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

by David Turell , Friday, March 19, 2021, 15:31 (1135 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

DAVID: Total distortion of my belief, which starts with the position God CHOSE to evolve humans from bacteria, as history shows and therefore had to design all the life forms you question.

dhw: If God exists, he CHOSE to evolve (by which you mean design) every life form from bacteria. Why did he “have to” directly design the 99% of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food supply if his only purpose was to design sapiens and his food supply? What part of your belief am I “distorting”? I am asking for an explanation of your illogical version of your God’s purpose and method of achieving it. You have “no idea” why, and so you continue to dodge.

Totally disjointed reasoning. All of the steps in the evolution of humans are required steps from simple to complex. Giant bush is required for food supply for all. Against distortion of 'no idea' which applies only as to why God chose to evolve.

DAVID: I view He as fully purposeful, knows His goals, and would not allow secondhand drift of evolution.

dhw: Yes, if my theory is correct, it would mean that he did allow free rein as opposed to wanting tight control. He would, however, be fully purposeful, know his goals, and create a free-for-all system that would produce precisely the vast bush of life forms that have come and gone, 99% of which had no connection with humans, thereby at last relieving you of the burden of explaining why he would have directly designed 99% of life forms that had nothing to do with humans, although he only wanted to design humans. And – just to help you accept this marvellous solution to the dilemma you try to dodge (not to mention the problem of theodicy) – he could also have reserved the right to dabble.

Not my problem but yours. I'm perfectly logical in my thoughts starting with God as the designer of all the necessary steps of evolution as presented by history.

dhw: However, we can happily let him have his own form of “enjoyment”. So now we have God enjoying creating in his own way, and therefore it is possible that his purpose in creating life was to create something he could enjoy in his own way. Why is that deduction to be dismissed as “humanizing” whereas his enjoyment of creation in his own way is not “humanizing”. Your opposition to this theory is based on one long quibble.

DAVID: I think that comment about God almost comes very close to how I try to reason about God. The bold is your usual slip: God does not need to provide self-enjoyment.

dhw: If you agree that his purpose in creating life could have been to create something he could enjoy in his own way, then at long last I trust you will drop the silly “humanizing” objection and accept that this is a feasible theory. We cannot do more than propose feasible theories.

I'll repeat: God does not need to provide self-enjoyment for himself. You don't recognize your humanizing of God.

Theodicy
Parasites

DAVID: most parasites have a lifecycle through host animals. It is a wonder how they develop. Stepwise does not seem possible since the parasite has to depend on specific hosts to survive. Was this designed by God? And for what purpose? I'm left with pure guesswork.

dhw: So are we all, but we can add “bad” parasites to our list of “bad” bacteria and viruses, and to errors in the system that lead to “bad” diseases. And still I don’t know why you reject the feasibility of a free-for-all, which would at least rid us of the idea that he deliberately designed “bad” things which you hope will somehow prove to be “good”.

My purposeful God will not allow a secondhand drifting of evolution .

Gut immune system

DAVID: 'Good' bacteria play a vital role in our digestion, but there must be designed controls for lurking pathogens in the mix.

dhw: Yes, it’s the pathogens that are your problem.

No, my comment was to point out God has provided controls.