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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 13:19 (262 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

DAVID: Same old illogical complaint. My position: God chose to evolve humans from bacteria. Pure history, and must involve 99% of all extinct species as evolution is a continuous process.

dhw: Now your God wanted only to design humans and their food supply, but he had to design every other extinct life form, 99% of which had no connection with humans, because he designed every one of the other 99% of non-human branches in a continuous process from bacteria.

DAVID: I'll stick with God designing the entire history of evolution with a goal of humans as the endpoint. Logical since I believe God designed evolution from the beginning.

Since you believe that your God designed evolution from the beginning with humans as his goal, you will stick with your belief that your God designed evolution from the beginning with humans as his goal. Yes, that is logical. It is only your belief, as explained above, that is illogical.

DAVID: My God prefers tight control of all advances. Yours is namby-pamby. Design require controls.

dhw: You are of course free to tell us what you think your God prefers, but you have no more insight into his mind than anyone else. Calling my theoretical God namby-pamby just because I propose that he WANTED a free-for-all is not the most illuminating of reasons for rejecting a theory which logically explains the vast variety of life, not to mention the existence of bad viruses and bacteria, deadly diseases, and “evil”, which all constitute the great problem of theodicy.

DAVID: We will always disagree on God's personality, as you humanize Him constantly.

Why is deliberately giving free rein more “humanizing” than exercising tight control?

God’s purpose for creating life

DAVID: More humanizing. God is the creator and is not doing it for self-enjoyment or aggrandizement.

dhw: Why do you keep changing the vocabulary? You are sure that he “likes” creating. So why are you so sure that he does not create because he “likes” creating?

DAVID: I am not sure God 'likes' creating, but that is what He does, so I assume He likes doing it.

Last week you wrote: “I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating.” And “He wouldn’t create unless he liked doing it. Obvious and not humanizing.” Why is it not humanizing to say he enjoys/likes creating, but it is humanizing to deduce from this obvious certainty that he might possibly create because he enjoys/likes creating?

Theodicy

dhw: You’re coming closer to giving me an answer, so I’ll just try to push you one step further. Why do you think he did not want the diseases to happen?

DAVID: Why invent forms that get sick? Not on purpose.

dhw: And yet he invented bad bugs and viruses that cause sickness. But I suspect that you prefer not to answer my question because it might mean that he has some thought patterns and emotions similar to ours – e.g. he doesn’t like seeing people and animals suffering through the errors in his system. Just a thought, but it might explain why you are hoping so desperately that one day someone might discover a “good” reason why he directly designed “bad” bacteria and viruses.

DAVID: You are ignoring or not remembering my previous answers. Bad bugs and viruses are our current interpretations, but further research may show beneficial purposes.

Not ignoring or forgetting, but I simply put it differently above: “it might explain why you are hoping so desperately that one day someone might discover a “good” reason why he directly designed “bad” bacteria and viruses”. Dawkins’ has the same approach to all the flaws in his logic: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural”. The two of you have a great deal in common in your methods of defending your credos!

QUOTE (from “Bacterial intelligence”): "Some of the best-known human pathogens -- from the plague bacterium Yersinia pestis to the diarrhea pathogen Salmonella -- use a tiny hypodermic needle to inject disease-causing proteins into their host's cells, thereby manipulating them.”

DAVID: Shapiro's research validated again. I still approach this as a God-given design.

dhw: Have I understood this correctly? Are you saying you believe that the plague and the diarrhea bacteria were specially designed by the same God who tried to correct the disease-causing errors in his design system? Don’t you find this a bit odd?

DAVID: No. Further research may show beneficial purposes.

I doubt if your patients would have found much comfort in that, and I certainly can’t accept your hopes as a valid argument against the logic of Shapiro’s theory and my application of it to the problem of theodicy.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum