Let's study ID (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 15:26 (367 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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).

You have reviewed all your imagined humanizing forms of God. What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans. In my view God creates the history and does it His way for His reasons. I cannot debate them, but just accept them, a vast difference from your approach, in which God should follow your human logic.

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

dhw: 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.

Same illogical questioning of God's history.

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…”

dhw: 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).

Notice taken.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum