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

by dhw, Monday, July 12, 2021, 10:37 (102 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again, I don't try to explain why God evolved us. It is your problem.

dhw: Once again, that is not my problem, and as always you edit your theory to leave out those parts which contradict one another. The problem is not confined to why he evolved [= designed] US! The problem is why, if we and our lunch were his one and only purpose, did he specially design all the life forms and lunches that had no connection with us?

DAVID: And my always answer is God chose to evolve us from bacteria, and you have admitted it is God's right to do that.

Yes, your always answer is to ignore the bold, because you have no answer to the question.

DAVID: You may try to describe my God as human, but those are just terms, not real organized impressions of His personality, but the way you describe my God is exactly my view! Knows exactly what He is doing, exact goals in mind.

dhw: Of course they are terms. How else can you describe a personality? I don’t know what you mean by “organized impressions”. You offer descriptive terms, and I offer descriptive terms, and yours are every bit as humanizing as mine. Therefore “humanizing” is no reason to reject a theory.

DAVID: When it turns God into a mainly human-thinking personality, it does. Your God is nowhere like my God in any way.

But your version is every bit as humanizing as my various alternatives, and unfortunately leads you to the bolded theory above, which makes no sense even to you. That is why you have to ignore it in your replies and resort to the silly humanizing argument. […]

DAVID: Once again you have presented your vision of a wishy-washy bumbling along sort-of God who doesn't seem t know how to invent. Yet we have a universe designed fine-tuned to allow life by our God, but not yours.

He does know how to invent. All three versions explain the process whereby he might have invented the whole bush of life! The third theory – the “free-for-all” – actually has him directly inventing precisely what he wanted to invent: not even experimenting or getting new ideas as he goes along. As for the first two, I have no idea why you consider experimentation, learning, and new ideas to denote wishy-washy bumbling. Since you are sure we mimic God, does that mean you regard all experimental scientists, artists, writers, inventors as wishy-washy and bumbling if they do not know every detail of their work before they even start it?

DAVID: We will always disagree. Stop bringing up your objections and I'll stop also.

dhw: It’s not possible to stop so long as you continue to insist that your God designed every life form plus lunch etc. for the sole purpose of producing us, although nearly all of those life forms and lunches had no connection with us. Your theory crops up in at least half the topics we discuss, from natural wonders such as ant bridges and weaverbirds’ nests through to the development of the human brain. Your fixed concept of God’s purpose and nature leads you to reject every alternative theistic theory of evolution for the feeblest of reasons – that although they all fit in with life’s history, they entail human attributes that are different from the human attributes you think he has. See “Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently” for an interesting development

DAVID: You don't realize your images of God denigrates the image religious folk have. Your is a lesser God.

Since when did you follow “religious folk”? You pride yourself on your refusal to side with them on the image of a “loving” God, although you have no doubt that his intentions are good. In any case, which religious folk are you talking about? Deists? Hindus? Muslims? Shintos? Christians? Panentheists? We were both raised as Jews, whose image of God (if you follow the teachings of the OT) I find terrifying. Besides, you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest.I suggest he enjoys creating, watches his creations with interest, and therefore may have created his creations out of enjoyment and wanting something to watch with interest. How does this make my proposal "lesser" than yours? Please don’t try to dodge the illogicality of your theory of evolution by hiding behind religion.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum