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

by David Turell @, Friday, March 12, 2021, 18:32 (62 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll repeat: God chose to evolve us for unknown reasons.

dhw: And I’ll repeat that if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms for unknown reasons, and the illogicality of your theory lies in your insistence that by “evolve” you mean directly design, and so you have him directly designing millions of life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans, although his one and only purpose was supposed to be humans. Please stop editing out the parts of your theory that make it illogical.

Why is it illogical that I believe God is the designer of evolution and all forms?


DAVID: When I make statements like 'enjoy' or 'take interest' I always indicate it is a guess or a maybe. You definitively are sure of those conjectures as you always humanize.

More straw men of your own making. I don’t even believe (or disbelieve) that God exists, let alone that he has this, that or the other attribute! On this thread, earlier this week, you wrote: “I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating”. Previously you were certain that he was interested in his creations. I have NEVER expressed certainty about any of these subjects, but I do insist that all my guesses fit in logically with the history of life as we know it, and you cannot find fault with the logic. You agree that your God probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc., but you want to censor any you don’t like, even when they derive from those that you do like. :-(

You can imagine God as you wish. I make a special effort not to create a human picture of Him in any way. He wouldn't create unless He liked doing it. Obvious and not humanizing.


dhw: And who created the errors in the first place? I know - you think your all-powerful, always-in-control God couldn’t design a system that would avoid such errors, including all those for which he did not provide a corrective mechanism. While we’re on the subject, why do you think he would have provided mechanisms for error correction?

DAVID: To undo errors His form of biochemical life can mistakenly make. All discussed before.

dhw: I know he would have provided mechanisms for error correction in order to correct errors. Let me rephrase the question: why do you think he wanted to correct the errors?

Because God recognized unwanted errors could be fatal

DAVID: […] However, all viruses, manufactured or natural, come with a mutation ability given by God. […]
DAVID: Every complex organism can make simple adaptations.

dhw: So your God gave even complex organisms the autonomous ability to change their structure. How does that make it impossible for him to have given them the ability to make complex adaptations, even amounting to innovations (e.g. legs adapting themselves to life in the water and becoming flippers)?

DAVID: All we see, just to remind you, are minor adaptations. You admit major alterations require design. Design means a designer mind is at work.

dhw: Actually, I regard legs to flippers as major adaptations, but in any case that doesn’t answer the question. If organisms have the autonomous ability to adapt, how can you be so sure that they do not have the autonomous ability to innovate? Of course major alterations, just like minor alterations, require design, but that does not mean the different life forms do not have their own kind of mind (possibly designed by your God) to do their own designing.

We have no idea how speciation occurs. I believe God does it because of designing requirements and you hope it is natural. Flippers from legs require major design problems. There is no known evidence for natural, and God is on faith and the strong evidence design is required..

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum