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

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 18:12 (320 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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! :-(

We fully disagree in our interpretations of the process and results of evolution. Why don't you accept it? Years ago I interpreted your objection to indicate you wanted God to directly create hum ans. Your ideas still come across that way. I don't accept your position. You don't accept mine. Don't refer to my concept of evolution derisively and I won't bother to respond.


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.

dhw: 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?

Only a human wants to do something pleasurable (likes). You are still humanizing God, and He is not human.


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

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

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

God would want the system He invented to work as well as it should. but knows self-folding proteins could make mistakes since He doesn't have them on puppet strings..


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.

dhw: 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).

I've told you I don't think God does design by second-hand mechanisms He granted to organisms. There is a great difference in instructing someone as to how to do it, and it doing it yourself, more directed and much quicker. Speciation requires complex knowledge of the design requirements for future use. New species always work in their future a point you constantly illogically ignore. You obviously don't want God to have any controls, although you give it lip service, which is why I view you as looking for natural methods of speciation.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum