My God has purpose and your God isn't sure of what He is doing. Our views of who God isdiffers widely. and that is a reasonable difference. I am sure of my belief, as you search for yours. You started this website to search for ideas, possibly answers, and you are still searching.

In all my theistic theories, my God has purpose. In one of them (experimenting), he isn’t sure how to get what he wants (a being like himself). What is wrong with that? Yes, you are sure of your belief in the illogical theory bolded above. And yes, I’m still searching. How does that come to mean that your illogical belief is the only possible solution to the mysteries I wish I could solve?

DAVID: Your humanized God always appears to lack purpose. An unguided free-for-all 'on purpose', by definition, has no idea where it will end up. Where is the purposeful result of an evolutionary process headed somewhere by free-for-all?

dhw: Back you go to your other escape route – God only has the humanizing aspects you allow him to have (always in control, single-minded, always has good intentions), but he can’t have any that I propose. You have ignored my previous answer to your objection to a free-for-all, so here we go again. The basis would be your God’s love of creation (which you admit) and his interest in what he has created (which you admit). The proposal is that his purpose in creating would therefore be to provide himself with things that would interest him. And, following your analogy of the creative process, it is far more interesting to create something unpredictable than to know exactly what is coming next. Hence the free-for-all. […]

DAVID: How does a free-for-all process of evolution end up with you and I? Chance? You've rejected chance in a very large part and design has stopped you from being a pure atheist.

I don’t know how often you want me to repeat all the alternative answers I have offered, NONE of which allow for chance as the driving force of evolution. The answers are all in what you called “an excellent review of my thoughts” under “Miscellany”, and which you now proceed to ignore.

DAVID: […]. I don't have 'escape routes', but a very different view of God than you do. Mine is well-defined and yours whatever you decide He should be. Example: Above your God has to create to interest Himself so His self-satisfaction becomes a necessary event. A totally different view of a possibly existing God than mine. My God creates with pure purpose.

What on earth is “pure purpose”? You have allowed him only one purpose, as bolded above. What’s “pure” about that? You even say that perhaps he created us so that we could study and admire his works, and you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. But although in the past you have agreed that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, you cannot bear the thought that perhaps our human search for what you call “self-satisfaction” might mirror his. I recall on another occasion your suggesting that he might have created us in order to have a relationship with us. What possible relationship could there be if we have no thought patterns and emotions in common?