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

by David Turell , Sunday, January 16, 2022, 16:55 (833 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 17:05

DAVID: Back to your weak God not in total control He doesn't want.

dhw: So why is a free-for-all “humanizing”, but wanting full control is not? Why is experimenting to create a being like himself “weak” and “humanizing”, but wanting to create a being like himself is not “weak” or “humanizing” if he creates countless beings not like himself? How can we "define personality" without using “personality terms”, as you do?

My God is purposeful with known end points from the beginning. Yours is not based on your description of His actions. Actions define personality. Terms are just descriptions.

DAVID: My position, based what reality contains [...] is as follows: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, sees the future as it will turn out, and is very purposeful in His actions to achieve His desired goals.

dhw: You only name one goal: to design humans plus their food. Strangely enough, my all-powerful God is also very purposeful: he wants and gets a free-for-all, or experiments in order to create a being like himself or to learn new things. But he's not all-knowing. (Even you agreed that he liked unpredictability.)

Another gross distortion. The unpredictability referred only to watching free-willed humans as a possibility I made about God's desires. Your God's purposes are pure uncertainty about future goals. A weak God as usual.

DAVID: In evolution He works stepwise, as the mechanism of photosynthesis demonstrates. That came first and all the complex organisms followed. The stepwise arrangement may or may not cover the other aspects of environment. Stepwise biochemistry is obvious. But Chixculub is His doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.

dhw: If there were “accidents”, you can hardly avoid the conclusion that your God reacted to them, as opposed to his advance planning and knowledge of all new life forms and econiches (the majority of which were unconnected with humans plus food).

All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

DAVID: The basic chemistry started with many required mechanisms and reactions in the startup bacteria and were added to as complexity of life forms increased.

dhw: I agree. The mechanisms for flexibility and for reacting to environmental change must have been there from the beginning. That is a far cry from the theory that every response to every environmental change was either planned in advance or individually dabbled.

Another response of distortion. Knowing how to proceed stepwise from the beginning is my point about God. Set a foundation of processes in Bacteria at first. Pure logic.

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. It cannot be at the required high speed without molecules freedom of reaction.

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

Not totally free. They are built to fold and react automatically in a liquid environment in which there cannot be control restraints to monitor every change, because that would slow the necessary speed of the reactions.

DAVID: The origin of life requires highly technical reactions, not possible without guidance. Read James Tour's current article to see that.

dhw: You constantly try to divert attention from the flaws in your theory of evolution by emphasizing the design case for the existence of God. I have never questioned the logic of this, and it is one reason why I’m an agnostic and not an atheist. I’ve also explained many times why I'm an agnostic and not a theist.

Not a diversion. It is my attempt to introduce you to the complexity of living biochemistry by actually seeing examples Tour presents. You start with no knowledge of this, but then comment as if you do.

DAVID: We are here. Adler and I see the role of God very clearly. So should all clear thinking folks.

dhw: You have told us that Adler emphasizes the specialness of humans in order to put the case for the existence of God. That does not explain your illogical theory concerning your God’s “role” in evolution, or your purposeful God’s purpose for designing humans, and it tells us nothing about your God’s nature that does not “humanize” him in exactly the same way as my own speculations “humanize” him. Fortunately, however, you have again confirmed your belief that we probably have thought patterns, emotions and logic in common with your God, so at least we should have heard the last cry of "humanization" when I propose a different "humanization" from your own.

In no way do I consider God like a human. Adler uses God's purpose of creating humans as proof of God. Our disagreement about God revolved entirely about the appearance of purpose in God's actions. Your so-called God likes free-for-alls and experimenting. That is a God who does not see purposeful endpoints from the beginning. In contrast Adler's God and mine is purely purposeful