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

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 15:00 (304 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

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

dhw: 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.

Still your totally illogical complaint. It is an easy concept to understand. God chose to evolve us from initial bacteria, and provided the huge bush of life to feed all, especially the huge present human population. A major tenet of mine: God designs in anticipation of need

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

dhw: 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?

Not edited out. What are you smoking? Your same implied illogical idea that God should have directly created us. I taught you about the 99% loss of previous necessary stepwise species.


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

dhw: 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.

That desire is not allegorical, but words that describe God Himself or His person attributes must be allegorical.


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

dhw: 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?

My God differs. As totally purposeful in creation He is fully hands-on and in full control of how evolution develops according to his plans.

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.

dhw: 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.

Fully covered in the past discussions: He gave us our giant brains so we could research and correct some of the errors He knew would happen in a biochemical living system in which free- acting molecules might make mistakes.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum