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

by dhw, Monday, May 17, 2021, 13:05 (1284 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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?

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

Discussion becomes impossible if you simply ignore the issue and try to create straw man after straw man as you have done here. It’s not worthy of you. As you know perfectly well, I agree that evolution is a continuum from bacteria to millions of life forms etc. and from simple to complex. But these branch out in a vast bush, and 99% of the branches – all of which you claim were individually designed by your God – had no connection with humans or with humans’ food supply, i.e. they were not “necessary” for the design of humans and their food supply, which you insist were your God’s one and only goal. This you have acknowledged: “Extinct life has no role in current time” and: “The current bush is for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” It is therefore illogical to claim that your God specially designed all past life forms and food bushes, including the 99% that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” You have no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Please stop pretending that your combined theories are logical, and please stop manufacturing straw men to divert attention away from your illogicality. You have done the same in the exchanges under “Theodicy” and “subterranean extremophiles”, which forces me to repeat the same arguments.

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?

DAVID: 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.

Please stop dodging! I am not questioning your belief in God as the Creator. I am questioning your logic concerning his possible purpose and method for creating life and evolution. The alternative theories that I present are no more “humanizing” than your own – the “nice guy” who has a single purpose, knows what he wants from the very beginning, wants and has total control (except when he doesn’t), and probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to our own (but can only have those you think he has and can’t possibly have any others). And finally, I do not disbelieve in God. I am an agnostic: I neither believe nor disbelieve, and this has no bearing whatsoever on the logic of my various alternative theistic theories of evolution or on my arguments concerning your fixed belief in your own illlogical theistic theory of evolution.