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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 06, 2021, 18:14 (205 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The context is your imagined humanized God.

dhw: The context is our efforts to explain a possible God’s motives and method for the creation of life and evolution. Neither of us can do more than ”imagine” what these might be, and any explanation must inevitably involve the attribution of human thought patterns to this possible God. You are “sure we mimic him in many ways”, so it is a question of which ways – not a question of whether there ARE any ways. You accept the logic of all my alternative theories, and you cannot find any logical pattern in your own theory.

Your usual useless distortion. Your humanized God does produce logical theories, based on His primary personality as very human. My non-human God does not tell me why He chose to evolve humans from bacteria. There is a vast difference in our individual approaches to God. Mine are no more illogical than yours. We start on a level playing field in thinking about God and head into two very different directions. Using my God, my theories are just as logical as yours. For some reason you are totally blind to this.

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: What an odd off-point response! His reason for creating history is NOT THE HISTORY itself!!!

dhw: But you refuse to consider the whole history in your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. That is why (see next item below) you constantly harp on your God’s decision to “evolve” (= design) humans plus lunch from bacteria, and you leave out or gloss over the fact that in your theory he also took the decision to “evolve” (= design) every other life form plus lunch, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

The entire early bush and late bush are required for food and each stage is a developing stage of increasing complexity. The relationship is the definition of how to evolve. God evolved everything as I view it.

Privileged planet

DAVID: Your dodge is you accept nothing, and question everything but that is your right. It seems I have no right to arrive at a belief which you call dodging.

dhw: My approach is not a dodge. I accept the theory of evolution, and I try to find possible explanations for how it works. As an agnostic, I also include the possibility of your God as the creator of the whole process. My different explanations are the very opposite of dodging, whereas your defence of your own theory constantly sees you ignoring the WHOLE history of life, and focusing solely on humans and their lunch. When you do consider the WHOLE history, you are forced to admit that you cannot explain it in terms of your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. That should be the end of the discussion.

The bolded part above is your constant distortion. In my view of God, I do not have to defend or interpret His choice to evolve us from bacteria. You object to God as the designer of reality, while recognizing design exists in biology. Enjoy your picket fence.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum