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

by dhw, Friday, June 25, 2021, 11:43 (414 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: 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: Yes, I use design and evolve interchangeably. It is all the same to me. I don't have to know why God chose to design an evolutionary process.

Since this discussion is about a possible God’s possible nature etc. I am accepting the premise of God’s existence. I also accept evolution, so the question raised by the bold is not why he chose to design an evolutionary process, but why you think he chose specially to design millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc, if his only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I don't brush it aside since it doesn't matter. The issue as to why He decided to create us is certainly discussable and we have offered our guesses with no concrete conclusions, but taht can only be par for the course.

Why he might have decided to create us is a separate issue from the problem of why, if his only goal was to create us and our lunch, he created millions etc. etc. (see the bold). Your only answer is that all life forms have to eat. An obvious truth which does not explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans etc. (see the bold)

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.

dhw: 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: Very strange comment. I don't try to explain God's choice of creating evolution, as it matters only to you. The facts of history are simply that we are here, a highly unusual result of chance evolution. Adler can explain it to you. My interpretation is logically taken directly from historical facts. That it differs from yours is not surprising.

The simple truth is that we are here, our lunch is here, lots of non-human-lunch life forms are also here, and millions of life forms and lunches used to be here – all specially designed by your God, according to you, although the only connection they had to us was that they had DNA.

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

dhw: 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)

DAVID: The inconsistencies are only your illogical thinking. If God is the Creator, He creates what He wishes in any way HE wishes. And that is what I accept as what happened.

Precisely. But that does not mean that he created what you think he wished in the way that you think he wished. The inconsistency lies in the bold, which you continue to dodge.

DAVID: I represent here my view of the personage God is. Your imagined God-personage is vastly different and you have ae a perfect right to that view. In our discussions please remember that. My God is highly purposeful and therefore controlling, and yours is best described as unsure of where He is going and what He should create.

I offer different alternative versions, all of which are highly purposeful but not necessarily controlling, and all of which fit in logically with life’s history as we know it. We agree that any view of your God’s personality can only be extrapolated from his works. And that is why the only recourse you have when presenting your view is to dodge the inconsistencies, and hope that one day humans will prove that you are right. Apart from your illogical theory of evolution, I listed some of the inconsistencies a couple of days ago:

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, [I’d better specify that despite his good intentions he also designed murderous viruses and bacteria] 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