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

by dhw, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 11:04 (1328 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My view of God is that He is determined to reach his specific goals, as shown by the specific evolution of the universe to fine-tuning for life, the evolution of the Earth itself to allow life while a humanized God who allows a free-for-all has no expectation for where it is going, and living organisms are endlessly varied under the God we have.

If God exists (and for the sake of our discussions, I am accepting that he does), then of course he created all the conditions for life. No dispute. But that does NOT mean that he directly designed every single life form with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. Nor does it mean that a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all in life is any more “humanized” than a God who wants total control over his creations.

DAVID: God certainly allowed a war between organisms, since all have to eat. As for God's possible human attributes, of course, there are obvious comparisons at a superficial level, since we deal with God's personality in allegorical terms. As for His goal, we are it.

dhw: There is nothing superficial in discussing God’s possible human attributes, and they are not “allegorical”. If he created our attributes, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that he does not share any of them! Meanwhile, you have not told us what was his goal in designing humans or in designing bad bugs and viruses. There is no point in telling us how purposeful he is if you refuse to discuss his purposes!

DAVID: I haven't refused, I've told you research will unveil His purposes, as we have in the past.

Then why do you insist that his sole purpose in creating life was to design H. sapiens, and all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving humans”? If you can make such illogical guesses, which you know as well as I do cannot be “unveiled” by research, why should the rest of us not make guesses about his purposes – especially if they provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: As for God's attributes, all theologians insist we must use allegorical terms.

There is nothing “allegorical” about attributes such as interest, enjoyment, having a purpose, wanting something such as total control or a free-for-all. You keep using these terms – so what do they stand for if they’re “allegorical”? Either he wants something or he doesn’t.

dhw: Why do you think he wanted us to have freedom in our development?

DAVID: Why not? Perhaps to recognize Him; perhaps to help with metabolic errors; perhaps to let us enjoy our development of abstractions: books, plays, movies, etc.

I like your use of “perhaps”, and wish you would apply it to such theories as your God wanting and having total control. Nice of him perhaps to want us to enjoy our own creations, which we might take as a parallel to himself enjoying his creations; recognition in a literal sense is impossible, since he doesn’t show himself to us, but perhaps you mean acknowledgement of his wonderful powers? Indeed, why not? In that respect, I’d say that we have inherited from him what you would call a “human” attribute.

DAVID: You can't seem to take in the idea of a God who creates for the sake of creation, and Who needs nothing from it.

You can’t seem to take in the idea that a power that enjoys creating (you yourself used “enjoy” and “like” ) might create BECAUSE he wants to create something he will like/enjoy.

QUOTE: Carpediemonas […] must rely on a novel set of mechanisms to carry out these fundamental processes.

DAVID: Nothing to add except it will require research to find out how the organism does it.

dhw: Yes, with my theist’s hat on, I find it much more likely that your God would have given carpediemonas …the means of doing it, rather than having to preprogramme all this 3.8 billion years ago or popping in to do a dabble.

DAVID: Major DNA changes is a "Shapiroian" thought. But this is bigger than a bacteria.

Shapiro does not limit his theory to bacteria, much as you strive to distort his own writings. Calling it “Shapiroian” does not in any way reduce the logic of a conclusion drawn by many distinguished scientists in the field: namely, that cells are intelligent. Nor does it reduce the logic of a theory of evolution based on that conclusion.