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

by dhw, Friday, April 23, 2021, 13:31 (104 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: What do you mean by “previously required” evolved forms? Required for what?... 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: 'Previously required' is a reference to the point every new stage of evolutionary complexity is built upon the past forms and biological processes.

We are in total agreement that all life forms except the first are descended from other life forms, and all life forms have to eat. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that every life form was specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You have yet again edited out the illogical part of your theory.

DAVID: Please stop humanizing God.

dhw: 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: Your confusions continues: All the terms I use are specifically meant as allegories. God is not human so human terms applied to him are special.

So when you “specifically” and “specially” say he had only one purpose, was always in control, knew in advance what was going to happen, is selfless, enjoys creating in his own way, and probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, do you not actually mean what you say? It’s all symbolic of…what?

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.

dhw: 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: There you go again. We don't know if God ever creates anything for His own enjoyment. Everything is done for His own reasons, presumably somehow for our benefit, since He bothered to create us. I can't go further but as in the past will offer guesses when you ask. Just don't overinterpret the ideas I give.

“There you go again.” We don’t even “know” if he exists. And yet you dare to presume it’s for our benefit, since he created us. You seem to have forgotten that in your theory he specially created every other life form as well. And this whole website revolves around different guesses concerning all the mysteries nobody has yet solved. And when you guess that your God designed all life forms for the sole purpose of designing humans and our food supply, I don’t know what there is to “overinterpret”, and I don’t know why you think it right to offer your humanized guesses about God’s intentions but somehow it’s pointless for me to offer alternatives to your own guesses on the grounds that we can’t “know” the truth.

DAVID: My current judgements about God and theism come from reading many books and articles as I started out at ground zero as a 'soft' agnostic, someone who hadn't thought about it much and His existence really didn't matter, until the question of whether it really mattered occurred to me as a decision I needed to research. I needed to come to some conclusion if what I found convinced me one way or the other. I had a neutral start, what about you?

I don’t know what this is meant to prove, but since you ask: I was brought up as a Liberal Jew, rebelled in my early teens and briefly became an atheist, was “converted” in my late teens to agnosticism by Darwin (an unusual twist, I know), read voraciously in my search for answers, but by my mid-twenties resigned myself to the fact that nobody knows any of the answers, no matter how eloquently they defend their beliefs. That does not stop me from wanting to know more – hence this website. In the early days (we started up 13 years ago), I learnt a lot from a lot of people, whereas today you are the only one of my “teachers” to have remained faithful all through! This I appreciate more than words can say. But as you will have gathered, despite the expansion of my knowledge, I still see no clear solution to any of the aforesaid mysteries!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum