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

by dhw, Thursday, April 15, 2021, 10:56 (491 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: The 99% have a direct connection to humans as steps in an evolutionary process. Can you describe evolution in any other way?

Every different life form was a step in an evolutionary process, and 99% of them had no connection with humans! There is no direct line from the brontosaurus to H. sapiens. You have said so yourself. (Do you want the quotes again?)

DAVID: 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.

There is no direct connection between 99% of past food bushes and our food bush. You have said so yourself. (Do you want the quotes again?) I am not promoting the Genesis view of creation, in which God snaps his fingers etc. I believe in evolution. But I do not believe that if God exists, he would have specially designed millions of life forms and food bushes etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans, in order to specially design one life form and its food bush.

dhw: Our specialness does not explain why their specialness somehow makes them “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”!

DAVID: 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.

So how does that come to mean that the brontosaurus, which had no direct connection with humans, was “part of the goal of evolving (= specially designing) humans”. This is not a distortion but a quotation. 99% of the small steps and the giant steps were irrelevant, if – as you have just told us – your God SPECIALLY DESIGNED our amazing dexterity and brain!

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?

DAVID: The suppositions you present above about God apply only to a very human God, unsure of Himself.

Dealt with in the previous post: purposeful experimentation and openness to new ideas do not mean “unsure of himself”. And neither of these is more human than wanting full control.

DAVID: 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.

Free will is an example of his willingness to give up control. If he wanted a free-for-all, then he did not want precise control of evolution!

Ed Feser’s take
dhw: I’m sorry, but I’m going to opt out of this. […]

DAVID: Fine. I had hoped you might learn how not to humanize God by studying how theists see Him. It forms my views.
I would expect you to be able to defend your views without asking me to read somebody else’s views.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum