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

by dhw, Thursday, July 15, 2021, 10:46 (1225 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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 [...] to which I have offered three logical THEISTIC theories. Please stop this silly dodging.

DAVID: I have answered your objections by saying God designed everything before humans appeared and humans. Your complaint is against His designing.

There is no end to your dodging. First you switch to God’s existence, and now you repeat ONE part of your theory (God designed every life form) and leave out the other: if humans plus lunch were his only purpose, why would he have designed all the life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans? It is the illogicality of such combined beliefs that constitute my complaint. You know this, so I don’t know why you keep playing these silly dodging games! [...]

DAVID: [...] 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.

dhw: 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: You simply refuse to accept the obvious. We each think of God totally differently.

Of course that is obvious, and we question each other’s views. So please tell me why you think experimentation, learning, having new ideas, or creating precisely what one wants to create – all of which provide logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution – should be regarded as weak, wishy-washy and bumbling. The terms have the same meaning, whether you apply them to humans or to God.

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.

dhw: 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: Your theistic theories are not my theories. Our Gods are totally different.

Obviously. That does not justify your dismissal of my theistic theories on the grounds of my agnosticism, and it still doesn’t provide an explanation for the dislocated beliefs that underpin your own theory as bolded earlier.

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The wrong 'know' is questioned. I recognize your descriptions of God's actions and purposes as quite humanizing. I agree I cannot 'know' God, but only can develop my view of Him as I analyze His works.

And I recognize YOUR descriptions of God’s actions as quite humanizing, and I recognize your agreement that he and we possibly/probably/definitely have thought patterns and emotions in common. What I cannot recognize is the logic behind your certainty that we mimic him in many ways, but your knowledge that he is not human in any way.