Let's study ID (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 09:01 (74 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.

dhw: You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.

DAVID: You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants.

Your imagined version of God is an all-powerful being who has only one purpose: to design humans and their food. But he spends 3.X billion years designing life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food. This is illogical. When have I ever suggested that if God exists, he does NOT have a brilliant mind? Experimenting does not mean stupid or “bumbling” or not knowing what he wants. And maybe he wanted a free-for-all, which clearly explains ALL the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of non-human life forms, AND explains the mystery of theodicy – two problems which your imagined version of God cannot even begin to explain. As far as “other purposes” are concerned, my theories encompass your purpose of humans (experimentation), and the enjoyment of creation and watching his creations with interest, both of which you yourself have proposed; this means that he creates for the purpose of enjoyment, and for the purpose of having something interesting to watch, and this applies to ALL his creations, including humans, who would almost certainly be the most interesting of all to watch. (You don’t like to tell us his purpose for creating humans, except for the very human one of having them admire his work and forming a relationship with him).

DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.

Let's study ID; leaving atheism
DAVID: Egnor did:

QUOTE: Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”

I followed the same course - but turned from atheism to agnosticism – partly because of the sheer complexity of living things, and partly because of psychic experiences. But I’m afraid I find certain theistic arguments extremely hard to swallow, as you will have gathered from our own discussions and from my response to some of Egnor’s articles (e.g. on time).


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum