Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, January 31, 2025, 17:52 (3 days ago) @ dhw

Balance of Nature: Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: His non-humanist form is exact.

dhw: If we don’t know something, how can we know exactly what it is?

DAVID: It allows Him to exhibit human behavior without Him being human in any way.

dhw: More meaningless talk. How can he have human attributes without being human in any way?

He can express a human attribute by mimicry!

DAVID: I stick to pointing out the humanized God you just reinvented. I understand you are avoiding making Him all-powerful.

dhw: See above for your belief that your inefficient God can be humanized without being human in any way. Yes, it is possible that even your God is NOT all-powerful. For instance, he couldn’t avoid making a mess of evolution, couldn’t avoid creating evil, couldn’t find cures for some of the evils he created.

Theodicy fully covered previously.

Balance of Nature: human
DAVID: India and China are already defying the world it increased coal use the dirtiest of all.

dhw: So do you approve of their use of coal or do you think they should be encouraged to find alternative, cleaner forms of fuel as quickly as possible?

DAVID: I said 'dirtiest'. I wish they would switch.

DAVID: All scientists hired by the UN are in lockstep with UN propaganda.

dhw: There are scientists all over the world who believe that we need to change our current practices – hence the agreement of nearly 200 nations that action is required. Do you really think none of them have studied the “nitty-gritty”, or they have all been paid by the UN to tell lies? Does it not occur to you that the governments of some 200 countries might have been influenced by the truth?

The truth is in the large group on Watt's site.

DAVID: Exactly my point: " Nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now."

dhw: But we do know what is happening now, so please answer my three questions.

DAVID: I think answered. I'm still with a slow reasonable economic response.

dhw: You’re obfuscating. “Reasonable economic response” ties in with my call for a balance between the need to avoid environmental disaster and the need to avoid social and economic disaster. Why have you inserted “slow”? Why not “as quickly as pragmatically possible”?

You are into word games. Pragmatic speed is slow not requiring your panic mode.

dhw: And so we have reached agreement. The dangers are real, are not mere propaganda, and we wish all countries would cooperate in acting as quickly as possible to eliminate those dangers while at the same time balancing their measures against the equally important need to avoid economic and social disaster. I would suggest that you now write to President Trump, urging him to rejoin the Paris Agreement and devote his mighty powers of persuasion to getting all countries to cooperate in following America’s example in finding the best and quickest ways to prevent environmental, social and economic disasters.

Unfortunately I agree with Trump.