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

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 14, 2021, 15:05 (311 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Years ago I interpreted your objection to indicate you wanted God to directly create humans. 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.

dhw: I offer various theories to cover different aspects of your illogical theory. You have no idea why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he chose to design millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. (If you do have an idea why, then please tell us at last.)

I deleted all the usual history. Another repeat, God chose to evolve us from bacteria and I have no idea why He chose that method, but it fits known history.


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

dhw: For the life of me I can’t see why liking something is not human, but wanting to do something you like is human. And still you dodge your own agreement that your God possibly (formerly "probably") has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. That does not make him human. It simply means that he created a being with some thought patterns and emotions similar to his own. Why do you find that possible and yet impossible?

That God choses to create is all we know. WE can assume He 'likes' doing it, because if He hated it, creation would stop. He doesn't need to do it for self-satisfaction.


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

DAVID: 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: That doesn’t explain why he tried (though often failed) to correct the errors. It merely underlines his lack of control over the system he designed. Bearing in mind the terrible diseases that are caused by some of the errors, I’m asking why you think he wanted to correct them.

He didn't want the diseases to happen, so He added corrections where He could .


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? […]

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I don’t understand the second sentence.

I've been clear: Hands-on is more efficient than second-hands-on.

DAVID: Speciation requires complex knowledge of the design requirements for future use. New species always work in their future a point you constantly illogically ignore.

dhw: It is a point I constantly reject – I don’t ignore it. In my theory, speciation does NOT “work in the future”, but is the result of a direct response to the organism’s PRESENT. When conditions change (for whatever reason) the organism must also change in order to survive... No crystal ball involved. Every change a RESPONSE to existing conditions.

Same disagreement. God designs in anticipation of needs.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: “Wanting” is not the point. You obviously “want” your God to be in full control of everything. I believe evolution happened, and what I want is an explanation of how it works. Like Darwin, I begin my quest at Chapter Two of life: how evolution works, not how life and evolution originated. The intelligent cell theory does not omit your God, which is why I don’t like your use of the word “natural”, as I suspect it implies exclusion of God. God is not excluded if it was his choice to give evolution free rein.

Free rein means chance events and a natural course for evolution. God running/designing evolution is a full explanation. Obvious complex designs cannot be ignored.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum