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

by dhw, Monday, January 17, 2022, 13:26 (833 days ago) @ David Turell

I am juxtaposing some exchanges in order to avoid excessive repetition.

DAVID: In no way do I consider God like a human.

You have repeatedly agreed that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him, and you even dismissed one of my theories because you believe your God to be too “kindly” to wish us harm. Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: 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.

If God exists, of course he must have had a purpose in creating life. Why plural “endpoints”? Your ONLY purpose is the creation of humans plus their food, and you can’t explain why he would have designed the rest. All my alternatives (free-for-all, experimenting, getting new ideas) are purposeful! Finally, actions are not definitions! “David’s God designed every species” is an action. How does that define his personality? You’re making a mockery of language. A personality is defined by words that describe it! For example, you think your God is “kindly”, and so you dismiss any “unkindly” interpretation of his actions.

dhw: (Even you agreed that he liked unpredictability.)

DAVID: Another gross distortion. The unpredictability referred only to watching free-willed humans as a possibility I made about God's desires.

I wrote: “So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable human beings and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution […]” You replied: “I can’t disagree to this form.” Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: […] 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).

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

But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

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’s bold]

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.

DAVID: 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.

We’re not talking about “knowing”. The “foundation of processes” can only be the mechanisms that produce the processes, and I agree that they must have been there from the beginning. You say he preprogrammed or dabbled with them to produce every life form etc. (though he only wanted humans plus food), and I propose (theistic version) that he designed them to respond autonomously to different conditions. Both theories are based on your bolded observation above.

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. [..]

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

DAVID: 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.

Every species depends on automatic conformity to a pattern. But there has to be a degree of freedom for adaptation to new conditions and the production of new organs and organisms, and this same degree of freedom can lead to all the nasty diseases your all-powerful God did not have the power to control.

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.

DAVID: 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.

I have never claimed to be a biochemist, but I know enough to understand and accept the logic of the design argument. You don’t need to hammer this point home, but I’m happy to keep learning. However, I’m not happy when you try to switch the subject from the illogical flaws in your theistic theory of evolution to the logical use of life's complexity as evidence of your God’s existence. They are two different subjects.