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

by dhw, Monday, February 08, 2021, 09:28 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

Biological Complexity

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

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

DAVID: But we make progress and continuously find explanations. Faith in the future.

What does “faith in the future” mean? You both hope that the future will justify your present blinkered and totally opposite forms of faith.

dhw: 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: It is our interpretation which have been proven wrong in the past.

I admit that judgements and values are subjective, but do you think 1) we humans will find out that diseases caused by bad bacteria and viruses are good? Or do you think 2) it will be proven that your God didn’t mean to create bad bacteria and viruses but somehow made a blunder he couldn’t correct? Or 3) he didn’t design them but created a mechanism which enabled all life forms to design their own methods of survival? (I know viruses are not considered to be life forms, but I assume that you consider them to be part of your God’s grand design). What other “interpretation” do you expect/hope for that will solve the problem of theodicy?

DAVID: His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires.

dhw: […] 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: He might but we cannot know that. He creates selflessly, a point you do not see.

We cannot “know” that he even exists. How the heck do you “know” that he creates selflessly? He “might” have this desire is good enough for me, although it’s a dilution of your original “probably”. Once and for all you can drop your objection that my hypothesis “humanizes” him, and so we are left with an explanation which you agree is logical and fits in with the history of life as we know it. Not “proven”, of course, but possible.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: His choosing a method is a logical thought.

As is his having a purpose. It is your particular interpretation of his purpose and method of achieving his purpose which defies all logic, leaving you with no idea why he would choose such a method to achieve such a purpose. So let’s leave it at that.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum