Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> dhw:[i] This is a good summary of various objections I have raised to your concept of God. Gelernter doesn’t offer alternative theistic explanations of evolution, but every word pinpoints the absurdity of your own concept of God.[/i]
> 
> DAVID:[i] Didn't you comprehend the bold? Sounds just like my criticisms of God's evolution!! "An awfully slipshod job".[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Yes, it is. That’s why Gelernter is picking holes in the theory of design! It makes no sense to talk of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God who specially designs an imperfect, slipshod system![/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]But we have to live with it, because that is what occurred. A perfect God picks a system He thinks best and achieved His goal, us. [/i]
> 
> We do not have to live with your theory that his only goal was us, and that he chose a “slipshod” method to produce us. There are other theistic theories concerning his possible purpose and perfect method of achieving that purpose. (I shan’t repeat my three alternatives). But you close your mind to them because they entail him having human attributes which – because you and he are schizophrenic – he may have but certainly does not have.
> 
> dhw: [i]Thank you for introducing me to a fellow agnostic who also accepts the logic of the case for design, but raises the same problems [/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]God is not human in any way. Like a chimp, He may have human attributes. [/i]
> 
> Your schizophrenia is embarrassing. If he may have human attributes, then he may be human in one way or another, even though he is still God. 
>  
> DAVID:[i] You highly humanized God is like none I have ever met before.[/i]
> 
> You have met him partly in deism and partly in process theology and partly in your own answers to my questions, when you have proposed that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations and “would not have enjoyed watching our development if He knew all of it in advance”. May I ask where you met your schizophrenic God?