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

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 20, 2021, 14:09 (54 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

DAVID: Totally disjointed reasoning. All of the steps in the evolution of humans are required steps from simple to complex. Giant bush is required for food supply for all.

dhw: But the giant bush supplied food for ALL its branches, and according to you, ALL its branches were directly designed by your God. The steps in the evolution of humans from bacteria constitute ONE of the branches, whereas the other 99% had no connection with humans. If they had no connection with humans, how could they have been “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”? You continue to edit your beliefs in order to dodge the question which reveals your “totally disjointed reasoning”.

Doesn't everyone have to eat as populations grow from early evolution to now?

DAVID: I'm perfectly logical in my thoughts starting with God as the designer of all the necessary steps of evolution as presented by history.

dhw: Necessary for what? Yet again, why was it necessary for God to directly design the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with the only organism plus food supply that you say he wanted to design?

Humans were His goal and He chose to evolve us from bacteria. You still illogically imply God should have used direct creation

DAVID: 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: If you agree that his purpose in creating life could have been to create something he could enjoy in his own way, then at long last I trust you will drop the silly “humanizing” objection and accept that this is a feasible theory. We cannot do more than propose feasible theories.

DAVID: I'll repeat: God does not need to provide self-enjoyment for himself. You don't recognize your humanizing of God.

dhw: You wrote: “He seems to me full of personal activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves”. You say it was a desire, and he likes/enjoys creating. Why is liking and enjoying the fulfilment of his desire not “humanizing” for you, but you regard doing something BECAUSE he desires and likes and enjoys doing it as being unimaginably “humanizing”?

My statement above stands. We use allegorical words to define God, and you use the words as distinctly human in meaning.


DAVID: most parasites have a lifecycle through host animals. It is a wonder how they develop. Stepwise does not seem possible since the parasite has to depend on specific hosts to survive. Was this designed by God? And for what purpose? I'm left with pure guesswork.

dhw: So are we all, but we can add “bad” parasites to our list of “bad” bacteria and viruses, and to errors in the system that lead to “bad” diseases. And still I don’t know why you reject the feasibility of a free-for-all, which would at least rid us of the idea that he deliberately designed “bad” things which you hope will somehow prove to be “good”.

DAVID: My purposeful God will not allow a secondhand drifting of evolution.

dhw: To put it slightly differently, your personal interpretation of your purposeful God’s purpose, which can provide no explanation for theodicy or for his method of fulfilling that purpose, will not allow you to consider any other theory, even if it provides a logical explanation for the history of evolution and for theodicy.

Yes you theory is logical for fully humanized God.

Gut immune system
DAVID: 'Good' bacteria play a vital role in our digestion, but there must be designed controls for lurking pathogens in the mix.

dhw: Yes, it’s the pathogens that are your problem.

DAVID: No, my comment was to point out God has provided controls.

dhw: Another example of your refusal to face the problem of why your version of God created “evil” in the first place.

God cannot control nor did He invent 'evil' in humans. They did. As for evil bugs, it is our interpretation and they may have a rational use, which we will discover. Alternatively they are a challenge to be solved by our God-given brilliant brains.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum