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

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 16, 2021, 15:44 (158 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

The difference is I see evolution from bacteria as a necessary continuum from simple forms to complex and your illogical complaint disconnects the process.


Theodicy

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.


dhw: 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?

My belief in God as the Creator is not at the same level as your humanizing theorizing while disbelieving. I logically chose this leap of faith long ago.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum