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

by dhw, Monday, February 01, 2021, 08:57 (102 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: It is our study of the history of evolution that leads thoughtful folks to recognize how unexplained we are, and therefore unexpected.

dhw: Unexplained yes. You have not told us who didn’t expect us, and you have not told us why whoever it was expected trilobites, dinosaurs and duckbilled platypuses. Yes, we are uniquely gifted. No, we are not the only unexplained creatures on Earth.

DAVID: Unexplained is not unexpected as you twist meanings. You know Adler's point and mine is simply there is no reason we appeared. We cannot identify a need based on any evolutionary theory dependent upon simple survivability.

It is you who used the word “unexpected”, so please tell us who expected the dinosaurs but did not expect humans. And since bacteria have survived since the year dot, and you believe that all life forms are descended from bacteria, please tell us the reason for the appearance of the brontosaurus and the millions and millions of other life forms which you agree had no connection with humans.

Xxxxx

DAVID: God designs advances. God could not pack into cells His knowledge of design. It is always easier to just design it yourself as I have done in architectural designs in the past. You seem to love your second-hand God character, a weak confused fellow.

dhw: I really don’t know how it can be “easier” to perform millions of operations on millions of organisms, and to offer millions of courses in subjects like camouflage and nest-building, than to provide organisms with the means of doing their own designing.

DAVID: You again diminish God's purpose and powers.

Then once more: please tell us his purpose in creating the brontosaurus etc. And how does it diminish his powers if he created the mechanism that has led to the whole of life as we know it, and the whole of life as we know it is what he wanted to create?

DAVID: He created a universe that permitted our appearance based on quantum mechanics we still don't understand. Note that point. His creativeness remains beyond our understanding, no matter how hard we try. He must have very complex mental ability well beyond what He granted us. But I still wish to try and understand as I think you do.

If your God exists, then I agree with all of this. But how does it come to mean that your illogical theory of what he did and why he did it must be right, and any other explanation – even if it is perfectly logical – must be wrong?

dhw: And finally, there is nothing second-hand, weak or confused about a God who knows what he wants, designs it, and gets it.

DAVID: Finally we agree on something, although I'm sure our interpretations of that statement really differ.

dhw: They certainly do. According to you, your God designed all sorts of nasty things, but he didn’t want to...

DAVID: Don't misinterpret me. Everything here is part of his desired creations.

You had him trying but failing to provide cures for diabetes, Alzheimer’s etc. And you have no idea why he created bad bacteria, but you still insist that he wanted them. This apparently makes him stronger and more clear-headed than a God who deliberately designed a mechanism that would enable all life forms to design their own means of survival.

DAVID: Just your very humanized version of a God, to which you remain blinded by your inadequate concepts of God.

How do you know that my logical alternative concepts of your God’s purposes and methods are inadequate, whereas your single illogical concept is adequate?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum