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

by dhw, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 09:14 (1363 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Bearing in mind that you are certain that he watches his creations with interest, please tell us once and for all why you think he did so, if it was not because he desired to create something he would find interesting.

DAVID: Same old discussion. God does not need anything to interest Him. If He creates something He may look at it with subsequent interest, but not with the purpose of having something that will interest him

It’s the same old discussion because you refuse to answer my questions, and you ignore my answers to your own questions. I have rejected your use of “need” and accepted your term “desire”. Your refusal to believe that he might have had the desire to create something interesting for himself does not tell us why else you think he might have created the whole of life, including humans.

DAVID: […]. My explanation fits the history. What you object to is us as the goal, and I agree with Adler. We cannot b e explained any other way. […]

dhw: […] “If you can tell me how the special design of 100% of the millions of extinct life forms and food supplies were essential for him to be able to design humans, I will stop attacking your idea of logic.” If, as on previous occasions, you have “no idea”, then – as on previous occasions –I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: I have no idea why God chose to use evolution, my statement you always distort as above. But using evolution every step is contingent upon past forms. Thus all past life forms were necessary to reach the human form.

That is an extraordinary conclusion, and the distortion is entirely yours. If God exists, then he chose to “use evolution”, and yes, common descent means that all forms are contingent upon past forms. But it does not mean that every life form is/was contingent upon every other life form that ever existed in the past! You might just as well tell us that ALL past life forms were necessary to reach the form of the duck-billed platypus! 99% of branches died out. So please tell us why every single one of those extinct branches – each one, according to you, directly designed by your God – was necessary for him to be able to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: The implication of your illogical argument, as I've always noted is why noted is not direct creation. There can be only one system used: either evolution or direct creation. And the huge bush supplies necessary food energy. I view your objection as having no basis in logic.

I can’t follow the syntax and hence the meaning of your first sentence, but it is you who have insisted that your God directly designed every innovation leading to speciation – not to mention every econiche and lifestyle and natural wonder – but you accept Darwin’s theory of common descent, which can only mean that your God preprogrammed or dabbled all the changes that took place in existing organisms, thereby transforming them into new species. If this is not your theory, then please tell us what is. The different bushes supplied food energy for every species that ever lived, but that does not mean that every species and every bush in the history of life was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.” You know perfectly well that this is the illogical element of your theory, so I don’t know why you keep reverting to “I have no idea why God chose to use evolution”. The question is why, if his one and only goal was to evolve/design humans, he chose to directly design all the species that had no connection with humans.

Viruses (taken from “Miscellany”)

dhw: […] we only have theories. I have offered you one: that your God gave all life forms a mechanism with which to work out their own methods of survival in the free-for-all that has resulted in what we humans consider to be a mixture of “good” and “bad”. You can hardly deny that this fits the facts of life’s history. And I am still waiting to hear why you find it illogical, apart from the fact that it doesn’t fit your personal view of God, that he would not want to lose control, that there must be a “good” reason for his directly creating what we consider to be “bad”, and one day we shall find out what it is.

DAVID: I don't believe God ever hands off responsibility to lesser forms. Your humanized God is nothing like mine. […]
You have repeated that you don’t believe the “humanized” free-for-all theory, and I know you prefer your “humanized” always-in-control theory, and we might add that you can’t explain why your “humanized” God would create all the “bad” things, because your “humanization” of him implicitly makes him all “good”. Now, regardless of your beliefs and disbeliefs, please explain why you find my theory illogical.