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

by dhw, Thursday, April 22, 2021, 08:52 (474 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: I edit nothing. All evolved forms come from previous required evolved forms, and the branching bush provides food for all through ecosystems. Please stop objecting to logic.

What do you mean by “previously required” evolved forms? Required for what? Yes, for those of us who believe in evolution, all evolved forms come from previous evolved forms. But you believe they were all required “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. And since 99% of them had no connection with humans, your statement is completely illogical. And yes, the bush provided and provides food for all organisms, past and present. How does that make them all part of the goal of evolving us humans and our food supply?

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.

dhw: 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: Please stop humanizing God.

Please stop assuming that your own humanization of your God is not a humanization of your God, and that although it is probable/possible that your God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, it is not probable or possible.

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: […] Where is the word certain? Just your wishful interpretations as usual.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: God does not need enjoyment, a totally human need. Accept that God creates, and suppose nothing more about His possible emotional feelings. He may have none is the best way to think about Him.

I did not use the word “need” and asked you to drop it. I have no idea why you think the best way to think about your God is to imagine that he has no thought patterns or emotions similar to ours. I don’t even know why it is so important to you to prove that he exists if you think we should all regard him as an impersonal splodge of pure energy. Why are you hoping that his creation of bad viruses and bugs will turn out to have good reasons? Why do you insist that he tried to provide us with solutions to some of the problems caused by his design of life’s systems? And if he really is so impersonal, wouldn’t that fit in far better with his allowing an evolutionary free-for-all rather than exercising total control over everything (and enjoying doing so)?

DAVID: You have reviewed all of my/our guesses about God's possible human side. All guesswork on His possible human feelings, which may fully well not exist at all. Religions tell us God loves us. How do they know? I'm not use at all and neither was Adler, a religious philosopher believer. If Adler was of that opinion, why are you?

Yes, your interpretations of a possible God’s possible purpose, along with his possible method and possible desire for total control and possible selflessness and possible lack of feelings are guesswork, as are all my alternatives. I didn’t know that Adler was the ultimate authority on all things connected with God, but I only know his beliefs through you, so it’s your guesswork that we are discussing.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum