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

by dhw, Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 10:39 (458 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not have a fixed belief, but offer various alternatives, all of which you have acknowledged ARE logical.

DAVID: Logical only if your humanized form of God is recognized.

dhw: And who can possibly know whether your God has thought patterns and emotions and other attributes similar to ours, and what these might be? You think he’s a control freak and a know-all with a one-track mind (single purpose: to design H. sapiens). This leads to the illogical theory below. At least my “humanized” alternatives make sense even to you, whereas you can’t find a logical pattern to explain your own “humanized” theory.

DAVID: I wish you would repeat my theories honestly. I agree your God theories are logical only if we imagine a very humanized, very weak, namby-pamby God, who wanders around without strict purposes to follow.

“I wish you would repeat my theories honestly.” In none of my alternatives does God wander around without a strict purpose. Creation for enjoyment is a purpose in itself, and I don’t know why you regard that as weak or namby-pamby, or any more humanized than your know-all control freak. And I do not see it as weakness for an alternative God to experiment or learn as he goes along and to open himself up to new experiences.

DAVID: My strongly determined form of God produced the exact result He wanted if you accept humans are a most unusual result based on your theory (and Darwin) that the drive for survival is the supreme force behind evolution. We are evolved way beyond simple survival needs.

The developments “beyond simple survival needs” are comparatively very recent in terms of hominin/homo evolution, but I have never disputed the claim that we are exceptional, and I have even offered you two theories that allow for this part of your own (experimentation, or new ideas).

dhw: We cannot even “know” whether God exists, but at least if we have a theory about how evolution developed, we should be able to make it logically coherent.

DAVID: We do. First came Archaea, our direct ancestors. We can trace the bush all the way back by uncoding the genetics of Archaeal Histone processes, simpler than ours but similar.

But ours is only ONE branch of the thousands and thousands of branches which are the problem for your theory that ALL life forms, econiches etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” That is the illogical heart of your theory of evolution, and your next response is yet another blatant evasion:

dhw: This dispute is over your own fixed belief that in order to design the only thing he wanted to design (humans and their food supply), your God designed millions of life forms, econiches, food supplies, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I don't have to modify anything to keep a logical theory, which is at its base, the realization that biological designs we see are too complex for chance formation. A designing mind is required. I call it God to be consistent with current monotheistic religions in Western civilization, noting the Eastern religions take a different approach. When you and I discuss how that mind might think and plan we enter a territory where we must use words applied to human thought and that adds to the confusion that occurs in our discussions.

The design argument, the name “God”, and the use of human terms are not the problem, and you know it! The problem, for the thousandth time, is the illogicality of your claim that your God designed every single life form, econiche etc. as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, although 99% of those life forms etc, had no connection with humans.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum