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

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 04, 2021, 15:36 (111 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have repeated, as expected, your humanized view of God.

dhw: And you have repeated, most disappointingly, your refusal to consider any “human thought patterns and emotions” other than those which you believe your God might possess, regardless of how they fit in with the history of life.

As usual I propose the results of my God's personality and you propose yours. Note I have accepted your theories for your humanized God but only in that context.


dhw: You claim that he specially designed ALL life forms (plus lunch), although he only wanted one (plus lunch) […]

You responded: “I can’t answer why he chose that method.”

DAVID: The point is I don't have to explain why God chose to evolve us. It is/was His choice. Your logical thoughts all come from the desires of a humanized God. 'Round and 'round. we will never agree.

dhw: We go round and round because you continue to leave out the point that you admit you can’t explain, which is not “why he chose to evolve us”, but why- if his only aim was to design us and our lunch - he chose to specially design millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with us.

And you continue a baseless objection. God, as the Creator, created all of our reality, which included evolution of humans from bacteria. What is there to attempt to explain? We have to accept what exists as what God wanted to exist. And accept the history of the processes. You are a non-acceptor. It is your problem.


Privileged planet
DAVID: For life fine-tuning is one requirement, but a special Earth orbiting a special star is just as important. It doesn't answer dhw's strange concern as to why God made the universe so huge and filled with so many weird processes if He only wanted humans. His same concern applies to why the bush of evolved life is so big. My view is God knew what had to be created to achieve His goals. dhw somehow knows better.

dhw: Why “strange” concern? If God exists, I agree that he would have known precisely what had to be created to achieve his goal(s). (I don’t know why you revert to plural goals, when you insist that there was only one: humans plus lunch). And the zillions of extinct and extant stars and planets, and the vast bush of extinct life forms etc. do not logically support the claim that his one and only goal was to design humans plus lunch. The billions of galaxies that have nothing to do with us or with any life suggest either that there is no design and no God, and our one privileged planet among zillions is the product of a stroke of luck, or – if your all-knowing, all-powerful God exists - he had more in mind than only creating humans plus lunch. I do not "know better". I admit to having no knowledge at all, which is why I propose different theories. However, you reject them all and adhere rigidly to just one – as if you knew better.

Answered above. You well define our differences in patterns of thought. The only way to evolve humans from bacteria seems the one that we are shown from God's created history of evolution. And all living matter requires daily lunch, which you don't seem to worry about, but I'll bet you had yours.. I'm glad you know what God had in mind other than what we know He produced as you guess in the bold. We can only work with what He produced, and how do you know the whole of the universe is not necessary to produce the life-giving Earth? Why not think of the concept that what is here is required? But you prefer to badger history.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum