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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 17:58 (256 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

dhw: What straw man? What am I dodging? Question: if God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food supply, why did he directly design millions of now dead life forms, strategies etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans? And your answer is….?

Same logical answer starting with the belief God is the Creator, creating all His actions as history shows. We came evolved by His design from bacteria. Therefore He chose to evolve us through all the 99% extinct stages of development. You still imply why not direct creation? You'll have to ask God why. I don't know that answer.


DAVID: God is the Creator. Just stop at that point, and try to not dig further which proves nothing.

dhw: Why should I stop at this point, when you are constantly telling us what your God wants and doesn’t want, and what he does and doesn't do? And I keep having to repeat ad nauseam, nothing is proven – not even your God’s existence. If you want proof, we might as well end all discussion.

You are discussing points about God with a person who firmly believes He exists. I don't need further proof, but you do.


Theodicy
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? […]

DAVID: Word play game. Free-for-all is uncontrolled advances.

dhw: I know what free-for-all means. Why do you consider that to be more “human” than a God who wants full control of everything?

Same old point. My view of God's personality is diametrically opposed to yours.


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 […] he could have controlled them if he wanted to, but he preferred to give them free rein. Everything we say about God […] 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? [...]

DAVID: [..] Covered before: the system from God is feely-acting molecules to create necessary speed of reactions. He did add editing programs knowing errors would occur and knew our brains could provide some corrections.

dhw: That is a repetition of your beliefs, but you said that he gave us our giant brains so that we could correct the errors he hadn’t corrected. Why do you think he wanted us to correct the errors?

Strange question for what purpose? God certainly does not want/like the errors (just as you don't) and wishes they didn't exist, but He knows we can solve many of them with our huge God-given brain, those that escape His corrective editing mechanisms He created.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum