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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 14:42 (447 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have repeated your same tired complaints. I don't ignore them. I don't pretend. I totally disagree and view the process of evolution in a totally different way than you do. I believe in God and believe He ran the process of evolution by designing each new step. God is not a strawman.

dhw: And you have repeated your same tired evasions. When have I ever said God is a straw man, and when have I ever questioned your belief in God? Even your belief that he “designed each new step” is not in itself the problem, though it is sometimes hard to reconcile it with your belief in common descent. The “tired complaint” is your continued refusal to recognize the fact that your belief in your God’s specially designing every single life form etc. on every single branch of life’s great bush, also illogically entails every one of them being “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food supply, although 99% of those life forms etc. had no connection with humans or our food supply.

We disagree on how to interpret the process of evolution from the position a belief in God. I have reached a logical conclusion God must exist, you haven't. So we begin our discussion from two different mindsets. Not surprising we will never agree. I have intention to change my viewpoint for yours. Remember, I view your agnosticism as illogical, but I don't ask you to change.

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.

dhw: 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 illogical theistic theory of evolution.

DAVID: I won't change my developed views of God and how He designed evolution. You have every right to imagine any form of God you wish. I do not recognize your description of God's thinking as representing the vision of God I have. Accept that we fully disagree.

dhw: Of course my various alternatives (all of which you agree fit in logically with life’s history) present different visions of God and his thinking, and you also have every right to imagine any form of God you wish. The purpose of this forum is to discuss all views and to test their likelihood. That is what we are doing, but the process is not helped by straw men and evasions.

Same answer as above. We do not interpret the process of evolution in similar ways. My view of God is hands on and designing each step.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum