More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 15:19 (210 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 15:38

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

dhw: “Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food.

I know your humanizing goals for your form of God. I view humans as His endpoint of creation.

dhw: Full control clashes with your belief that he had no choice other than a life system he could not control.

He chose to design the only system that would work.

dhw: If you mean full control of evolution, you offer the absurdity of his having one goal which he deliberately did not fulfil until he’d designed countless life forms that had no connection with his goal.

Your invented absurdity clashes with your admitted 'God can chose whatever He wishes to do.'

dhw: I’m not sure what you mean by “loving?”.

I'm not sure He loves.

DAVID: My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

dhw: We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

The bold is your usual distortion of my views. See previous discussion today.

DAVID: Doesn't answer my point. The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.

dhw: The goal in all these would be enjoyment of and interest in the creation of life outside himself. That explains the ever-changing history of life on earth. Experimentation and/or new ideas are alternatives to explain the specialness of humans while at the same time explaining all the other life forms that had no connection with humans.

Again, not recognizing we need all those forms in ecosystems for food/energy or life stops. The current human population has become predictably enormous and God's designed bush of life provides for it.

The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: I've discussed these problems before. The human female pelvis is far from ape-like to accommodate big brain birth and upright posture. How did this develop in a chance evolutionary scenario? Not likely. There are several players involved: Mom, Pop and baby DNA all adjusting on their own, unless a designer is at work.

dhw: Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.

You continue to deny design while obvious design keeps you agnostic. Conflicted, I would say.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum