Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, September 21, 2019, 10:02 (1676 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And why do you refuse to countenance the possibility that your God did not WANT complete control? And why is WANTING complete control less humanizing that NOT wanting complete control?

DAVID: Many Humans do want complete control over their projects and are very purposeful, but that does make God a human-like personality if He is ot ally purposeful. Adler warns we cannot know His actual personality. But you jump right in with your humanizing suggestions.

We don’t need your demi-God Adler to tell us the blindingly obvious. Many humans want control, and many humans do not want control. Your God wants total control, but that apparently is not human; my alternative is that he does not want total control, and apparently that is human. You are twisting yourself in knots.

dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).

DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with n o real substance.

So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?

dhw: And so I suggest that your God’s purposeful goal was NOT solely to design H. sapiens, but to design a mechanism which would produce a vast variety of things (including humans) for him to “watch with interest”, and I suggest that unpredictability is far more interesting to watch than predictability. Nothing namby-pamby or wandering or insecure. And all perfectly logical and completely purposeful. Unlike “I have no idea why….” The only objection you have raised so far is that, although you have suggested all this yourself when pushed, you just happen to know that your God doesn't think that way because he's not human.

DAVID: Exactly. He is not human and probably doesn't think as we do.

Which means he “probably” adopted your means of fulfilling his one and only purpose because you have a fixed belief that he would act in a way that you as a human find illogical (since you have “no idea” why he would choose such a method).

DAVID: God is chosen as the need for a designer is obvious. You can't accept him, which is fine for you.

My theory does not exclude God as the designer of the mechanism. What I can’t accept is that God would choose your theory because he doesn’t think logically by human standards.