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

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 18, 2021, 15:10 (90 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: And since he can do anything he wishes to do (assuming he exists), I would suggest that of the three alternatives, a free-for-all would provide the best explanation for the fact that so many life forms which have no connection with humans have been and gone, as all of them either fail or succeed in the great battle for survival.

Here is a major point of disagreement. You are still stuck with Darwinist 'survival' as a driving force. If God makes each new stage and dying is built-in, survival drives nothing and as a driving force is only theory, not ever proven. My view of the battle is eat or be eaten simply as a necessary food supply.


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.

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.

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

dhw: It is a subjective collection of terms which would be insulting if used of experimental scientists, inventors, artists etc. As for food, all forms of life are potential food for all other forms of life, and this obvious fact does not in any way explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, he would have designed all the extinct forms of life and food that had no connection with humans.

Your usual illogical statement. If God designs each successive stage, as I believe, all previous steps end up with humans, so the whole process is connected. >


DAVID: […] 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…

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

dhw: But you have no idea why he would have chosen YOUR interpretation of his method to achieve YOUR interpretation of his purpose! How can it make sense to you if you can’t find any logical explanation?

Same stepwise logic: If God is in control as Creator, and we are here, He created us. We look to history to see how, and we see we evolved from bacteria, so that is the method He chose. Obviously explained even if we do not know why God chose that method over others. Your bold is a weak objection. Why He did it His way is your problem not mine.


dhw: […] 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”!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: As usual, you skip the rest of the argument and cling to the one point that you and Adler defend so potently: that the complexity of life and especially of the human mind provide convincing evidence of design, and therefore convincing evidence of a designer. I have always accepted this, and it is one major reason why I cannot embrace atheism. But it does not explain the theory bolded above.

Answered above


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum