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

by dhw, Thursday, May 20, 2021, 12:07 (66 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I am NOT disputing your belief in God, but am disputing the above bolded theory. Every alternative theory of evolution that I have offered is theistic. Please stop dodging the issue.

DAVID: I'm allowed to dodge, by honestly disagreeing with your interpretations. Your theistic approaches all fit a God personality I don't believe in. I call Him humanized. You don't like it but that is my view of your God. I try to interpret His underlying motives.

The dodging concerns exactly what you are doing here. Whenever I call attention to the illogicality of your theory (which is what I bolded earlier) that God’s sole purpose was to design humans and food supply, and therefore he designed millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and our food supply, you switch to another subject – in this case my alternative theories.

dhw: […] you were pretending that we were discussing the existence of God, as if my alternative theories did not allow for his existence. I understand your Creationism. What I do not understand is why you believe that your God designed every life form on every branch of the bush of life as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, but you will stick to your illogical interpretation of his purpose and method and you reject any logical alternatives. We should leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine. My opinion all goes back to the very reasonable views expressed in Adler's book.

You have told us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, but only uses man’s exceptional gifts as evidence for God’s existence. In any case, I don't know why mention of the name Adler is supposed to explain a theory which you yourself can't explain!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum