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

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 06, 2021, 15:13 (91 days ago) @ dhw

Biological Complexity

dhw: These bacteria are harmful. The problem you raised originally but have since tried to avoid is why your God meant them to continue being harmful.

DAVID: My answer is still He may a good reason we do not yet understand.

dhw: That’s faith for you. Just like Dawkins, who hopes to find a natural reason for what is now "imperfectly understood".

In retrospect we have always explained reasons why. It will continue to happen.


DAVID: Gut bacteria help fight our battles:
https://theconversation.com/fecal-microbe-transplants-help-cancer-patients-respond-to-i...

DAVID: This may be the beginning of seeing God's reasons for gut bacteria. Good, not bad.

dhw: If your God exists, I can well imagine that this is precisely what he wanted, but you simply can’t believe your God would have wanted what he created, and would have created what he wanted, even though you are sure he is interested in watching it.

I do believe God created exactly what He wanted. Our interpretations of the results are often wrong.


DAVID: All you have posed is that I have no option to change my mind as a result of our discussions.

dhw: Apart from the fact that this quotation (“He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”), robs you of your “humanizing” argument against my logical alternatives to your illogical theory, please explain why you have changed your mind and now think it impossible for the creator to have created a being with thought patterns and emotions similar to his own.

I haven't. All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires.

DAVID: I still find this objection as totally illogical, as previously explained.

dhw: You have never explained it. Indeed, you have agreed that you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his one and only purpose by designing life forms and econiches that had no connection to his purpose.

The explanation is that it is His choice of method, and you've agreed He could have chosen that method. Then why continuous objections?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum