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

by dhw, Saturday, February 20, 2021, 10:52 (161 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Bearing in mind your insistence that your God directly designed every life form, do you truly believe that your God could not have designed H. sapiens if he had not designed the brontosaurus plus the other millions of extinct life forms, 99% of which you have agreed had no connection with humans?

DAVID: There is the real connection of stepwise complexification through an evolutionary process chosen for use by God.

But that does not tell us why your God, whose only purpose according to you was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, would have directly designed the brontosaurus and millions of other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. Once more: you have admitted that you have no idea why he would have done so, but you firmly believe in this inexplicable theory and nothing will shake your belief in it. So let’s leave it at that.

dhw: I have stuck rigidly to your agreement that he is INTERESTED in us, and so I ask why you think a creator who you are sure is interested in his creations should not have created them because he wanted to create something that would interest him.

DAVID: Of course He is interested in His creations, but not to give Him something interesting to follow to have Him pass time as we humans idly do.

Why do you have to add such derogatory terms? You believe that your God created all the wonders of the world, and is interested in them. What is wrong with believing in a God who loves to create wonderful things and gets pleasure out of doing so? And once more, do tell us why you think he created the whole of life, including human beings. After all, you quite rightly tell us that he is purposeful, and so he must have had a purpose in creating all of life, including human beings.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum