Concepts of God: how I think about God (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Friday, April 08, 2016, 13:39 (2911 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] that does not give you the right to dismiss other ideas as “out and out wrong”.
DAVID: I am too forceful in my statements. 'Out and out wrong' is my view of the approach. you certainly have the right to propose what you will.-Thank you.-dhw: And although it was you who used the term “voyeur”, I still don't know why it can't be applied to someone who according to you is intensely interested but keeps himself concealed.
DAVID: I am using the word voyeur in its derogatory sense of spying on someone without their permission or knowledge.-Yeah, well, that would fit, wouldn't it?-David: Doesn't change my approach. You don't think in teleological terms at all.

dhw: Not so. I try to consider all possibilities, and if God exists, I would very much like to know his purpose in creating life. The hypothesis that he did so in order to relieve his eternal boredom is teleological. It is a hypothesis, not a belief, but in all honesty I must say I find it more rational than the hypothesis that he wants a relationship with us and yet conceals himself from us.-DAVID: The gap in your reasoning is because you do not accept the fact that the arrival of humans is an very extraordinary and unnecessary event from an evolutionary endpoint. We should not be here, unless God intervened. Relationship with Him requires faith.-We don't know that we are the endpoint, but as we have agreed a thousand times, the arrival of all multicellular organisms was extraordinary and unnecessary, since bacteria have survived to this day. According to you, even the weaverbird's nest could not be here unless God had intervened. And since God deliberately conceals himself and we know nothing of his nature, a relationship with him (which is different from belief in his existence) requires not just faith but a vivid imagination.
 
dhw: It is perfectly possible to consider the evidence for and against the existence of God and at the same time to hypothesize about his nature (if he exists) by studying what he has created. You have drawn one conclusion from such studies; others may draw different conclusions.
DAVID: Just so! He created humans. I don't see how they can be a glorious accident, per Gould. He was convinced and I'm quoting him, that if the tape of evolution was run over again, we would not appear! You do not want to accept that we are that degree of special, thus our degree/ kind battle.-According to you, God also created the camouflaged cuttlefish. All life is special. But I agree that our consciousness is specially special. That does not prove God planned and created all living things just for our sake. And what would happen if the tape of evolution was rerun seems to me a totally pointless speculation.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum