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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 14, 2021, 11:22 (94 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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.

As usual, you change the subject. Our dispute is over the illogicality of having an all-powerful God, whose only purpose is to design humans plus lunch, for some unknown reason designing millions of life forms etc. that have no connection with humans. The belief you are referring to and the logic and the level of proof, concern the existence of God, not your illogical theory of evolution as bolded above and to which I have offered three logical THEISTIC theories. Please stop this silly dodging.

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: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

The dispute is not over what God may or may not know, but over your insistence that the three alternatives I offer make him weak, wishy-washy and bumbling. You have no more idea than I have of his true nature or the real reason for all the non-human designs or even for the human designs. You offer your own humanizing theory in your own human terms. Neither of us can use any other terms. So do you regard human experimenting, learning, having new ideas, or creating precisely what one wants to create as weak, wishy-washy and bumbling? If not, why should you apply such insulting human terms to the various versions of God that I am offering?

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: […] 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)?

DAVID: 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.

Each of my alternative theories is theistic. Not believing is not the same as disbelieving, and my agnosticism does not help you to defend your illogical theory and does invalidate the logic of my own theistic theories.

DAVID: 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.

Correct. Your whole theory concerning God’s single purpose (humans), advance knowledge of everything, design of every life form plus lunch, total control over evolution, good intentions etc. is pure supposition and has no more validity than my own proposals.

DAVID: What I do know is God is not human in any way, while you constantly apply a humanistic form to His thoughts.

How can you possibly “know” that? Read your own words: “I am sure we mimic him in many ways…but just how much is unknown.” “In many ways” now becomes “in no way”. You are sure that we have certain traits in common, but you know we don’t.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum