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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 17:56 (296 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believed in God and have a vision of His personality. It doesn't ever cover your thoughts about Him and his purposes or intents. My God would not have loosey-goosey uncontrolled evolution.

dhw: Do tell us your vision of his personality. So far you have only told us your vision of what is NOT his personality, but you have been absolutely specific about his purpose: all he wanted was to design H. sapiens, and since you deny him the freedom to want a free-for-all, he is also a control freak. This blinkered vision leads you to the illogical theory that although he only had one purpose in mind (to design humans and their food supply), he proceeded to design millions of life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans, and you have no idea why he would have done so.

My God designs purposely to reach His desired goals. If you think He is a control freak, that is ca human concept in our society, not at the God level of proper analysis. You might as well stop repeating your 99% mantra, as I will always totally reject it as absolutely illogical.

Viral DNA in us

DAVID: I have to return to we don't understand everything, but will find OK answers later on.

dhw: Why don’t you return to the fact that since you have no idea how your beliefs can fit in with the facts of life’s history, your beliefs might be wrong?

My facts fit my concept of life's history. it is your use of logic that is struggling.

dhw: You are sure he watches his creations (including humans) with interest (“entertain” is your expression). How do you know that he didn’t want to create something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Again , pure humanizing.

dhw: Please stop playing this cracked record. You have agreed that he possibly (and earlier probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

My current position, only as to use of logic. Remember?

DAVID: Evolution connects all of us. And as usual you forget a vast bush means food for all.

dhw: Common descent connects all of “us” with bacteria, but not with every other life form that ever existed. Re food and all the unconnected species, I’ll repeat your own words, since you keep trying to forget them:

The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” , “extinct life has no role in current time”. […] I wish you would leave it at that.[/i]

DAVID: You/we can leave it at food supply is vital.

dhw: Food supply is and was vital to ALL forms of life, not just humans. If only you would stop repeating these obfuscations and self-contradictions, we could move on.

I don't obfuscate, and you torture quotations of mine. The bold is such torture. How can extinct life have a current role? Obvious statement.


dhw: Thank you for agreeing that the need for survival was the driving force even for early sapiens with their giant brain. The fact that the drive for survival has led us to explore other fields of activity does not invalidate its continued importance to many of our products. Stasis is explained by the fact that throughout life’s history and human history, there have been long periods when life forms continued to exist without the need or the new ideas that can lead to further developments.

DAVID: 'Worried about survival' does not mean that worry itself caused their big brain. As a young adult my worry about survival led me to pursue medicine as a career. Stop distorting.

dhw: It is you who have distorted the argument by introducing the word “worried”. You have agreed that the drive for survival is and was the prime purpose of all life forms, including humans. Of course it’s not “worry” that changes brains! My proposal is that it’s the need to cope with new conditions or to implement new ideas that causes brain change.

And it is my view God prepares living organisms for the future needs, as our brain.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum