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

by dhw, Sunday, February 07, 2021, 10:50 (95 days ago) @ David Turell

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".

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

That is hardly a logical basis for your blinkered faith or for his.

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 [the mixture of good and bad, light and dark etc.] 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.

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

Back we go. Please tell us, as an illustration of the problem of theodicy, why you think he might actually have wanted to create bad bacteria and viruses.

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.

DAVID: 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.

We can’t even be sure he exists, let alone what is his nature. All we have to go on is the world which he might have created. I don’t know where you draw the line between thought patterns/emotions and desires. But why shouldn’t he have the “human” desire to create something which will interest him?

DAVID: I still find this objection [to David's theory of evolution] 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.

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

For years now I have been telling you that I do NOT believe that a God whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would first design millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, 99% of which had no connection with humans! You have said yourself that you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose. If you are now claiming that this theory is logical, please explain the logic. If you still have no idea, let’s leave it at that.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum