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

by David Turell , Monday, February 01, 2021, 18:38 (1392 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

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.

dhw: 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.”

Total use of comments out of context. I accept what God does/did as history and the only thing I have 'no idea about' is why He chose to evolve. Humans were evolved, pure fact.

dhw: 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.

You are doing the attacking by producing bits and pieces of discussions.

Xxxxxx

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.

dhw: 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).

The practical connection is food supply for all of us. Evolution is an interconnected bush.

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!

dhw: 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….

Your free-for-all does not fit my view of a purposeful God. You never comment on the biological necessity for the living system we have which has to allow molecules to make mistakes for the sake of speed. All you do is snipe and complain.

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.

dhw: 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.

Of course He would be interested in the results of His creations, but they were not primarily created just to be interesting, a very humanizing interpretation.