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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 14:15 (1332 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Apart from continuing to gloss over the fact that for you evolution means directly designing all species, you are simply restating your illogical combination of premises... You’re right: your focus, which I call your illogical combination of premises, never changes.

DAVID: I never gloss over God designing all new species, and driving the new complexities in new stages of evolution. My premises all fit following an acceptance that God runs evolution and all of history. No need to re-explain.

Your premises do not fit if you insist that your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food supply and so he first had to design millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans.

Theodicy
DAVID: 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.

dhw: And you still refuse to answer my question as to why a God who wants to remain in total control is less “human” than a God who wants to give free rein. Instead you repeat the above, and add: “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?” ... it is your rigid adherence to one interpretation of life’s history and your God’s purpose, and your refusal to consider others, that keeps this discussion going round in circles. It may be worthwhile to repeat some of the options.
1) It is indeed possible that evolution could have unfolded without our arrival, and indeed without the arrival of the brontosaurus, the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus. I suspect most atheists would agree, but 4) offers a theistic variation.
2) If God exists, it is possible that he wanted to design a being with thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to his own, but he needed to experiment in order to create one (hence all the different life forms that came and went.)
3) It is possible that he enjoyed creating things, and in the course of his creating the ever changing bush of life, he had a new idea: how about designing a being with thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to his own? (2 & 3 preclude your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all evolutionary innovations, strategies etc., but they allow for dabbles at any time, and for the specialness of humans.)
4) It is possible that your God started out simply with the intention of inventing a mechanism that would produce life with the autonomous ability to reproduce and to restructure itself in an infinite variety of ways. No particular species in mind. He might then watch with interest to see what it produces – or, who knows? – he might prefer not to watch, but to focus on new creations elsewhere in the universe.
5) Your God started out with the intention of designing a being with thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to his own, knew exactly how to do it, was in total control, and then directly designed millions of life forms etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans, before he directly designed a series of non-sapiens humans before directly putting the finishing touches to the only one he actually wanted to design.

I’ll leave you and others to decide which of these logically explains the vast bush of life and also solves the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I'll accept (5) as the only reasonable, non-humanizing God theory. I don't find (4) as reasonably theistic. I would like a group of folks to vote on your elect-a-theory list.

Taken from "ID explained" under “Miscellany”:
DAVID: My thoughts are my thoughts expressed in two books. I don't run a religion and have no known followers. Do you have some to support agnosticism?

Your books present a masterly case for design. I don’t recall them ever setting out your theory of evolution as under 5), but you would know! This discussion is about evolution, not religion, and I too would love to know if any folks at all would vote for No. 5. And I‘m surprised that you think I’m the only agnostic in the world. One prominent name that springs to mind is Charles Darwin.

Meanwhile, you still refuse to tell us why a God who wants total control is not “human” whereas a God who wants a free-for-all is “very human”.