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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 11:37 (831 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If he has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him, it is absurd to say that he is not “in any way” human.

DAVID: Those comparisons are guesswork and do not reflect His sense of purpose in creation.

All our theories can be called “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence. All my theistic alternatives offer “purpose”, and it remains absurd to dismiss them as “humanizing” when you agree that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: God doesn't have to experiment or deviate. Humanizing again.

It is your theory that has him deviating (he only wants humans, but designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans). Experimenting in order to produce a particular life form would be a logical explanation for producing all the other life forms that you can’t explain. It is only ONE of my explanations,which you agree are logical, but you seem to think you have a unique insight into God’s mind: namely, although you can’t tell us his thought patterns and emotions, you just happen to know what thought patterns and emotions he doesn’t have.

DAVID: We can only try to define God's personality by His actions in what He created. And chose purposeful or not.

dhw:: I answered this yesterday: “ "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”.

DAVID: Off point as usual. His actions producing unexpected humans shows God's purpose (Adler)

You seem to have forgotten that you were telling me we can only define your God’s PERSONALITY by his actions. Of course you can extrapolate purpose from his actions. In that case, his actions of producing the unexpected brontosaurus and every other unexpected extinct life form that had no connection with humans and their foods show his purpose. So do tell us what that purpose was. (Adler apparently doesn’t cover that.)

DAVID: God gave us the only system that would work, recognized the probability of errors and added editing which works properly into the trillions of reactions required every nanosecond.

dhw: I have repeatedly replied that you cannot possibly know that your all-powerful God was unable to design a system without errors, and I suggest that your all-powerful God designed the system that he WANTED – and what you call errors were not errors but were/are life forms using their freedom to find their own ways of survival.

DAVID: So you ignore mistakes that kill?

I have said they are not “mistakes” but are merely examples of free organisms designing their own way of surviving. Bacteria or deviant cells that kill us by feeding on us are no different from all the other life forms that survive by killing. Do you see all carnivores as “mistakes” your all-powerful God didn’t want but couldn’t correct?

Importance of pathogens
Phages killing bacteria used in therapy:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2304997-phage-therapies-for-superbug-infections-ar...
QUOTE: Phages are specific to particular bacteria, and those bacteria can quickly evolve resistance,

A wonderful example of how organisms adapt in the constant struggle for survival. If God exists, he must have invented this marvellously flexible machinery used by all life forms, but I find it very hard to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he equipped all of them with individual instructions for every new tactic and every new response to every new tactic for the rest of history.

DAVID: God is the designer, as I theorize, and as such designed every new stage of evolution. What is illogical about that?

dhw: Nothing. As usual you have left out your belief that every new stage of evolution, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of his goal of evolving humans plus food. This diversionary strategy of yours has become almost painful. Please stop it.

DAVID: I don't have to repeat what you already know about my theology.

But I do, because you constantly leave out this part of your theology, which makes no sense even to you.

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

dhw: 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: All I am allowing is Schroeder proposed God might have thrown it, and I agree about this one episode.

dhw: You wrote: “Chixculub is his doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.” You can say the same about every environmental change!

DAVID: Look at another change in environmental conditions:

Why? Your new example does not tell us whether or not your God designs every environmental change or responds to accidents. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control. Your diffuse comment at the end does not add anything new to the discussion.