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

by David Turell , Friday, April 16, 2021, 22:35 (1315 days ago) @ dhw

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?

dhw: 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)?

Nonsense. If God chose to evolve us from bacteria, you have described the exact history of what had to happen. Adler and I have shown God's obvious purpose.

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

dhw: 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.”

Different bushes for different consecutive periods after periods. Do dinosaurs play with us now?

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

All part of necessary ecosystems at that time in evolution

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.

dhw: 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?

See below:

Ed Feser’s take

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

dhw: 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.

I view God in fully allegorical terms, as explained, but I never consider Him experimenting, changing His mind in mid stream as you do, looking for things to enjoy, wanting a free-for-all without a purposeful end point, all humanizing proposals