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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 07, 2021, 11:51 (1027 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

My alternatives are logical because they all present a possible God’s possible purpose and nature in a manner that explains the known history of life. Why do you try to distinguish between human and “very” human? You have admitted that your God’s personality can only be described in human terms, and he is just as humanized as my alternatives. You wrote:
DAVID: Of course I must discuss a non-human God in humans personality terms.
There is a vast difference in our individual approaches to God. Mine are no more illogical than yours. […] Using my God, my theories are just as logical as yours. For some reason you are totally blind to this.

You cannot explain why your humanized God, who only wanted to design humans plus lunch, proceeded to design millions of life forms, lunches etc. that had no connection with humans and their lunch. You admit that you can’t explain it, so why are you claiming that it is just as logical as my alternative theistic theories, which you have accepted as being logical?

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

By “evolve” let us remember you mean “specially design”. And oops, once again you have left out the section of your theory that renders it illogical, namely that your God specially designed every life form etc. “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their lunch.

Privileged planet
dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

No, but if your theory is to make sense, you need to explain why a God whose one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch proceeded first to design millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. You admit that you can’t do so, and so you distort the argument as if any criticism was directed at God, whereas of course it is directed at your illogical theory.

DAVID: You object to God as the designer of reality, while recognizing design exists in biology. Enjoy your picket fence.

In none of these discussions on the possible nature and purpose of a possible God do I object to God as the designer of reality. That is another of your escape routes, as you try to dodge the illogicality of your own theistic theory of evolution.