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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 11:38 (115 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: He did not wish to limit Himself to one line. That is your weird view. The other branches are lunch.

How can all the other branches have been lunch for humans if humans were not there? Are you really telling us that he specially designed the first ancestors of houseflies and mosquitoes and elephants and vipers and mice and vultures and the duckbilled platypus so that he could carry on specially designing their successors and their successors etc. until millions and millions of years later we could tuck into the current products? (See below for the impact of this on your general theory.)

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

dhw: 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 bbthat he only wanted humans plus lunch and therefore created all the forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans.bb 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?

DAVID: You go back to your illogical view of God that He has tunnel vision and can only see a goal of humans.

I’m delighted that you recognize such a theory as tunnel vision, but this is an extraordinary case of mistaken identity. That is YOUR view! You keep telling us that every life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their lunch! So now you have given yourself a double brain-blocker: not only do you have no idea why he chose to “evolve” humans (= design them in itsy-bitsy stages) instead of creating them directly, but also you have no idea why he chose to evolve (itsy-bitsy design) every item on our menu, plus all the items that are not on our menu.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Your blindness to the need for energy to supply living organisms is amazing. As above, He is not tunnel-visioned as shown by creating a bush for all to eat.

All life forms need food. It is your tunnel vision that every life form was designed as part of the goal of producing humans and their lunch!

DAVID: God does not produce errors. The living system He created has the ability to make errors, and He knew it and designed editing systems that work amazingly well. Viruses may help in evolutionary design and most bacteria are our helpers. All you can see is the dark side. You should be thankful you are here. Deyanu.

So your all-powerful, always-in-control God invented a system which contained errors that he could not control, designed editing systems which sometimes work but sometimes don’t, and your explanation for the "dark side" (= the problem of theodicy) is that we should be thankful for the bright side.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum