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

by dhw, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 10:10 (278 days ago) @ David Turell

This begins with the usual discussion of David’s theory of evolution, as under “pre-planning”, that his God directly designed every life form as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. However the following may offer us a glimmer of light….

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.

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

Common descent does not mean that every life form in history was designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Why would your God have designed lizards if all he wanted to do was design humans? Possible explanation offered by you a couple of weeks ago: “He seems to me full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves”. That makes sense. He desired to create them. Not he created them as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. And it is heartening to find you suggesting that God has desires, and it even seems to you that he has a desire in common with some of us humans – the desire to create. If only you would pursue your own idea, it might even lead to you admitting the possibility (as you did once before) that your God might enjoy his work as a painter enjoys his paintings. And it might even lead you to agree that since you are sure that he watches his creations with interest, he might have created them in order to have something that would interest him.


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?

DAVID: 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.

Do please tell us your view of God’s “personage”. By that I don’t mean tell us what you think your God is NOT, but tell us what you think your God IS.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum