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

by dhw, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 13:12 (514 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please stop editing out the parts of your theory that make it illogical.

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

It is not illogical. What is illogical is that you believe he designed all forms as part of his one and only goal, which was to design H. sapiens, although 99% of the forms he designed had no connection with humans. You are still editing out those sections of your theory which make it illogical. This could go on for ever! :-(


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.

dhw: 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. :-(

DAVID: 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.

In your first comment, it was a guess or a maybe (now bolded), and now it is obvious. I agree that it is obvious. And if he likes doing something, why do you consider it excessively human to propose that maybe he does what he does BECAUSE he likes doing it?


dhw: […] why do you think he would have provided mechanisms for error correction? […]

DAVID: […] Because God recognized unwanted errors could be fatal.

And why do you think that mattered so much to him that he attempted (though often in vain) to correct the errors?


dhw: 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 altedhw: rations, 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.

DAVID: 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.

Again, why have you imposed the word “natural” on my arguments? That automatically suggests that God plays no role. And why “hope”? And why do you contrast “natural” with design, when you know perfectly well that what I am proposing (THEISTIC version) is that your God designed the mechanism which enabled the intelligent cell communities to do their own designing – as opposed to your God preprogramming or dabbling flippers and every other evolutionary change in life’s history as part of his goal to design humans (and their food supply).

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum