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

by dhw, Monday, March 08, 2021, 14:05 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

Reptile and mammal backbones

DAVID: Thank you for your long review clarifying past discussions. I'm sure God enjoys His work at creating. I'm sure He started with goals in mind. He obviously eschewed direct creations and chose evolution for the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and finally for living organisms. He has never shown His reasons for using evolving processes. We must accept what He obviously has chosen to do to reach His goals. Very unusual exceptional H. sapiens is a standout example of an obvious goal.

dhw: I’m delighted that you are sure God enjoys creating. And of course he would have started with goals in mind. And I see no reason why you should reject the possibility that one of his goals was to enjoy creating. Yes, if he exists, he obviously used evolution to fulfil whatever his purpose(s) might have been, and yes, we must accept what he chose to do to reach his goals. And I have no problem at all accepting that humans could have been one of his goals. And I am doubly delighted that you appear to have dropped the suggestion that H. sapiens was his one and only goal, and your review of your own position no longer insists that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. This at long last relieves you of the burden of trying to explain why he designed lizards and brontosauruses when his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. We are close to agreement at last.

DAVID: Don't try to inch closer. "enjoying creating" is so very humanizing.

You are sure your God “enjoys his work at creating” but enjoying creating is very humanizing, although God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. It is you who are inching closer, and I have no idea why you are so frightened by the logical thought that if your God really did create us, he might have endowed us with certain attributes of his own. Let me try another idea on you, purely out of interest. Do you think your God is incapable of love?

Viruses

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Very purposeful, very logical, creating what He wishes but never for His own enjoyment or self-interest. Never for human desires.

dhw: I did ask you not to tell us what you think he is NOT. And once again I am at a loss as to why you are certain that he enjoys his creative work and also that he watches the results with interest, and yet you discount the possibility that one of his goals might have been to create things that he would enjoy creating and would be able to watch with interest. Of course I agree that he must be very purposeful and logical. And if one of his purposes was to design the exceptional H. sapiens, do please tell us (again) what you think was his purpose in designing us. Thank you.

DAVID: He hasn't told us why we are here as His creation. All religions make up stories about it. have no answer I trust, other than we are the obvious goal for Adler and me.

God hasn’t told us anything about anything. Your efforts to twist life’s history into an illogical interpretation of his purpose and method, and your firm belief that he must have had a good purpose for creating bad bugs and viruses, are examples of your double standards. We mustn’t try to read his mind, but at the same time you can tell us what he wasn’t thinking when he did what you think he did.

Again purely out of interest and while on the subject of viruses, which you think your God designed for some unknown good purpose, do you think he has given Covid-19 instructions for their different mutations, or is their method of finding different ways to survive autonomous?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum