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

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 15:51 (1227 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] 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! bbbThe 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: Your bold is a description of the process of evolution. Again, does God have the right to evolve us?

dhw: God can do what he likes. The process of evolution is organisms descending from earlier organisms, with changes that lead to new species. If God exists, we agree that he would have invented this process. That does not mean that he engineered every change himself, or that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their lunch. Please stop ignoring those parts of your theory which you admit you cannot explain.

This disagreement is quite clear. I think God designed everything in our reality. I cannot know why God decided to create anything. My belief is based on many sources of evidence as shown in my books. I reached a level of proof beyond reasonable doubt. All reached logically. I find your complaint as your problem, in not appreciating the evidence as I do. I remain as critical of your complaint as you do mine

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.

dhw: 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: You don't seem to grasp the concept of inferring God's personage from the way He approaches projects. I have simply told you how your God appears to me.

dhw: Hence my question, now bolded but not yet answered.

In your bold you try to defend your image of God by describing what humans do. God is not human and He may 'know every detail' in advance. More evidence of your humanizing God.

DAVID: …without wanting something to watch, something to experiment with, or to give Himself enjoyment. He does it without any self-purpose. If He watches our actions at all, He is simply watching.

dhw: Now you have your God creating without wanting anything at all except, according to you, humans and their lunch, though he wants to create them too for no reason. Such a God might just as well not exist. Instead of calling him God, call him Nature. However, elsewhere you have been sure that he enjoys creating and watches us with interest, and you insist that he has good intentions, that he provides possible cures for the diseases he has unavoidably created, and you agree that he possibly/probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we definitely mimic him in many ways, and you have even suggested that he wants us to admire his work and to have a relationship with him. In your desperation to ignore the illogicality of your theory of evolution, and to sneer at alternative theories by using derogatory vocabulary, you entangle yourself in a web of self-contradiction. What is it that you are sure we “mimic” if he is emotionless and has no purpose (apart from wanting humans plus their lunch)?

We have no idea how we compare to God or God to us. All of your statement covers much of what we have discussed slanted to show your disbeliefs. As a starting point, I prefer to think of God emotionless since I can not know his exact emotional state. I have offered you my opinions, as you quote, to flesh out discussions, but underneath I know they are pure supposition. What I do know is God is not human in any way, while you constantly apply a humanistic form to hHis thoughts.