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

by dhw, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 11:00 (537 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It is you who consider him a control freak because you insist that he would never give up control of evolution! This is YOUR view of his nature!

DAVID: This is your humanized version of His nature. It is a derogatory term for humans!!!

What language do you expect me to speak? A control freak is someone who wishes to be in control of every situation, and that is precisely your “humanized” description of your God, which is why you reject the very idea of his creating a free-for-all.

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?

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

dhw: Then, for the thousandth time, please explain why a God whose one and only purpose was to design humans and their food supply, designed millions of life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. I quote (amongst other quotes): “extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: The bolded quote is obvious. There is no contemporaneous time connection, as you try to distort a misinterpretation of it.

Yes, it is obvious, so please tell us what role extinct life (let’s say, the brontosaurus), which you claim was "part of the goal of evolving humans", plays in our human present.

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

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

dhw: February 6 or 7: “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.”
It is, of course, absurd to separate “desires” (e.g. the desire to create something interesting) from human thought patterns and emotions. And why is it illogical for a Creator to want to create things that will interest him?

DAVID: He is above finding a creation for self-interest. You do not understand how you humanize Him.

I understand perfectly well that a Creator who creates something that will interest him would have a human pattern of thought similar to ours (though it might be more accurate to say that we have a pattern similar to his). And you agree that it is possible. By what authority do you claim that although he is interested in his creations, he did not create them in order to create something that would interest him?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum