Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

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:

> > DAVID: [i]Being selfless means God does not need anything for self-gratification. He creates for purpose, not for self-considerations. It is only your twisted view that thinks I disparage His person. God choses methods He feels are correct. That is fine with me although direct creation might be better if possible.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I know what selfless means! But YOU proposed that he enjoyed creating, was interested in his creations, might have designed us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him. These proposals of yours indicate self-gratification, and then YOU dismiss them, acknowledging that your approach is “schizophrenic”! And it is YOU who propose that he might be “benevolent” towards us but can’t be benevolent because he is not human in any way. And it is YOU who have imposed a purpose and method on him, which YOU regard as inefficient. You are in no better position than anyone else to tell us what he has chosen (an inefficient method for the purpose of YOUR choosing), or what he feels, especially since your opinions are schizophrenically self-contradictory.
> 
> Nothing in my thoughts is contradictory. God, as our deity, is a totally unknown type of personality. I accept religion's view that He is perfect and all-everything. I reject deism. He is present but has paused His active creationism. Attributes of a relationship with us are all wishful thinking on our part. Yes, I mentioned them in that context. As for purpose what is more obvious than a thinking creature, the only one in the universe, and as the endpoint of evolution?
> > 
> > dhw: […] [i]your theory [/i][of evolution][i] makes no sense in the light of your belief that your perfect God imperfectly and inefficiently designed 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] We arrived at the end point of evolution. What more authority do you need? God used evolution as it exists, warts and all.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: We have no idea what evolution will produce in the next billion years. But if God exists, I have no doubt that he has used and will use evolution for his own purpose(s) – if he’s still interested! These may include his own enjoyment, his interest in new discoveries, his creation of beings that might appreciate and worship him...You schizophrenically agree and disagree.
> 
> Wild and woolly rambling. Again, describing a humanized God.  Evolution producing major changes is over, unless we find out how to edit DNA into a new species.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Yes, the power of the appearance of design returned you from atheism to agnosticism. Happened to me also but I made the other logical step to see design needs a designer. I found one.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I have no objections to the logic of your conclusion. It is the total confusion of your illogical, contradictory, schizophrenic views on your God’s nature, purpose and methods that I criticize.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You forgot to mention you have no idea how to approach a designer issue.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  Do you really think the model approach is to impose an inefficient combination of purpose and method on your designer, to propose possible human attributes and then argue that the possible attributes are impossible, and to view him as all-powerful and all-good, although he is responsible for evil and/or powerless to stop it?
> 
> Theodicy issue answered previously as accepting proportionality of so much good with little of bad side effects.