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:

> > 
> > dhw: I can only take each statement of yours as you make it. You wrote: "[i]You are blinded by the side issue of natures wonders and the balance of nature which we agree only supplies energy so evolution can take a long time to reach the end point.[/i]"
> > Nature’s wonders are not a side issue, they are part of THE issue under discussion. Until now your two dogmas have been that (a) God’s sole purpose (which you seem to equate with “end point”) was the production of humans, and (b) he personally designed all of Nature’s wonders. This creates a problem: why did he personally design all of Nature’s wonders if his sole purpose was to create humans? 
> 
> And my answer is constant, balance of nature for energy supply.
> 
> > dhw: And yes indeed, you have floundered around with all the possibilities you have listed, but on Saturday 8 April you announced: “[i]I explored, not vacillated, several avenues of thought. I’ve now concluded that God chose a lengthy evolutionary process. There was no delay[/i].”  This is confirmed by: "[i]The balance of nature…only supplies energy so that evolution [/i][as directed by your God] [i]can take a long time to reach the end point[/i]" [humans]. You rejected limitations, so you are left with God choosing to design all the wonders so that it can take a long time for him to do the one thing he wants to do. 
> 
> I'm still fully in favor of the thesis that God chose a lengthy time, and arranged for a copious food supply.
> 
> > dhw:You now seem to realize that this does not make sense, and so on Sunday 9 April you go back to a list of all the possibilities, there is no clear answer, and gone is Saturday’s decisive conclusion. Quite right too. This leaves us with the options discussed under “[b]Purpose and design[/b]”, including what you have at last accepted as a possibility: God’s sole purpose may NOT have been to produce humans, and God may NOT have designed all the natural wonders. Why not leave it at that?
> 
> Because I do not accept that interpretation. My list was to show the various ways I have previously proposed to interpret God's actions in producing humans. I thought my intent in that review was clear. I also believe your theories are possible, but not probable. This is a fluid discussion.