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

by dhw, Saturday, July 10, 2021, 07:53 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My image of your God […] is that He is very human in thought and planning. […] I don’t view my God as human or having human desires. Using the human terms we have to use is a truism.

I gave you a full answer, showing that your interpretation of your God was just as human as mine. And so you switched to complaining that I had left out my theories. And so I summarized my theories, to which you replied:

DAVID: Your various theories all make your God come across as very human. That is my considered impression.

You have gone straight back to the same silly argument you used before, and so I may as well repeat my reply and ask you please to read it and compare the descriptions:
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.

The whole point was to show that your God was every bit as human as my alternative versions, even to the extent of repeating certain characteristics, and yet you dismiss my alternative theories of evolution on the grounds that they make God human. You then switched the focus by complaining that I had left out the actual theories which you dismiss as humanizations.

dhw: 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: The bush is food as you admit. Stop using it as a lame objection.

Of course the bush is food, but you cannot explain why your God, whose only purpose was to design humans and their food, proceeded to design millions of non-human life forms and their food, 99% of which had no connection with humans. Why do you keep dodging?

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: My whole theory: Every life form that preceded us was part of a process that ended up producing us.

This is the same dodge, and it is anything but your WHOLE theory! You focus on an obvious fact, and leave out all the aspects of your theory that make it illogical. Yes, the process of evolution ended up producing all the different forms of life, and we were the last species (so far) to emerge from it. But that does not mean that every previous life form and piece of food was individually designed by your God, or was part of your God’s one and only goal of designing us and our food! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: That is what God did and what I am claiming was His plan to produce us. You object to God as the designer of the steps of evolution. What is edited out? One item: the bush is required food.

Once more: You claim that his plan to produce us and our food was first of all not to produce us and our food but to produce lots of life forms and foods that had no connection with us – and this in spite of the fact that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and always in control. It is possible that your God designed all the steps of evolution, but it is not logical to claim that the purpose of all the steps of evolution that led to all the life and food forms which have disappeared and which had no connection with humans was to enable your God to design humans and their food. You continue to take us round in circles in your effort to avoid admitting that this theory is illogical, even though you keep admitting that you can’t explain it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum