Back to theodicy and David's theories PART ONE (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Monday, February 01, 2021, 08:46 (554 days ago) @ David Turell


All three of today’s posts revolve around David’s theory of evolution and his non-explanation of theodicy, so we may as well combine them on the same thread.

dhw: […] you continue to play the silly game of leaving out the bits of your theory that make it illogical.

DAVID: I've left out nothing. I've explained to you the whole bush is very necessary food supply. You are the one who looks disconnectedly at all the interlocking parts of my approach. I've put it all together for you and somehow you only manage to see disconnected parts.

The whole bush is necessary food supply for WHAT? Once and for all: every life form needs food. You tell us that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Therefore according to you, every life form which ate, or was eaten, was part of the goal of evolving humans. Now listen to yourself: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” (The block capitals are yours.) “Extinct life has no role in current time.” And you agree that 99% of life forms had no direct connection with humans. So how can extinct life, which has no role in current time, and life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, have been part of the goal of evolving humans? Your answer: “I have no idea.” If you have suddenly come up with an explanation, do please tell us. Otherwise I suggest that we renew our earlier agreement that since you believe in this illogical explanation of evolution and nothing will alter your opinion, we should leave it at that.


DAVID: I admit I have not solved the problem of theodicy, but it is your approach to maximize the minimal error rate to denigrate God.

dhw: There is no denigration of God in my proposal of a free-for-all, just as there is no denigration of God in the concept of free will for humans.[…].

DAVID: I see you logic as weakening God as purposeful. Only we critical humans find faults in God's works. That criticism may well be wrong, against God's knowledge.

It is you who have found faults in God’s works. I have proposed that just as we cannot blame God if humans use their free will to do bad things, we cannot blame God if free organisms do bad things. You reject my hypothetical but purposeful God’s purpose for creating life (to provide something interesting for himself to watch), so do please tell us at last what you think was your purposeful God’s purpose for creating life (which includes humans and millions of life forms not connected with humans).

Protein folding creates life

dhw: For the umpteenth time, it was you who raised the subject of errors, and now all you want to do is forget about them and focus on what went right.

DAVID: I had to honestly raise the issue. it exists. Most bacteria and viruses are helpful. But you prefer to not remember!

Yes, you honestly raised the issue. In effect, by raising it, you were asking why your God designed a system which led to diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease, and to bad bacteria and viruses. Your answer: it was inevitable that the system he designed would produce those diseases, so it’s not his fault, but he tried to provide cures and couldn’t, and we don’t know why he designed bad bacteria and viruses, but there must be a good reason, and dhw should forget about diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and MND and about bad bacteria and viruses, and only think about the good things God designed. And finally, dhw has offered an explanation for all of this, but….

DAVID: Back we go to your weird God who has to create interesting things for Him to watch. God is obviously interested in all He creates.

dhw: So if he is interested and he created what he is interested in, why is it “weird” to suggest that he created them because he wanted to create something he could be interested in?

DAVID: A God who needs 'interests' is a humanized God. You never see that.

A God who is obviously interested in all He creates obviously shares with us humans the capacity to be interested in something. Why, then, should he not also share our capacity to create things that will interest him – especially since according to you he DID create things that interest him? Your “humanization” dodge lost all credibility anyway when you agreed that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum