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

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 17, 2021, 18:29 (8 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Throughout this discussion, you have repeated that humans were his goal from the very start, and you have even claimed that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” (plus our lunch). It is YOUR tunnel vision that is under scrutiny. The word endpoint is an obfuscation, since it can simply mean the last thing to be produced. No one would argue that at least so far, sapiens are the latest arrivals. That does not, of course, mean that everything else existed only for the sake of humans plus lunch.

God designing each stage gives us the appearance of natural evolution. You agree we Are currently the endpoint. Since I believe God is in control of everything, and you disagree, there will be no neutral ground.

DAVID: I have always viewed your take as desiring God to do direct creation. Why He wanted us to appear as a the result of evolution and why He chose to evolve us as His choice of method, each of us can only guess at. That 'I have no idea why' does not negate the theory.

dhw: It is not just his choice to “evolve us”. According to you, “evolve” means specially design - he designs every stage from common ancestor to us – but he also chose to “evolve” (= specially design) every other life form that preceded us although, according to you, his only purpose was to evolve (= specially design) us plus lunch. You don’t know why he would have chosen such an illogical way of reaching his one and only goal, but sometimes you insist that it is logical, and at other times you simply edit your theory by leaving out one or other of these conflicting beliefs. I do not “desire” God to do anything. I have offered you three alternative theories to explain why he did NOT create humans directly, you accept that they are logical, but you reject them because they entail “humanizations” that are different from your own.

Your view is well-stated, but one I do not accept in any way, especially since you have agreed God can do anything He wishes to do.

DAVID: Your theories about God as expressed above create a personality for a God who comes across to me as you state: "weak, wishy-washy and bumbling". That is the picture I imagine. Sorry, but you can't change my mind. My vision of God and His actions is totally different.

dhw: It is not a picture but a judgement. You would not use such insulting terms to describe an experimental scientist, inventor, or artist, and it is a totally irrational way of trying to wriggle out of the fact that you yourself agree that each of the theories explains the bush of past life which you cannot explain.

Of course it is a considered judgement based on your God's wishes. I explain the bush as food

DAVID: Please stick with "nobody can know God's nature". That is true, beyond any doubt.

dhw: Of course it’s true. That is why it is totally absurd for you claim that you “know God is not human in any way”.

DAVID: As a result I try as little humanizing as possible. Realize all the rest is guesswork, and we can go on discussing guesswork if you wish but it is not productive especially since we both view God's personality so differently.

dhw: Your guesswork includes your certainty that we mimic your God in many ways although you know that we do not mimic him in any way, a theory of evolution which makes no sense even to you,

How dare you tell me my theory of evolution makes no sense. Accepting God's role, it makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: the dismissal of alternative theories which make perfect sense to you, and it continues all the way through to the very existence of God, plus his good intentions. All our theories and all everybody else’s theories can be regarded as guesswork, since nobody knows the truth, and if they are therefore “not productive”, we may as well stop all discussions and all theorizing. You would never have joined this website if you thought that discussing the different “guesses” was unproductive, or perhaps you still haven’t cottoned on to the fact that your own theories are “guesses”!;-)

I know we cannot known the truth absolutely, but we can study evidence and reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt as Adler and I have. We can analyze the evidence as I have present it but you constantly doubt my analysis which shows us no one can remove your doubts. ;-)

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum