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

by dhw, Sunday, March 07, 2021, 17:11 (1147 days ago) @ David Turell

Reptile and mammal backbones

dhw: Common descent does not mean that every life form in history was designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Why would your God have designed lizards if all he wanted to do was design humans? Possible explanation offered by you a couple of weeks ago: “He seems to me full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves”. That makes sense. He desired to create them. Not he created them as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. And it is heartening to find you suggesting that God has desires, and it even seems to you that he has a desire in common with some of us humans – the desire to create. If only you would pursue your own idea, it might even lead to you admitting the possibility (as you did once before) that your God might enjoy his work as a painter enjoys his paintings. And it might even lead you to agree that since you are sure that he watches his creations with interest, he might have created them in order to have something that would interest him.

DAVID: Thank you for your long review clarifying past discussions. I'm sure God enjoys His work at creating. I'm sure He started with goals in mind. He obviously eschewed direct creations and chose evolution for the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and finally for living organisms. He has never shown His reasons for using evolving processes. We must accept what He obviously has chosen to do to reach His goals. Very unusual exceptional H. sapiens is a standout example of an obvious goal.

I’m delighted that you are sure God enjoys creating. And of course he would have started with goals in mind. And I see no reason why you should reject the possibility that one of his goals was to enjoy creating. Yes, if he exists, he obviously used evolution to fulfil whatever his purpose(s) might have been, and yes, we must accept what he chose to do to reach his goals. And I have no problem at all accepting that humans could have been one of his goals. And I am doubly delighted that you appear to have dropped the suggestion that H. sapiens was his one and only goal, and your review of your own position no longer insists that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. This at long last relieves you of the burden of trying to explain why he designed lizards and brontosauruses when his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. We are close to agreement at last.

Viruses

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Where we initially differ in our views of God's personage there can be no agreement. I can't change your humanizing view, and you won't change mine.

hw: Do please tell us your view of God’s “personage”. By that I don’t mean tell us what you think your God is NOT, but tell us what you think your God IS.

DAVID: Very purposeful, very logical, creating what He wishes but never for His own enjoyment or self-interest. Never for human desires.

I did ask you not to tell us what you think he is NOT. And once again I am at a loss as to why you are certain that he enjoys his creative work and also that he watches the results with interest, and yet you discount the possibility that one of his goals might have been to create things that he would enjoy creating and would be able to watch with interest. Of course I agree that he must be very purposeful and logical. And if one of his purposes was to design the exceptional H. sapiens, do please tell us (or rather repeat) what you think was his purpose in designing us. Thank you.