Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 10, 2021, 16:38 (13 days ago) @ dhw

Irreducibly complex controls
DAVID: Just accept a designer and your constant confusion will disappear. All life needs a big bush of food supply.

dhw: But…yet again!...if humans were your God’s only goal, why would the designer design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans? Just accept that your designer might have had a different goal, or might NOT have individually designed every life form and food, “and your constant confusion will disappear”. [David's bold]

DAVID: I'm not confused. The bold above should be humans were God's desired endpoint using an evolutionary designed process. That is my very logical unchanging position.

dhw: Which of course is not the problem in your theory. You should have bolded the question: why would the designer design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans? And I’ll relieve you of the chore of repeating your answer, which is that I should go and ask God.

DAVID: Because, as God the creator, He can choose any method He wished and History, which He created, tells He evolved us from the first single cells.

dhw: Apparently he didn’t, because according to you, our line only started when he produced new phyla from scratch during the Cambrian. But I’m happy to support the theory that we evolved from the first single cells.

The biochemical background of the Cambrian I've discussed: underlying vital biochemical processes were perfected in the simple organisms before the more complex Cambrian was introduced. There are precursors in the sense that the these vital processes were carried forward


DAVID: I have no problem since I don't question what God presents to us.

You don’t question your interpretation of what God presents to us. Very different.

DAVID: Your problem is you use human thinking and apply it to what you think God should do.

dhw: Your problem is that you use human thinking, and find that what you think God has done does not fit in with what you think he intended to do, and that is why you answer my bolded question by telling me that you have no idea and I should ask God.

The bold is a distorted version of what you think I've done wrong. What God produced is exactly what He intended to do. God chose to evolve us. His choice, period, end of discussion, because I can't ask Him why He made that particular choice.


DAVID: You are not God and cannot enter His mind to analyze His motives.

dhw: Nor are you and nor can you. However, at least you have accepted that all my alternative answers are logical. Only your own theory leaves that question unanswered.

Unanswered only in your mind. Your alternative answers fit a highly humanized God who thinks only like a human. That is how I accept them; not a real acceptance, is it?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum