More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 14, 2022, 16:03 (15 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: I am no authority, but I have specific, carefully reasoned theories, which satisfy me, but certainly not you.

dhw: I wish you would differentiate. Your theory of design is indeed carefully reasoned, whereas your theory of evolution is so irrational that you are forced to admit you cannot explain it and it makes sense only to God.

A perfect example of your rigid Godless approach. We believers accept what God created as His wishes. We don't question his reasoning, but try to understand it. You criticize God for not performing direct creation. How do you know He could do it? Perhaps He could, but perhaps He couldn't or didn't wish to. I've told you I think He could but made a choice for His own reasons. That satisfies me but not you.

Free will

dhw: .... I would suggest that the question of whether we do or don’t have free will – as I have defined it - remains open.[/i]

DAVID: Your approach is quite thorough. Our decision making is freely done from moment to moment, but all of the influences you describe must be in play. It comes down to the question: free of what?

dhw: Yes, that is why I insist that such discussions should begin with a definition of the term. We seem to be in agreement, but I wonder if you accept my definition or have one of your own.

DAVID: I general accept your definition. I accept God as the source of consciousness. However, our biochemistry follows strict instructions; cells have no free will. Our consciousness allows us to make constant choices, so we are not mental automatons, and in that sense God allowed us free will.

dhw: Again I would ask for differentiation. You believe God is the source and cells have no free will. My definition specifies that the decision-making is conscious, but that does not remove the problem of influences beyond our control. However, I didn’t mean to embark on yet another discussion – I only wanted to know if you approved of my definition or had one of your own!

I still accept yours.

Octopuses self-destruct

DAVID: There is no clear reason for this happening. The oceans are huge, so a danger of overpopulation isn't present. Did God plan this? I view everything created is God's doing, but I cannot find a reason for God's actions here. I simply accept it.

dhw: Just as you can’t find a reason why your God would design all the life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal (H. sapiens), or why he designed his only goal in stages rather than directly. Your theory is that he deliberately designs everything (as part of the goal of designing humans plus food), and what you “accept” is your theory. Maybe all these inexplicable actions with no apparent connection to your idea of your God’s goal might one day cause you to question your theory instead of telling us that it makes sense only to God.

When will you realize I cannot give you God's reasons!!! I accept what God did and try to interpret. The 'inexplicable actions' are God's actions. He knows why He does/did what He does/did. I don't 'know why' and never will. We can only analyze and try to see reasons.

New cell

DAVID: using lesser animals in research we find hints of what might exist in humans. That is the proper way to view evolution, as early developments can be used in the future.

dhw: Yes, the idea that cells and their communities use their perhaps God-given intelligence to gradually complexify, thereby advancing evolution, seems far more convincing to me than the idea that an all-powerful God with a single purpose (humans plus food) keeps dabbling away at “lesser animals” in order to prepare himself to design the only life form he really wants to design. Alternatively, of course, these “early developments” could be the consequence of experimentation as he slowly works out how to produce his one and only goal. Or he could be learning and getting new ideas as he continues to create. Just a few alternatives for you to ponder. :-)

I have no desire to ponder at your level of implied criticism of what God did. God does not need to experiment. He doesn't need new ideas. You have a total inconsistency of thought: your declaration God should have directly created us comes from an acceptance by you that God has full power to do as He wishes. That is what He did, for His own unknown reasons.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum