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

by dhw, Monday, July 05, 2021, 09:19 (408 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

In what context? I have proposed logical theistic theories to explain the history of life, and these entail human thought patterns that are different from the human thought patterns that underlie your own illogical theory.

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.

DAVID: 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.

You have just agreed that all my theories logically explain “all of our reality”, i.e. the whole “history of the processes” of evolution, whereas you admit that your own theory does NOT explain the whole history: “I can’t answer why he chose that method”. You are a “non-acceptor” of the whole history, which contradicts your personal interpretation of “what God wanted to exist”.

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. […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

We agree that all organisms, including humans, evolved from bacteria. Firstly, that does not mean that your God individually designed each organism. Secondly, it does not mean that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans. Thirdly, the fact that all living matter requires lunch does not mean that your God designed all living matter plus lunch “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our lunch. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: […] 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.

I have just stated explicitly that I have no knowledge at all, including whether God exists or not, which is why I propose different theories. You stick to one theory and although one moment you accept the logic of all my alternatives, the next moment you revert back to your rigid belief in your own.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum