Why Seek an Alternative God?

[Laird]

The idea of an evolving God - developmental theism - was the most plausible and interesting to me out of all them, as it also seemed to be to Robert as host. I thought Peter Forrest advanced and elaborated on it well. Sarah Coakley's defence of traditional theism in terms of God being (needing to be, so as to warrant the title) personally transformative through relationship was well made too though.

Wow, Sci starts so many fertile threads and so many of them sadly wither 

My exploration of the fact (at least in my estimation) that we did not evolve by RM+NS left me with the question as to whether this happened as a result of a traditional God, or some less powerful entity! I realised that an omniscient God somehow short-circuits everything! Ultimately, if he wanted to create man (maybe with a few other species too) he could simply jump to the final result - create the DNA for those species, and off we go. Likewise, He would know in advance which humans would or would not be worth saving - so why bother giving them the opportunity to prove themselves, or otherwise. Indeed, why bother to create a Hell - why doesn't He just avoid making humans that were worthy of hell?

I rather liken concepts like omniscience to the concept of infinity in physics. In general (GR possibly excepted) theories that produce infinite answers are just assumed to be wrong or somehow incomplete.

I particularly liked Robin Le Poidevin best.

Does anyone know the full name of Robert, the host?

David