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

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 28, 2021, 16:07 (46 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Growth of the bush is part of what has been necessary throughout the development of complex forms and, especially now, vast populations of organism on a limited-sized Earth. God chose to evolve us from bacteria and you agree with some qualifications evolution from a start with bacteria is correct giving us common descent of which humans are a part of the overall goal. From my view your bolds are all illogical distortions proving nothing.

dhw: They are your bolds, and they categorically contradict your constantly repeated claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.” But you have suddenly made a subtle change here: now “humans are part of the overall goal”. That is a colossal switch of focus which brings hope of enlightenment! Please tell us what you believe is your God’s overall goal.

My focus never changes. Growing a huge bush of life by evolving all forms with increasing complexity to finally have humans with a huge brain appear was God's overall plan. And counter to Darwin our huge brain is not necessary for 'survival'. Darwin's survival theory does not ever explain our arrival.

dhw: Your objection to my theodicy theory is that it makes God “human”, and so I’m asking why you consider wanting total control to be less “human” than wanting a free-for-all. […]

DAVID: Ad nauseum: our separate imaginations (for that is what it is) of God's personality and purposes are diametrically opposed. They will not meet. My God is strictly purposeful and in total control. Yours allows freestyle evolution. So be it.

dhw: Ad nauseam: I know what the two opposing theories are. But your objection to mine is that it “humanizes” God. And all I am asking is WHY you think a purposeful God in total control is less “human” than a purposeful God who deliberately allows free rein.

You can have your God, I'll have mine. Since we imagine God from His works we are each free to form an opinion. In my opinion your God is very human. Free-rein is an unguided evolutionary process on its own, my God would not wish.

DAVID (under “How antibiotic spores spread”): You are the humanizing theorist. Of course there is a constant war at the bacterial level. We observe it, and learn to use it by finding antibiotic molecules. We find what God put out there for us to find. Research to find the good happens all the time and we most likely find good in the 'bad'. [dhw's bold]

dhw: This does not answer my question above, which also applies to your God’s apparently deliberate design of what we consider to be “bad” bugs and viruses. My theory proposes that he did NOT deliberately design them, and so last time I complained thatyou 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”".

I’d better repeat that I don’t expect you to accept my theory. But just as I dispute the logic of your own theories, I would like to know what logic underlies your attack on mine.

DAVID: God designed all parts of all branches of life. I view His personality and purposefulness as very different than yours, as stated above. As above, imaginations of God start with personal logic. You are an agnostic, I'm a believer, so the starting points are different. I logically see a preponderance of evidence for God's existence, and you don't.

dhw: We are not talking about God’s existence, which for the sake of all these discussions I am accepting! Theodicy is not about your God’s existence but about his nature and purposes! If I propose a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all, thereby suggesting that he did not deliberately create evil, it is patently absurd to say that I’m wrong because I’m an agnostic! Your earlier dismissal of the theory was that it made your God “human”, and that is why I asked why a free-for-all is more “human” than total control. Presumably you can’t answer, and so you have no logical objections to my theory. We could leave it at that.

My answer is above and here: "You can have your God, I'll have mine. Since we imagine God from His works we are each free to form an opinion. In my opinion your God is very human. Free-rein is an unguided evolutionary process on its own, my God would not wish." It means your God is not purposeful in arriving finally at humans. Under your approach we might never have arrived. Do you like that result?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum