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

by dhw, Friday, April 16, 2021, 12:21 (1315 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, that is exactly what He had to do starting from bacteria, as history shows. Do you want to change history to fit your views?

History only shows that there have been millions of extinct life forms etc. prior to our own. And for those of us who believe in evolution, history shows that ALL life forms descended from bacteria. Why do you pretend that history shows (a) that your God exists, and (b) that humans were his only purpose, and (c) that he specially designed millions of life forms etc., (as opposed to giving them the means of doing their own designing), and (d) that he "had to" specially design even the 99% (plus food supplies) that had no connection with humans, because otherwise he couldn't have specially designed humans (plus our food supply)?

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.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: All early branches evolved into the necessary current giant bush of food supply.

You simply refuse to listen to yourself! Here we go yet again. In your own words (including the capital letters): “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Today you draw our attention to the following:

Special design of a very long neck
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210414113508.htm

QUOTE: "Little is known about azhdarchid pterosaurs, gigantic flying reptiles with impressive wingspans of up to 12 meters. […] their thin neck vertebrae got their strength from an intricate internal structure unlike anything that's been seen before."

DAVID: In my view very careful exacting design was required before this strange creature could take to the skies. Did not appear by Darwinian stepwise evolution.

So do tell us why the azhdarchid pterosaur “had to” be specially designed in order for your God to specially design H. sapiens and our specially designed food supply.

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

dhw: 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: God has full control to advance evolution He cannot give it up, or humans might not appear. God is not human in any way.

Even if it was true that humans were his one and only purpose, both experimentation and new ideas would account for the vast variety of life forms that had no connection with humans. Your objection was that experimenting or having new ideas meant he was “unsure of himself” and that this made him more “human” than a God who wanted full control, as if there was no such being as a human who wants full control. And how do you know that a God who, in your own words, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours does not have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours? Why, in your own theory, which has him wanting only to create humans, is it inconceivable that he wanted to create a being with at least some thought patterns and emotions similar to his?

Ed Feser’s take

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

dhw: I would expect you to be able to defend your views without asking me to read somebody else’s views.

DAVID: I gave you snippets of Feser's philosophy/theology to show my thinking.

I’d say you’ve given me enough of your philosophy/theology to show your thinking.

DAVID: You do not understand how you humanize Him when you give us your idea about His thoughts and purposes.

I am fully aware that I “humanize him” as much as you do when I propose my various theistic explanations of life’s history. If he exists, I find it perfectly logical that aspects of his mind would be echoed in our own. For instance, your idea of his having a special purpose and wanting total control of all the events that would lead to his accomplishing his purpose, and of enjoying all his acts of creation, would be as typically human as our desire for variety and surprises, and our own enjoyment of creation. “You do not understand” that when you say he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, you are putting forward a perfectly reasonable probability/possibility.