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

by dhw, Friday, March 26, 2021, 12:44 (206 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives
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.

dhw: 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.”

DAVID: The bolded quotes are proper and true, as they relate to a current time connection, and nothing more as you try to distort them. Evolution is a continuum from bacteria to humans. All stages were used to advance complexity. Ancient events are ancient, obviously.

Evolution is a continuum from bacteria to ALL species, and the bolded quotes make it clear that although there must be ONE continuous line to humans, 99% of past bushes and past life had no connection with humans. That is why it is illogical to claim as you do that your God designed them all individually as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: My thoughts about God are as logical or illogical are no different than yours, based as they are for both of us as they start at vast differences in each of our views in God's personality.

I offer a variety of views, and you agree that they all fit logically into the pattern of life’s history. Only you start out with a fixed view of God’s “personality”, and when I challenge its logic, you dodge the issue, as you have tried to do above by emphasizing one line of descent and ignoring the other 99% which had no role in current time.

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?
dhw: You have never answered this question.

DAVID: I've answered over and over, that free-for-all indicates a weak God who gives up full control of evolution. Not my concept of my God.

Of course a God who creates a free-for-all is giving up control. I have no idea why you consider that to be “weak”, but that still doesn’t explain why wanting total control is less “human” than not wanting total control. Is dictatorship less "human" than democracy?

Under “How antibiotic spores spread

dhw: […] 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! […] 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.

DAVID: I brought up theodicy because it is required in a complete discussion. I have given you my opinion that what seems bad may not be bad after more research as questionable human organs have shown. God put us in charge because He wants us to solve problems that arise from His style of biochemistry that created our life, but unfortunately makes errors from free acting molecules that cannot be fully controlled to allow the necessary speed of reactions.

You have left out your theory that he deliberately created the “war” and the bad bugs and viruses that cause terrible diseases (unless you think that the terrible diseases might turn out to be “good”). Your only objection to my theory is that it makes God “human”, and you still haven’t explained why NOT deliberately creating what we consider to be “bad” makes him more human than deliberately creating “bad” things which you hope will one day turn out to be “good”.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum