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

by dhw, Monday, July 19, 2021, 08:22 (185 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

And what do you think the food supply is necessary for if it’s not survival? And why do you think your God would design all the different ways in which life forms adapt to different environments, catch what they eat, avoid being eaten, protect themselves against the environment, if the purpose was not their survival? And still you avoid the question of why your God designed all these different life forms and strategies if the only species he WANTED to design was humans plus their food. […]

DAVID: 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.

Each successive stage of WHAT? Why would he design each successive stage from bacteria to trilobites and brontosauruses and mosquitoes and ants and their bridges and weaverbirds and their nests, and every other organism and natural wonder extant and extinct that ever lived on every branch of the great bush of life if his only purpose was to design each successive stage from bacteria to humans? The connection is the on-going process of evolution as it branches out from the first cells, but the branches do NOT all lead to humans plus lunch!

dhw: […] 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?

DAVID: Same stepwise logic: If God is in control as Creator, and we are here, He created us.

And one way or another, directly (dabbling) or indirectly (by creating the mechanism for a free-for-all), he created every other life form, and according to you every other life form was part of the goal of creating us, even though they lived and died without any connection to us.

DAVID: We look to history to see how, and we see we evolved from bacteria, so that is the method He chose.

And so did every life form! We both believe in evolution, and if your God exists, then of course he chose evolution for EVERY life form, not just humans! You never stop editing your theory in order to leave out the bits you can’t explain.

Thank you for dropping the pointless discussion concerning your dismissal of my logical alternatives on the grounds that in your view God as an experimental scientist, inventor or artist is weak, wishy-washy and bumbling.

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: […] 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.

DAVID: Answered above.

With non-answers as you continue to dodge the issue.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum