Tuesday, 2 August 2016

AN IMAGINARY CONVERSATION WITH GOD. PART 4















T.: Does that mean that you really did not create earth and the heavens, then, G?

G.: Well, I will say this. I did not tell anybody that I did that, but, yes, the ‘creationists’, as you called them, have attributed that feat to me. I neither dispute it or accept it. Like the stars and the Moon and the Sun which gives light and heat/warmth to the earth on which you live, it is something some people have taken as a given. No human can disprove my existence anymore that he/she can disprove the validity of those, like you, T, the evolutionists, who have argued that what is the result of an evolutionary process. It might, indeed, be the case that there is little or no difference between me, the perceived creator, and evolution. It might even be the case that I am a product of evolution, just as humans and other creatures are themselves able to create life through the process of giving birth to or incubating and hatching their young.

After all, T, you, as a sentient being is here with me discussing the most obscure and profound of issues which are grating on your intellect and consciousness. And, just as how you can contemplate your existence as a consequence of your conscious state, why should not I, whom they call god, also contemplate my own. Maybe the evolution of which you speak is the god that ‘created or made me’, in much the same way as the ‘creationists’ contend that I made you and the earth and all things within and outside of it.


I speak hypothetically, considering that we have having an imaginary conversation, and you with an entity you do not believe in.



T.: So, G, I can see that you are not being absolutely categorical in accepting or denying what humans have attributed to you, but seeming to suggest that, if you wanted to propagate what they are saying, you would have been able to do it directly, instead of having this and that prophet and scribble putting themselves forward and claiming that you told them this and that. Let us, however, for the sake of our conversation, take it as a given  that  you did create all living creatures. Can I then ask, did you plan which creatures you were going to create, and is there any particular reason why you created these thousands of varieties of creatures?

G.: Well, again, what I will say is this; there are so many varieties of creatures, some of whose names and purpose I no longer remember, if, indeed, I ever knew them. If I am being honest, I would have to say to you, no; I did not plan or specifically create all of the creatures on the earth. Some of them are what you would call hybrids. Sub-species, if you like, of the basic species which I reputed to have created. On the whole, pretty much all the living creatures are nothing more than a very long ‘food chain’, although you humans have developed other purposes for them and yourself. I mean, how and why could I possibly have thought up the idea of identifying and making every creature, every little insect and animal which inhabit the earth, and formulate a purpose for purpose for them? How would that have benefited me?

I believe that the evolutionist would argue that each creature either evolves in its own pecular habitat or environment, or is introduced to and then inhabits it, if it is conducive to it thriving there. That, in my view, seems to be a more logical explanation for the origins of each specie, than that proposed by the creationist.









No comments: