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

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 17:33 (518 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

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

dhw: Yes, you have always stated your belief, and so it is logical that this is what you believe. What I find “specifically illogical” – as if you didn’t know – is the belief itself: namely, that although your God’s one and only purpose was to specifically design H. sapiens, he deliberately designed millions of now extinct life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

Total distortion of my belief, which starts with the position God CHOSE to evolve humans from bacteria, as history shows and therefore had to design all the life forms you question.

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

dhw: I have never said he was a human person. If his purpose was to create an ever changing bush of life by designing a mechanism enabling life forms to design their own ways of survival, he would “necessarily” have given them free rein.

And change His personality in my view. I view He as fully purposeful, knows His goals, and would not allow secondhand drift of evolution.

dhw: 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?

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

dhw: Please tell us how God communicated this "must" to you. However, we can happily let him have his own form of “enjoyment”. So now we have God enjoying creating in his own way, and therefore it is possible that his purpose in creating life was to create something he could enjoy in his own way. Why is that deduction to be dismissed as “humanizing” whereas his enjoyment of creation in his own way is not “humanizing”. Your opposition to this theory is based on one long quibble.

I think that comment about God almost comes very close to how I try to reason about God. The bold is your usual slip: God does not need to provide self-enjoyment.


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!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I agree, and I do wish the two of you would acknowledge the fact that your basic credos (currently written so firmly in stone that you call each other delusional) are based on hope and not on science. This point is repeated under “Bacterial intelligence”, so we needn’t go into it again.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum