Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 03, 2022, 14:14 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

dhw: I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.” […]

DAVID: Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

A not very neat way of changing the subject from your irrelevant objection that my proposals would not be recognized by “religious circles”. In PART ONE, you refuse to tell us what direction your very purposeful God is headed in, whereas I offer you three distinct alternatives, each one of which has a very precise purpose and – unlike your truncated version of a purpose (to produce humans, but you won’t tell us why) – each one covers all life forms and natural wonders, including those that had no connection with humans. Giving up control serves the purpose of providing a far more interesting spectacle for him to watch (you agree that he watches with interest). Changing his mind could apply equally to your version of him “dabbling”, especially in view of the fact that the majority of his actions according to you had no connection with the direction he wished to head in (humans and their food). Experimentation can be targeted or could be a purpose in itself (to learn something new), and interest and enjoyment would be greatly enhanced by having no endpoint in mind. Please tell us what endpoint you think your God had in mind when he designed H. sapiens.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum