God and Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 05, 2019, 09:06 (1901 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So please stop arguing that an immediate driving force is not a driving force, and that humans (like every other multicellular organism) were not “necessary”, and that means humans were your God’s one and only purpose.

DAVID: I have my view; you have yours.

You “generally agreed” with what I wrote, and I am only trying to stop the otherwise endless repetition of the same old arguments followed by the same old responses. Those two issues should now be dead and buried.

DAVID: I have clearly stated God may be unlimited or limited. History allows both possibilities since He chose to use evolution over 3.8 billion years Humans as the purpose fits either scenario.

One day you clearly state that he is in full control, and the next you say that he may have limits. Let’s settle, then, for your clear statement that either is possible. If his powers are unlimited, then you yourself cannot understand why he needed to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design (us). Possible explanation: we were not the only thing he wanted to design. He wanted the whole higgledy-piggledy bush (and as you say, enjoys/enjoyed it, like a painter who enjoys his paintings). If he has limits, that might explain why, in your scenario, he needed 3.5+ billion years to produce the only thing he wanted to produce: either he didn’t know how to do it, or – another possibility – he had no clear concept of “human” but the idea came to him later on in the course of his experiments.

dhw: Those are not “human versions of your God” – they are challenges to your reasoning, and the different, logical theistic hypotheses I have offered you are no more “human” than your God “choosing” to do it your way, even though you don’t understand why. But see below for the “human” follow up.

DAVID: Stated like a true non-believer. I accept history as representing how God did it.

History is confined to the fact that all the different life forms etc. exist/existed. All the hypotheses I have offered you offer theistic explanations of the history that are different from yours. Absolutely nothing to do with my agnosticism.

dhw; […] if you are sure he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings, then it is possible that he created everything - not just humans - for his own enjoyment (your word, not mine), and that general freedom would enhance the interest.

DAVID: You constantly want God to be human in His reasons for creating and to make things for His enjoyment. Nothing on Earth knows about God but us. From that fact it is easy to reason that He might have wanted that relationship, but note, He is hidden, so it requires a special kind of relationship in which we must come to realize He has to exist. That is what theology is all about. You have not come to that realization.

dhw: I don’t “want” God to be human. You keep harping on about purpose, and how can you possibly speculate on purpose without using human terms? Maybe you are right that he wants us to realize that he exists, wants a relationship with us, wants us to admire his work (another of your ideas), and also enjoys his other creations (one of my ideas, which you are certain is correct). Nothing wrong with such “human” possibilities, so why pooh-pooh your own speculations as if they weren’t as “human” as mine? And yes, he is hidden, so we CAN only speculate. That is what theology is all about, but you have not come to that realization.

DAVID: Of course we can only think of God in our human ways. There is no need for your final comment. I fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of theology. Even they over-humanize God.

My final comment was simply an echo of your final comment (now bolded), since you constantly admonish me - even to the point of “why bother?” - for trying to look into the possible nature, purposes and methods of your God, as if that was not an integral part of theology.