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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 18:02 (323 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Just another branch in the bush of life, its size required for food energy supply.

dhw: Thank you. “Just another branch” is precisely my point. No connection with humans – i.e. not “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

You seem to prefer to view evolution as a totally disconnected process. Sapiens is the latest iteration in the primate branch, which existed back in dino times. And we came from something else before that. I reject your disconnected complaint. We evol ved from bacteria, one step at a time designed by God.

dhw: An excellent description of how common descent works, and totally irrelevant to the question why your God designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans if his only goal was to design humans – or to put it another way, how does “contingency” come to mean that every single life form in the history of life was “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans”? You have no idea, and that is where this discussion should end.

DAVID: I'm full of ideas and concepts about evolution and humans most of which you remain blind to:
God chose to evolve us, and you agree, noting 'if' He exists. The history of evolution is real, and you reject it, and ask the ridiculous question: if He wanted humans why did He bother to evolve them as history shows with all the intervening forms? Total non sequitor.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the bolded question, and totally misrepresent my objections to your theory! I wish you would stop doing so. Please note: 1) I accept the history of evolution. 2) If God exists, he chose to evolve ALL FORMS OF LIFE, every one of which is part of the history of evolution. 3) I do not ask why your God would have bothered to evolve humans, but why, if humans were his only goal, he bothered to evolve [design] the 99% of life forms that are part of the history of evolution but had no connection with humans.

I'm not stupid. I don't dodge your irrational objection. We've been 'round and 'round for years with your obvious implication, why not a choice by God for direct design of humans? That isn't what He did! I follow history. I frankly don 't understand your reasoning about God.


DAVID: I don't see what you are attempting to prove. We can be sure God uses logical thought as we do. As long as you do not understand your humanizing approach, as shown in the 'timeless' thread, we won't reach any agreements.

dhw: My “humanizing approach” is that your God would act logically, and you have agreed that your God uses logical thought as we do. You say that my “very humanized God does logical things”, and so I am asking you to give me a logical reason for rejecting my logical theory.

I'm pointing out to you, we both have very different views of God's personage and how He acquires His purposes. What you have proposed about God's actions are logical if He is a humanized person.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum