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

by David Turell , Monday, July 19, 2021, 20:39 (1221 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

A non-answer. My point is survival doesn't drive evolution.

dhw: 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.

The only way God wished to design us was by designing us step by step thru evolution. He have admitted He has that right.

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.

dhw: Each successive stage of WHAT?...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!

Each successive stage of complex organisms. The branch to humans is known. The rest is food.

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

dhw: 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.

My theory is fully explained by stating God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Nothing is left out.

dhw: 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.

You brought it up again. My opinion has not changed.

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.

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

You consider them as non-answers, because questions have no merit in my eyes.