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

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 18, 2021, 16:31 (20 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: On Friday I asked you why azhdarchid pterosaur “had to” be designed in order for your God to specially design H. sapiens and our specially designed food supply, and was told that it was “all part of necessary ecosystems at that time” – i.e. no connection with our human time! A study of history shows that there is nothing but confusion in your theory of evolution.

Your confused view of evolution as chopped in segments continues. There is a continuous flow from one early step to the next more advanced stage. The azhdarchid pterosaur had some DNA similar to ours, so we work with similar genome codes, so explain how you manage to believe in common descent if we can't have some relationship?

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: No thank you. Past bushes are not time connected, but connected as stages in progressive evolution.

dhw: Please explain how azhdarchid pterosaur and his food bush are connected “as stages” with H. sapiens and our food bush.

The flow of the theory of evolution as common descent explained above, while you continue to split up the flow of evolution into segments.


DAVID: Allegorical has a meaning that never changes. When I say God thinks it doesn't mean He thinks like we do, but in a God-like way. His interests may not be like our interests. The difference must always be recognized.

dhw: Thank you for using the word “may”. This quite rightly leaves open the possibility that his interests and his thinking “may” be like ours. The possibility “must always be recognized”.

The bold does not necessarily follow. The difference must be consistently recognized. Any similarity to our thinking must stay at the level of a possible presumption and seen always as allegorical.


DAVID: I have to use human words and their meanings in our sense but God is different and the words are not fully adequate. I think you have never recognized this issue in its fullest sense which results in your constant humanizing.

dhw: Of course if your God exists, he is different. But when you say he had only one purpose (us), knew exactly what he was doing, was always in control, may have had a good reason for designing bad bacteria and viruses etc., in what way do you think the meanings of these words might be different from what we mean by having one purpose, knowing what we’re doing, always being in control, and maybe having good reasons for our actions? If it’s OK for you to use such human terms, why is not OK for me to use human terms that denote something contrary to your human terms?

Of course we must use our terms. There are no others. The God you describe is not sure of Himself, experimenting, wanting free-for-all to advance evolution from one lower stage to a higher one, no goal in sight. It is not the terms we both use, it is your giving God your humanized thinking applied to him.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum