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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 11:29 (524 days ago) @ David Turell

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.”

DAVID: 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 evolved from bacteria, one step at a time designed by God.

And every other life form also “evolved” from bacteria (but by “evolved” you mean were specially designed), and 99% of them are extinct and had no connection with humans. The fact that sapiens is the latest “iteration” in the primate branch does not mean that every individual species in every other branch was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.” Why do you keep dodging?

DAVID: 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.

No, you are not stupid, but you are as stubborn as I am! ;-) And so once again you ignore the problem, which is not just why your God did not directly design humans, but why – if humans were his only goal – he directly designed millions of life forms that had no connection with humans (or their food supply). You do indeed follow history, in so far as you acknowledge that there have been millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders, and you believe your God directly designed all of them, and you believe that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans. What I “frankly” don’t understand is why your God would have directly designed all of these, although 99% of them had no connection with his one and only goal. And at odd moments in these discussions, you have even admitted that you have no idea. But then a few days later, you return to the same theory and we go through the same game of dodge.

Reptile and mammal backbones

QUOTE: 'Lizards and mammals diverged from one another millions of years ago and they've each gone on their own evolutionary journey. We show that living lizards don't represent any sort of ancestral morphology or function that the two groups would have had in common so long ago."

DAVID: A clear exposition of the continuity in evolutionary changes, but dhw objects to this process finally leading to humans.

You could hardly have provided us with a clearer exposition of the fact that there is no continuity. You should perhaps read the articles you so kindly provide us with.


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.

DAVID: 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.

Why have you used the word “person”? What I have proposed is a view of your God’s purpose and method which entails thought patterns and logic similar to ours. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that your God may have thought patterns and logic similar to ours. So what is your problem with my logical theory?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum