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

by dhw, Thursday, March 25, 2021, 12:22 (1337 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives
DAVID: 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.

dhw: Let us not forget that you believe your God personally designed every species, econiche, strategy etc. What do you mean by “stages of development” here? Please tell us how he designed us “through” the brontosaurus, or how the brontosaurus was a “stage of development” in his design of humans, or how the brontosaurus was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans", bearing in mind that you have told us there is no connection between us and the brontosaurus. If you can’t explain it, then please let’s accept that this illogical theory is your belief, and leave it at that.

DAVID: The only 'belief' involved is God as creator used evolution to produce today's organisms, us included. The brontosaurus connection is the part you won't accept. The development of the huge bush of life food supply. For example I've eaten zebra in Africa, whale steak in Japan. kangaroo in Australia, and alligator here. All entirely logical following the acceptance of God.

So God designed millions and millions of extinct life forms such as the brontosaurus, so that you could eat zebras and kangaroos? This has absolutely nothing to do with “acceptance of God”. If I wanted you to eat chocolate, why would I specially prepare a ham sandwich? That is the level of “connection” you consider to be logical. Once again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “extinct life has no role in current time.”

dhw: In ALL our discussions concerning evolution and theodicy, I have allowed for the existence of God (you can’t discuss theodicy without doing so). You have asked me not to dig further than his existence as Creator, but you yourself constantly hammer out your own preconceptions about his purpose, his methods of achieving his purpose, what he wants and doesn’t want etc. And when I question your logic, you tell me to stop digging, and when I propose logical alternatives you tell me that they are not proven – as if only your interpretations can possibly be correct.

DAVID: As I keep telling you each of our concepts about God are wildly and widely different. Lets leave it at that.

I will, but if you continue to promulgate your own illogical theories about your God’s nature and purpose, you cannot expect me to remain silent.

Theodicy
dhw: Your only criticism of my proposal is that it ”humanizes” God. Why is a God who wants total control less “human” than a God who wants a free-for-all?

You have never answered this question.

Under “How antibiotic spores spread”
DAVID: The war between organisms is a permanent part of living. These are very complex molecules that well could have been designed by God.

dhw: So it may well be that your God designed the whole of life because he wanted precisely what we see: a war between organisms. In the context of theodicy, a war between good and evil. I’ll refrain from further comment until you have made your own comments on the possibility you have presented us with.

DAVID: Of course there has to be a war. Everyone has to eat. Good and evil are human concepts. God may view it differently than Moses' proposed Ten Commandments. Just as humans propose badly designed organs that are really excellent in design.

We are not concerned with good and bad design here but with the problem of theodicy, which you yourself raised in the first place. Your God’s deliberate creation of war and of “bad”, disease-causing bugs and viruses would seem to indicate that he actually wants what we humans consider to be “evil”. Your reference to the ten commandments suggests that he may have different standards from ours. Ugh, that does not bode well for a possible afterlife in his presence! But perhaps that is why you hope that the bad bugs will turn out to be good, and your God has no “bad” intentions – which is also why you think he tried, though sometimes failed, to correct the errors in the system he designed. (That was my reason for asking you why you thought he wanted to make the corrections.) The problem of theodicy becomes even more complex and disturbing if we bear in mind your certainty that he likes/enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest. And yet when I propose that he might NOT have specially designed the bad bugs (to which let us add the war), but they were part of a free-for-all system just like the freedom you think he gave to the human will, you dismiss the idea as being too “human”. I wonder why a God who enjoys directly creating nasty things as well as nice things is considered to be less human than a God who creates a free-for-all.