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

by dhw, Thursday, July 01, 2021, 09:17 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All of your statement is valid, but we can never know how much is really true. My view of His personality is obviously not yours so we will not meet in the middle.

dhw: Thank you. Of course we can’t know what is true. That is why we theorize, but some theories make more sense than others. And so we discuss them to see if they fit in with whatever facts we do know. I find that your theory does not fit in with the facts, and have explained why, whereas you find that my alternatives do fit in, but do not correspond to the image you have of your God. However, your conciliatory tone here is much appreciated.

DAVID: We are not attack dogs. You have your vision of God and I have mine.

I do not have one vision of God – I offer alternatives. Your own vision of him – all-powerful, always in control, one purpose only, plus “good intentions” – conflicts with the history of life, which has him “having to” design life forms and lunches etc. that have no connection with his one purpose, and which exacerbates the problem of theodicy through your insistence that he deliberately designed some of the “bad”, though you hope that somehow the bad will turn out to be good (see below).

dhw: Your original statement [“The whole bush is our lunch”] is an obfuscation. The problem you cannot solve is why your God would have chosen to specially design the WHOLE bush - which includes all the extinct life forms and their lunches that had no connection with humans and their lunch -if his only purpose was to design current life forms and the current bush. It is the WHOLE bush of life that makes your theory illogical.

DAVID: The bold is your constant misinterpretation. Humans were/are His eventual goal. He started with Archaea and viruses. They are still necessarily here as part of the total production. Still a confused view slicing and dicing the whole 3.8 byo evolutionary process.

We are not talking about archaea and viruses! This comment is part of your constant obfuscation, as you dodge the question of why, if his only goal was humans plus lunch, he specially designed all the past life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans.

Back to theodicy and David’s theories: Using good viruses
DAVID: It must be remembered, in God's creation there are both good and bad viruses […]

dhw: You seem to have misunderstood the problem of theodicy, which is the incompatibility of “bad” things with the concept of God as an omnipotent, perfectly “good” being. Your solution to the problem appears to be along the lines of: “Thank you, God, for deliberately designing all the good viruses and bacteria that relieve some of the appalling suffering caused by your deliberate design of bad viruses and bacteria.” Not much of a solution, is it?

DAVID: You don't seem to realize I feel there is no current solution, but I look to future research to solve the issues we raise about God. I don't know if God is 'good' or 'loving'. That goes back to religion's teachings and they are us, knowing no more than we do about Him. I'm delighted we are here, but it is possible God is just creating for the sake of creating, nothing more.

You hope that science will one day prove that your God’s special design of what we believe to be bad will turn out to be good. However, your last comment is excellent news. If it is possible that he is just creating for the sake of creating, it must also be possible that he is creating because – as you have said before – he enjoys doing so and is interested in his creations. Since no one knows his nature, thoughts and purposes, it must therefore also be possible that his reason for creating is to provide himself with an activity he enjoys as well as developments and events that he will find interesting.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum