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

by dhw, Friday, July 09, 2021, 11:10 (1231 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My image of your God, based on what He does, is that He is very human in thought and planning. The difference is I don't view my God as human or having human desires. Using the human terms we have to use is a truism.

dhw: So when you say your God knows exactly what he wants, plans it in advance, wants and keeps total control, is driven by a single purpose (to create humans and their lunch, perhaps so they will admire his works, or he can have a relationship with them), enjoys creating, watches his creations with interest, always has “good” intentions and therefore must have had good reasons for designing “bad” viruses and bacteria, and you are sure we mimic him, you don’t actually mean that he has any of these human attributes but you are merely using human terms. Whereas if I suggest that he knows what he wants, wants the ever changing bush of life we know from history, enjoys creating, watches his creations with interest, we have no idea whether his intentions are “good”, especially against the background of evil, and I am sure that if he exists we mimic him, this makes him “very human”. And therefore your illogical theory of evolution is correct, whereas my alternative logical theories are not even to be considered.

DAVID: You neatly left out the main parts of your God's humanized intentions: experimenting, letting organisms do their own designs, enjoying a free-for-all, deciding on making humans somewhere along the way. I've considered your form of God and agreed all your theories about that style God fits your theories about that God's actions. You have never looked at my God, as I looked at yours, with you just full derision and rejection.

They are not the main parts! They are three alternative theistic theories, and each one – as you keep admitting - logically explains the ever changing bush of life in relation to a possible God’s possible intentions. You have rejected them all on the grounds that they make God “very human”, and my reply is in no way full of derision and rejection but highlights your “humanizing”, which is no different from mine. It is therefore absurd for you to reject my alternatives on the grounds that they “humanize” God. It is doubly absurd to reject them when you yourself cannot provide a logical reason for your own theory as bolded below.

Just to clarify the distinctions between the three theistic alternatives: experimentation allows for your interpretation of your God’s purpose (humans) but also explains the non-human bush which you can’t explain; a God who gets new ideas as he goes along also explains the non-human bush; a deliberate free-for-all not only explains the bush but also offers a possible solution to the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Nothing is illogical in stating God chose to produce us by evolving us from bacteria by designing each step.

dhw: No. What is illogical is the belief that your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-controlling God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our lunch, and so he proceeded to “evolve” (= design) millions of life forms, lunches etc. etc. that had no connection with us. THIS is what you yourself find inexplicable. I seem to have said this before.

DAVID: Yes, same muddle as before. The history of evolution is what God produced on the way to creating us. Your version of my God is that He has no idea of what He is doing.

The history of evolution is that of a vast bush of life forms extant and extinct, of which we are the latest. The history does not tell us that every preceding life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their lunch. That is your inexplicable interpretation of the history, as bolded above, which you constantly try to edit out of your responses.