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

by David Turell @, Friday, March 05, 2021, 15:36 (274 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: it is your confused view I dodge. God ran evolution and did created all species in my view, with the final goal of producing humans. Exactly as the history He produced shows. You only accept God 'might' have done this and doubt his method.

dhw: You have repeated your belief that your God directly designed all species and that his goal was to design humans. This is not history! History only tells us that there have been millions of life forms etc., and humans are the last known species so far. If God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that this is what he wanted to produce. It is totally unreasonable to tell us that his purpose was to design humans and therefore he designed millions of life forms that had no connection with humans. You are determined to dodge this illogicality.

Your confused view continues. It was God's purpose to evolve all forms leading to His final intended unique form, humans. Why is that confusing to you?

Reptile and mammal backbones

DAVID: Here we go again on opposite sides. I read the article as continuity and you don't see it.

dhw: When someone says lizards and mammals went their own way and have no morphology or function in common, I don’t know how you can take that as evidence of continuity.

DAVID: Every part of evolution has side branches, which creates the 'bush'. All the original roots are the same.

dhw: Yes indeed. Now please tell us how lizards could have been “part of the goal to evolve [= directly design] humans”, if they went their own way and they had/have no morphology or function in common with us mammals.

As above, it was God's intention to design all side branches. Seems you are ignoring common descent, where everyone comes from common ancestors.


dhw: It involves thought patterns we may have in common. There is no problem except your refusal to accept that a logical theory is logical, on the grounds that it does not fit in with your image of your God.

DAVID: Why should I accept your imagined God? We differ widely in His personality.

dhw: You do not have to accept my theory. I am only asking you to give me reasons for your rejection – just as I give you my reasons for rejecting your own theories. What is the point of discussing these subjects if we do not discuss possible explanations and why these do or do not stand up to analysis?

Where we initially differ in our views of God's personage there can be no agreement. I can't change your humanizing view, and you won't change mine.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum