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

by dhw, Sunday, May 16, 2021, 08:55 (257 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: bbb“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.”

DAVID: Both the statements are true and logically fit my theory. All lifeforms are connected by common descent, which is a continuum of emerging complexity.

So how on earth does that come to mean that every single life form that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, and every single food supply of the past was part of a magnificent plan to give food to all current life forms, in spite of the fact that 99% of past life forms and food supplies had no connection with humans?

dhw: 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: I don't need to repeat your proposals for God's thought patterns. just mentioning you think He has to experiment is enough proof.

Proof of what? Experimentation was just one of my logical theories, to offer you a possible explanation for all the life forms that had no connection with humans. […]

DAVID: […] You want to jump from bacteria to now, skipping over 3.6 billion years of life's evolution. Loss of 99% out-of-date forms is a necessary consequence of the process.

It’s you who jump from bacteria to now in your desperate effort to avoid the question bolded above. Why were the specially designed “out of date forms” necessary for the special design of humans if they had no connection with humans?

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: Bad news always makes the papers. In my medical experience, most folks just wear out.

And you think that explains why your God designed all those beautiful bacteria and viruses that can kill or cripple those poor folk who don’t just wear out.

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.

dhw: 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”.[…]

DAVID: The viral, bacterial deaths were few among my old folks.

Sorry, I hadn’t realized that doctors only dealt with old patients.

DAVID: And referring to God as a nice Guy is certainly using human terms, which is all we have. But my God doesn't have to experiment or create just for His own enjoyment.

Yes, we can only use human terms, and your humanized “nice guy” is no less human than my humanized experimental scientist or painter enjoying his own paintings (your image from an earlier post). So instead of escaping to the silly “humanization” objection, why don’t you simply acknowledge that my alternative theories (they are not beliefs) fit in with the history of life as we know it, whereas there is no logic in your combined fixed beliefs that your God designed every single life form and food supply as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum