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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 14:15 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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'.

dhw: 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”. […]

DAVID: The history of evolution is what God created. I start with that point. We were created from original Archaea. You've agreed God could choose to do it that way. Since we are here it is obvious we were a goal.

The history of evolution is a huge bush of life with millions of branches extant and extinct. Since you insist that your God designed every species individually, every individual species that is or was here must have been a goal. The only goal you have come up with is that he designed them so that we could eat them although we weren’t actually here to do so.

DAVID: Supporting that idea is Adler's point of how unusual we are. Nothing illogical if one accepts God is the Creator. We evolved, so God must have evolved us for us to be here.

And he must have evolved (= designed) every other life form so that it could be here or could have been here at the time when it was here.

DAVID: 99% had to disappear replaced by more complex forms as evolution proceeded from simple to very complex.

What was the point in designing the 99% if all he wanted to do was design the line that led with increasing complexity from bacteria to us and lunch?

DAVID: I find, as always, your totally illogical complaint seems to be something you threw against the wall to see if it would stick. Life must have a supply of energy to survive.

Yes, all life forms need food. That does not mean that for 3+ billion years your God specially designed all life forms plus lunch for the sole purpose of designing us and our lunch.

DAVID: All eras of evolution had their own bushes of energy supply.

Yes indeed. How does that make them all “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their lunch?

DAVID: What is your alternative for God? Direct creation of humans? Please tell us your alternative to produce humans from bacteria.

Of course if he is all-powerful, as you and your fellow Creationists believe, he must have been capable of designing us and our lunch directly – as in the Bible. That is your alternative, and it’s why Darwin’s theory caused such a kerfuffle. And it’s still a problem for you, because you can’t explain why he would have chosen such an indirect method (evolution), let alone the rest of your bolded theory. If God exists, he wanted evolution – that is agreed. What is not agreed, and is illogical, is that he only wanted humans plus lunch and therefore created all the forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. The alternatives, apart from direct creation, lie not in his wish for evolution but in the different explanations of his purpose and method. And you don’t need me to repeat my list again, do you?

dhw: ...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?

DAVID: I am sure we mimic Him in many ways as your statement shows, but just how much is unknown. As for 'pure purpose' my definition is simple. God knows what He wants and must produce and does it. Again I cannot know His reasons for His choice of production goal/goals or the choice of method. You conjure up a battery of guesses about Him which creates an amorphous humanized version of Him, never my image. All we can do is imagine Him, based on His works.

I’m glad you’re now sure that if he exists, we have some of his attributes. And I share your certainty that he would know what he wants and would produce it. Unfortunately your humanized version of him (one goal, all-powerful, always in control, good intentions) leaves you unable to explain why he produced millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with his goal, why with his total control he produced errors that he could not control, and why with his good intentions he specially designed viruses and bacteria that cause appalling suffering. I offer logical alternatives which you reject for no reason other than the fact that they do not correspond to your fixed guess at what human-type attributes he might have.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum