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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 16:23 (308 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

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.

dhw: 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.

Totally confusing. My statement above has always been my position, so what specifically do you find illogical in your mind?

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

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

Tight control is not necessarily humanizing. A purposeful God (His personality) would necessarily keep tight controls. You have never understood my compliant of humanizing. God is never a human person in any aspect of His thoughts or desires.

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.

dhw: 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?

God must be approached at all times allegorically. His 'enjoyment' may not be like ours.


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.

dhw: 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!

Except I can give you oodles of examples in our bodies now seen as proper: appendix, backward retina, etc. Discovery for what seems improper to proper takes research time. Our current impressions should never be writ in stone.

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.

dhw: 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.

I don't use Shapiro as you do. Time with research may give us answers

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum