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

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 25, 2021, 23:55 (72 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My view of God is not your humanized view. I'll repeat: All we can guess about God's desires is He uses logic to satisfy them.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that your God has desires. Now please explain why it is not logical to guess that since you are sure he is interested in his creations, he may have desired to create something that would interest him.

Pure humanizing. He doesn't need interests


DAVID: Simply, He is a purposeful creator. using evolution from bacteria. We know He has created a being that recognizes Him, that has a very fruitful, very expanded lifestyle. That is obviously what He wanted to do. Does that give Him self-gratification? He has no need.

dhw:[…] Yes, if he exists, he is a purposeful creator, yes ALL multicellular organisms including humans evolved from bacteria, yes humans recognize him. Now please tell us what you meant by “he has no other motive than the creations themselves”?

DAVID: Not to find something interesting to watch. That is called 'pass timing' in human psychology. He is timeless and doesn't need it as you imply in humanizing Him.

dhw: You have told us what you did not mean. Now please tell us what you did mean.

"he has no other motive than the creations themselves" Simple: his motive is to create


dhw: Yes, in your theory he had to create a huge bush of current life to create food energy for all. The problem you dodge here is that if humans were “His goal in evolution”, why did he have to create a huge bush of past life to create food energy for all the past life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans (his goal)? Please stop this particular dodging game. You have admitted that you have no idea, so we should leave it at that.

No connection is y9ur illogical assertion. We will never agree, so stop asserting, and I won't mention God chose to evolve us again.


Viruses (taken from “Miscellany”)

So why do you keep reproducing his ideas and then trying to support them instead of facing up to his contradictions? And he is your source, not mine!

I said I take bits and pieces I agree with


DAVID: God is good is acceptable to me.

Why? Aren’t you attributing a human quality to him? (But see the next problem.)

DAVID: Viruses are so common and numerous God obviously created and used them for his purposes. The 'bad' forms are our interpretation of them. There may be good involved.

dhw: I have to agree that “good” and “bad” are subjective terms, but how else can we discuss such things? If God says that Covid and cancer are good, who are we to argue? But I’d like to think that there is a general consensus among us humans that certain things like cancer and Covid are “bad”, and that can be used as a basis for discussing your God’s possible nature and intentions. So why would an omnipotent God of “perfect goodness” create “bad” things?

To repeat, so-called bad has turned out to be OK with further research.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum