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

by dhw, Saturday, May 15, 2021, 12:43 (1286 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you, the life form that arrived last was the only reason why he created all the life forms that had no connection with humans. That is not history. If God only wanted to design humans, why did he design the 99% first?

Twice more you have answered: “Food for all”:

DAVID: My view of God has Him fully understanding the necessities of creation in a very full interlocking ecosystem of life, as represented by what we have called the bush of life, to provide the nutrients of life for all. Current events tell us we are approaching eight billion of us. We have to eat!!! What would you think of a God who allowed us to starve? […]
And under “Bird and seed distribution”
DAVID: All ecosystems play an enormous role in a stabilized ecology to support an enormous human population. 99% of all evolutionary forms are gone but required in the process of creating this giant bush of life in its interacting and interlocking forms. I view it as a magnificent plan by God to offer a stabilized system for all of current life forms to have a broad access for food.

You just can’t stop putting two and two together and making five. Yes, the human population requires lots of ecosystems to sustain it. No, the 99% of ecosystems which supported all the life forms that have now disappeared and had no connection with humans were, in your own words, NOT necessary to support an enormous human population: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms,” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Please stop pretending that your Alice in Wonderland nonsense about past food bushes being “for” present day humans and life forms is God’s logic.

dhw: There are plenty of alternative THEISTIC explanations for the WHOLE history and even for humans being the latest (not necessarily the last) to arrive, all of which you agree make perfect sense: experimentation, getting new ideas as he goes along, enjoyment of creation for its own sake, wanting a free-for-all […] Your only objection to them is that they present a “humanized” image of your God which is different from your own “humanized” image of your God.

DAVID: Same problem: we differ 180 degrees on who God should be. Yours represents pure humanizing thoughts about Him.

See below for your God, the humanized “nice guy” (who designed deadly viruses and bacteria). See elsewhere for your agreement that your God possibly/probably has thought patterns similar to ours, and for the various human thought patterns that you attribute to him. This silly “humanization” argument remains the only objection you can find to my logical alternatives to your illogical theory.

DAVID: God created us just as He wanted to, despite your judgement He shouldn't have. Contrary to you, I don't judge God. I accept what He has obviously done.

dhw: Wrong, wrong, wrong. If God exists, he would have created the whole bush of life just as he wanted to. My judgement does not relate to God but to your totally illogical theory of a combined purpose and method that you yourself cannot explain.

DAVID: I don't have to explain God's reasons!!! I accept His works, to which you give lip service, as usual, above in the bold.

His works (if he exists) are what we know. And the illogical reasons you give for the billions of years of works in the shape of ever changing ecosystems and life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans, are 1) that all 99% were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” although they had no connection with humans and 2) “We have to eat!!!” although 99% of the food supplies had no connection with humans.

Theodicy
Needle design
dhw: I suspect there were other animals before us who had the privilege and pleasure of being infected by these bacteria so beautifully designed by your God, and you have not explained why a God who does everything “for the good” would have designed life forms whose purpose is to cause what we consider to be horrendous diseases.

DAVID: God gave us the brain to conquer them. Have you noticed, most humans die of old age, wearing out?

I don’t have the statistics, but quite apart from premature deaths caused by human greed, lust for power and sheer stupidity, I keep encountering and reading about premature deaths caused by disease and by natural disasters. For some reason these don’t seem to figure in your list of God’s works by which we are supposed to get to know him.

DAVID (under “religions’ effects”): I was clear enough in my childhood thinking to recognize Bible stories about God as inventive 'stories' and God was a nice guy.

What a delightful “humanization”! And when you became a doctor and tried to help those who were not dying of old age but were dying or suffering because of the viruses and bacteria your God had designed so beautifully, I hope they were consoled by your reassurance that your humanized God is a “nice guy”.
(NB: I prefer to refrain from any such blanket "humanized" judgements, but confine myself to alternative theories concerning a possible God's possible nature.)