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

by dhw, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 10:56 (312 days ago) @ David Turell

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”.

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

Yes, everyone does, but that does not explain why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and their food supplies, he had to design millions of extinct life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. We are going over the same points over and over again, as you continually edit out those sections of your theory that make no sense when combined with the rest.

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

The same as above: why have you edited out the 99% of dead species which your God chose to directly design even though they had no connection with us?

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

dhw: I did not use the word “need”. [You omitted this important part of my reply.] 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”?

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

I cannot for the life of me see how words like “desire”, “like” and “enjoy” can be “allegorical”. Please explain what they symbolize, and in what way your God’s desire to design humans is allegorical.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Yes you theory is logical for fully humanized God.

More word games. What is a “fully” humanized God – a God with two arms and legs and a beard? The God you believe in is always in control and directly designs both “good” and “bad” things, but we don’t know why. The God I offer as an alternative deliberately designs a free-for-all which results in “good” things as well as “bad” things. What makes your God less “human” than the one I am proposing?

DAVID: 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.

May I suggest that since, according to you, your God deliberately and directly designed humans, even to the extent of operating on their brains 200 cc at a time, he could have controlled them if he wanted to, but he preferred to give them free rein. Everything we say about God – including his existence, nature, purpose and means of achieving his purpose, is our “interpretation”. Your vague “may have” is no more likely than my concrete proposal. Out of interest, why do you think your God would want to set us a challenge? Please offer at least one reason.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum