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

by dhw, Monday, July 26, 2021, 06:39 (1215 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: You've just thrown out God. My view of evolution is totally different with God running it and survival plays no role.

Of course I haven’t thrown out God! What makes you think that God can’t design adaptations and innovations in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival? If that is not their purpose, then what is? As I have said above, we can then move on to discuss the purpose of their survival (e.g. according to you, to provide food for all the humans who were not yet there, although “extinct life has no role in current time”).

Venus sea sponge
DAVID: Pure unadulterated Darwinism. Common descent simply means the new came from older designs. Natural selection is pure theory without proof, a jump back to survival of the fittest..

dhw: 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).

DAVID: Your common sense is not proof. The Venus sponge may well have come from simpler designs.

Thank you for this concession, which I find vastly more believable than your “de novo creation” theory. Nothing is “proven”, but if you think it unlikely that a more efficient organ/organism is likely to supplant its less efficient ancestor, then do tell us why.

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

DAVID: I view your theories as mostly on the atheistic side. Your so-called logical theistic theories come from a very humanized God IMHO you imagine.

How can you call a so-called "humanized" God atheistic? Do you really think you have a monopoly on knowledge of God’s purpose and nature, and any different theory is atheistic?

Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently
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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: As a physician I was trained as a scientist to fairly evaluate scientific papers. I know you accept the design argument, the one thing I know that keeps you agnostic.

Then will you please stop pretending that I don’t. And please note that I also include psychic experiences. And I’m sure all scientists see themselves as “fairly” evaluating scientific papers, including folk like Dawkins who reach diametrically opposite conclusions from yours.

DAVID: I accept that God is the designer, which then allows me to propose His purposes, the chief of which is to produce us. This is so divergent from your conclusions, we will continue to discuss our disagreements.

You have always insisted that producing us was his only purpose, though you qualify that by saying that everything else was designed to be our food, including all the extinct branches that had no connection with us and our food. Yes, we will continue to discuss our disagreements over the purposes and nature of a possible God, even though your new dodge is to claim that any concept of God that differs from yours comes under the category of atheism.