Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, June 02, 2023, 17:27 (330 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

No distortion in this limited area. Of course God knew evil would appear.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

Not answered.

He obviously wanted to create a deep-thinking organism with mentation similar to His. He might want our awareness of Him and His works. What is your God's purpose?

dhw: And please tell us why a God who, in your own words, enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, could not set out with the purpose of enjoying creating things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: My God does not need to create for self-interest.

dhw: We are not talking of “need”. Since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, what is wrong with him wanting to enjoy creating things he will find interesting? Is it even reasonable to suppose that he enjoys doing something but DOESN’T actually want to do it? Please answer my now bolded question above.

Again more humanizing of your imagined God. See answer above.

DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory:[I gave two examples.] Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.

dhw: Once again, you refuse to respond. I had already told you I would tackle the theodicy problem “below”, and I will now repeat my answer in Part Two.

Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.