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

by dhw, Sunday, July 25, 2021, 13:37 (1009 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Agreed, but doesn't answer my conjecture that survival doesn't drive evolution. Why dodge?

dhw: Evolution is the result of changes in organisms. You agree that the purpose of those changes is to improve organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: I specifically do not agree that the force behind evolution is survival. It is design.

Which comes first, the purpose or the design? There is no point in designing something if you do not have a purpose! This ties up with two of your constant distortions of my alternative theistic theories. ALL of them are based on purpose, and ALL of them entail design. This particular discussion depends entirely on what you mean by “force”, so let’s drop the term. I propose instead: evolutionary adaptations and innovations are designed for the purpose of improving chances of survival. We can then discuss what does the designing and, if you wish to go further, you can ask what is the purpose of improving chances of survival, i.e. what is the purpose of life itself?

Venus sea sponge
dhw: Since I believe in common descent, I see no reason to assume that the sponge’s ancestors were unable to survive before their descendants found ways of catching MORE plankton and MORE eggs. The improved version would then have taken over from the earlier version by a process known as natural selection.

DAVID: Pure unadulterated Darwinism. Common descent simply means the new came from older designs. Natural selection is pure theory without proof, a ;iomp back to survival of teh fi ttest..

Why do you assume that EVERY aspect of Darwin’s theory must be wrong? Yes, common descent means the new came from older designs. I see no reason why you should reject the possibility that the Venus sea sponge we know descended from some earlier form of sponge that was not so complex and efficient. Natural selection is pure common sense: if (b) works more efficiently than (a), it is natural that (b) is more likely to survive than (a).

dhw: It is amazing that you should think “evolution works” by God individually designing every life form and food supply that ever existed solely for the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Your total non-belief in God is showing. Your theist/ non-theist balance is markedly toward atheism. I would think you would be more 50/50.

dhw: I have offered you three theistic explanations for the way “evolution works”, and you have rejected them on the grounds that they endow God with different human characteristics from those with which you endow him. Please stop pretending that your illogical theory is the only possible way in which evolution can work, and please stop pretending that three alternative theistic theories = atheism.

DAVID: We will continue full disagreement here.

How can you possibly regard it as atheistic for me to offer you three logical theistic alternatives to your one illogical theistic theory?

Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently
DAVID: I am comfortable in my beliefs, arrived at very logically. Are you comfortable as an agnostic?

dhw: Your “very logical” belief leaves you with no explanation for your illogical theory of evolution, and no explanation for theodicy, beyond the fact that you are sure your God has “good intentions” though we don’t know what they might be. Being comfortable is not, I’m afraid, a guarantee of truth. I expect Dawkins is just as comfortable as you.

DAVID: Are you comfortable?

dhw: I started this website because I was uncomfortable with Dawkins’ one-sided presentation of his case against God. I am equally uncomfortable with your one-sided presentation of your case for God and, in particular, with your various fixed beliefs concerning your God’s purpose and nature, and with your totally illogical theory concerning the history of evolution. I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with my ever firmer conviction that I will never know the truth unless there is an afterlife and a God reveals himself.

DAVID: Dawkins has his form of atheistic logic and I have my form of theistic logic. You invited me here and you got what you desired, a theistic battler. It has given you a great amount of scientific education , but not changed your rigid mind. I'm not surprised. You do not understand the meaning of design at an educated depth. See today's ID commentary on understanding design.

You have indeed been my science teacher, for which I am deeply grateful, but you have failed to understand that the theories you extrapolate from your scientific knowledge are open to diametrically opposed conclusions: they are not scientific, and there are many experts in all fields of science who would disagree profoundly with your conclusions. You have also deliberately ignored the fact that throughout all our discussions, I have repeatedly stated that I ACCEPT THE LOGIC OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. Please stop pretending that I don’t, and please stop using this pretence as a diversion from the aspects of your beliefs that I am challenging.