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

by dhw, Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 13:33 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God designed all stages of evolution to reach the most complex form of all, the human brain. The huge bush of life is required to give the required food supply. All must eat.

dhw: Why are you using the word “stage” here? Was every life form on every diverging branch of life’s bush, plus every econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., 99% of which had no connection with the human brain.... And yes, all must eat, but how does that mean that the azharchid pterosaur’s breakfast was part of the goal of designing your breakfast? Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You are the dodger!!! Humans are clearly the endpoint of a continuous process that went through consecutive stages.

But what about all the other life forms which also went through consecutive stages, since they all originated from bacteria, but 99% of which HAD NO CONNECTION WITH HUMANS? You continue to edit out those bits of your theory that make no sense. Please, please stop it.

DAVID: Any similarity to our thinking must stay at the level of a possible presumption and seen always as allegorical.

dhw: If you say his interests “may not” be like ours, then you are implicitly acknowledging that they may be – and that is all I ask of you. “Possible presumption” is meaningless, since “presumption” means something you already believe is true. The theory must stay at the level of possibility, since no one can actually know. “Allegorical” is meaningless unless you can tell us what God’s way of thinking symbolizes.

DAVID: Your total misunderstanding of the allegorical needs causes much of our debate about God.

What allegorical “needs”? What does God’s possible motive, purpose and possible method of achieving his purpose symbolize? […]

DAVID: All we can see is results. God's own views must be approached allegorically, which you fiercely resist as it severely limits your desired humanization of God.

The results are a vast diversity of life forms, natural wonders etc., 99% of which are extinct, with humans as the latest species to appear. That’s it. But you keep telling us that your God’s only purpose was humans, that he knew everything in advance, that he was always in control (except when he wasn’t), that he is selfless etc. You fiercely resist any alternative view of him. You are severely limited in your desired humanization of your God. And you still haven’t explained what any of these humanized attributes symbolize.

DAVID: […] We can try to make humanizing guesses, all of which are allegorical from the start. Remember we humans always try to satisfy ourselves, while God is selfless.

dhw: Um….how do you know God is selfless? You are certain that he enjoys creation...

DAVID: Why do you twist my opinions about God? I said it is possible, even probable, He enjoys creating or He might stop, but on the other hand He doesn't feel a need for enjoyment so it isn't likely He would ever stop for any reason. Where is the word certain? Just your wishful interpretations as usual.

Your exact words (I quoted them on March 9) were: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.” Your usual authoritative statement. No possible or probable. But even if you now wish to dilute that to possible or probable, you have not answered my question about selflessness, and in your next response you still refuse to tell us why his possible/probable enjoyment of creation could not possibly provide a motive for his creating life in the first place.

dhw: …so why do you regard it as impossible that he should create things because he wants (forget “needs”) to create something he will enjoy? Of course we don’t “know” anything – we don’t even know if he exists. But if you can make “humanizing guesses”, then so can I.

DAVID: Nothing above in my statement humanizes God, notice? I simply enforced His selflessness. Why don't you try it?

“Enforced his selflessness”? HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD IS SELFLESS? You have even speculated in the past that he created our special brains so that we could recognize him and admire his works. And how can you claim you are not humanizing your God when you say he has only one purpose, wants total control, and you think he must have good reasons for creating bad things? And when you tell us that he is “full of purposeful activity to create what he desires [your word] to create”, how can you assume that although he desires to create and probably/possibly enjoys creating certain things, he is not motivated by the desire to create things he will enjoy creating?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum