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

by dhw, Saturday, April 17, 2021, 11:47 (1314 days ago) @ David Turell

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)?

DAVID: 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.

Repeating Adler’s name does not prove that God’s obvious purpose was to create H. sapiens, let alone that his method of doing so was first to create millions of life forms etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. It is patently absurd to say that your God “had to” specially design all these millions “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” when even you can find no direct connection.

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.”

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

You are agreeing with me! Past bushes and life forms had no connection with us! They were not “necessary” for the creation of us and our current bush! Thank you.

dhw: … 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: All part of necessary ecosystems at that time in evolution.

Fine. No connection whatsoever with our current ecosystems and our current food supply, so why did your God “have to” design them in order to design us?

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.

DAVID: 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.

You have never explained what you mean by “allegorical”. What do God, his purposes, his methods, his wishes, his possible nature symbolize? One small correction: I have never had him changing his mind in midstream. New ideas do not = mind change, so please stick to what I HAVE proposed. However, you have summed up your approach to the subject very succinctly: you never consider him having any of the humanizing thought patterns I propose. You only consider him having the humanizing thought patterns you propose: one purpose, total control, enjoyment and interest that are nothing like human enjoyment and interest...I’m sorry, but the fact that you have never considered any alternatives does not make them any less likely than the proposals which you stick to with such rigidity.