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

by dhw, Friday, March 05, 2021, 12:03 (1149 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion of my statement, which, again is only I don't know why He made the choice to evolve, vs. direct creation. You don't understand His choice either. I follow the real history that He evolved everything organism) we know about. And I have explained the need for a giant food supply. Just accept it.

dhw: How can I accept such a truncated version of your beliefs, which leaves out every part that renders your theory illogical? Firstly, you have him directly creating every life form, econiche etc. Your sop to evolution is that his preprogrammming or dabbling is carried out on existing species (i.e. common descent). Secondly, yes, every organism evolved, but according to you , every organism that he directly designed was “part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans”. But 99% of the organisms had no connection with humans , so how can they have been part of the goal? And lastly, our giant food supply has no connection with the giant food supply required in the past. You know all this, you can’t explain it, and so all you can do is dodge it.

DAVID: it is your confused view I dodge. God ran evolution and did created all species in my view, with the final goal of producing humans. Exactly as the history He produced shows. You only accept God 'might' have done this and doubt his method.

You have repeated your belief that your God directly designed all species and that his goal was to design humans. This is not history! History only tells us that there have been millions of life forms etc., and humans are the last known species so far. If God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that this is what he wanted to produce. It is totally unreasonable to tell us that his purpose was to design humans and therefore he designed millions of life forms that had no connection with humans. You are determined to dodge this illogicality.

Reptile and mammal backbones

QUOTE: 'Lizards and mammals diverged from one another millions of years ago and they've each gone on their own evolutionary journey. We show that living lizards don't represent any sort of ancestral morphology or function that the two groups would have had in common so long ago."

DAVID: A clear exposition of the continuity in evolutionary changes, but dhw objects to this process finally leading to humans.

dhw: You could hardly have provided us with a clearer exposition of the fact that there is no continuity. You should perhaps read the articles you so kindly provide us with.

DAVID: Here we go again on opposite sides. I read the article as continuity and you don't see it.

dhw: When someone says lizards and mammals went their own way and have no morphology or function in common, I don’t know how you can take that as evidence of continuity.

DAVID: Every part of evolution has side branches, which creates the 'bush'. All the original roots are the same.

Yes indeed. Now please tell us how lizards could have been “part of the goal to evolve [= directly design] humans”, if they went their own way and they had/have no morphology or function in common with us mammals.

Viruses

DAVID: I'm pointing out to you, we both have very different views of God's personage and how He acquires His purposes. What you have proposed about God's actions are logical if He is a humanized person.

dhw: Why have you used the word “person”? What I have proposed is a view of your God’s purpose and method which entails thought patterns and logic similar to ours. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that your God may have thought patterns and logic similar to ours. So what is your problem with my logical theory?

DAVID: It involves a humanized God, a problem you do not recognize.

dhw: It involves thought patterns we may have in common. There is no problem except your refusal to accept that a logical theory is logical, on the grounds that it does not fit in with your image of your God.

DAVID: Why should I accept your imagined God? We differ widely in His personality.

You do not have to accept my theory. I am only asking you to give me reasons for your rejection – just as I give you my reasons for rejecting your own theories. What is the point of discussing these subjects if we do not discuss possible explanations and why these do or do not stand up to analysis?