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

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 19:32 (1317 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you insist – inexplicably – that in order to specially design humans he had first to specially design millions of life forms, strategies, lifestyles, econiches etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: God chose to evolve humans from bacteria. The 99% were necessary steps not inexplicable to the rational mind.

dhw: Then please use your rational mind to explain why a God whose sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens found it necessary to first specially design countless life forms, econiches, strategies and natural wonders, although 99% of them had no direct connection to H. sapiens.

The 99% have a direct connection to humans as steps in an evolutionary process. Can you describe evolution in any other way? You implication, as over the years, is obviously why didn't God directly create us? The answer is a large bush of food supply, but perhaps you wish He snapped His fingers and bush and humans appeared presto all at once.

DAVID: Of course special design was required, and it is that obvious design that keeps you agnostic.

dhw: Another of your glorious non sequiturs! Why pretend that humans are the only “special” creation when you lay so much emphasis on your belief that your God specially designed EVERY life form etc? Our specialness does not explain why their specialness somehow makes them “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”!

Your usual total distortion of my thoughts! Evolution of us required each step, but the unexplained amazing giant step was our bodily dexterity and our special brain, not anticipated in apes. We are of a special design. Evolution works is steps, small and giant.

dhw: Problem solved. No more of this “allegory” and “symbol” nonsense, and you now accept the reasonableness of the theory that your God may have created life because he wanted to create something which in his own way he could enjoy. I have taken note of this, and will refer to it if you should ever again object to my theories on the grounds that they “humanize” your God more than your own theories do. I must simply add “in his own way”. Thank you.

DAVID: You did more humanizing above.

dhw: I’m happy to have you accept that your God might have created life because he wanted to create something which in his own way he could enjoy. However, is it not also possible that your God was experimenting in his own way, or that he was constantly thinking up new ideas in his own way, just as in your theory he controlled everything in his own way, which entailed giving up control over free will, and having no control over the errors resulting from the life system he designed, and designing killer bugs and viruses which might be good for us but currently aren't?

The suppositions you present above about God apply only to a very human God, unsure of
Himself. Free will is part of His design of special humans. His control over evolution had to be precise and giving up free will is not comparable, as you strain to create the impression it somehow applies to our discussion.

Ed Feser’s take
FESER: “I defend the Thomistic view that when one properly understands the nature of God and of his relationship to the world, this so-called logical problem of evil does not arise.”

dhw: I’m sorry, but I’m going to opt out of this. There just aren’t enough hours in the day for me to cover every philosopher’s “take” on every subject we discuss, and I would rather discuss your beliefs with you than start discussing Feser’s beliefs. I will simply comment that the above sentence is enough to put me off anyway: nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what constitutes a “proper” understanding of his nature.

Fine. I had hoped you might learn how not to humanize God by studying how theists see Him. It forms my views.