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

by dhw, Tuesday, February 02, 2021, 11:18 (1388 days ago) @ David Turell

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.”

DAVID: 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.

Why he chose to evolve what? Of course it’s a fact that humans evolved. So did every other life form. But (a) by evolve, you mean directly design, and (b) why did he directly design millions of life forms that had no connection with humans, if his one and only goal was to “evolve” (= directly design) humans? If you have suddenly come up with an explanation, do please tell us.

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

Who are “all of us”? in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” Life’s history is composed of millions of life forms with food supplies, and you agree that 99% of them had no connection with humans. In your own words: “Extinct life has no role in current time.” The interconnection lies in the fact that all forms branched out from the same root (bacteria), but how does that come to mean that the 99% of forms which had no connection with humans were “part of the goal of evolving 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!

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 only think about the good things God designed. And finally, dhw has offered an explanation for all of this, but….

DAVID: 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.

But you won’t tell us your purposeful God’s purpose. I offer you a theory that explains why your God brought all the bad diseases and bad bacteria and bad viruses into the world, and you snipe and complain because it “humanizes” your God, although you say he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. I accept that the high speed system your God designed inevitably leads to what you call “mistakes”, and I agree that life is miraculously wonderful. My problem is that you raised the question of the “errors” that cause diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s and MND, and this led to a discussion on why he directly designed bad bacteria and bad viruses, and to the problem of theodicy. And with my theist hat on, I try to answer the questions you raised, but you want me to forget them.

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.

DAVID: 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.

Then please tell us at long last what you think was his primary goal in creating life, including humans.

DAVID: Ad nauseum evolution goes through complexifing stages to reach the most complex, us.

Ours is one of the multiple threads which produced the vast variety of life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with us. So please tell us what you think was his primary goal (a) in designing us, and (b) in directly designing the brontosaurus plus the other umpteen million life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders which had no connection with us. If, as before, you tell me you have no idea, we can once more agree to leave it at that, and we can move on.