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

by dhw, Thursday, June 24, 2021, 11:47 (1246 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: How can all the other branches have been lunch for humans if humans were not there?

DAVID: Pre-humans had pre-lunches in each stage. How silly can hour objections become? All cover in past discussions.

Of course pre-humans had lunch. And 99% of them are extinct and had no connection with humans.

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 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?

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

dhw: 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!

DAVID: No, not my view, but my view of yours. God's goal of finally reaching humans by evolution from bacteria does not close His eyes to the need for all of the branches producing needed food energy along the way.

But why did he specially design all of the branches and their lunches if his only goal was to design humans and their lunch? You asked me for an alternative, and I gave it to you: direct creation of humans and their lunch – as mooted in the Bible. But we both believe that didn’t happen, and you admit that have no idea why your God chose instead to specially design millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. Why do you keep glossing over your belief that he designed all the life forms etc. (you keep using the word “evolve”), and why do you keep trying to brush aside your repeated admission of the fact that you can’t explain why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a purpose?

DAVID: It is you who seems to want direct creation. I don't attempt to know why God evolved us. I simply accept the history God created.

I don’t “want” direct creation. I am pointing out that your interpretation of your God’s purpose and nature does not fit in with the facts of history. You don’t “attempt to” explain why God would do it your way because you can’t think of any possible reason, but you simply refuse to acknowledge that your interpretation of purpose and method might be wrong.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: We should be thankful. Aren't you for being here?

Of course I am. But we are not discussing how happy and grateful we are. Our subject is a possible God’s possible purpose and nature, and it is clear from this response that you would rather not bother with all the above inconsistencies in your rigid beliefs! Ah well, I can't say I blame you.
If your answer's a bodge,
Then it's better to dodge.
(Westminster proverb)