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

by dhw, Monday, March 22, 2021, 12:12 (1132 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives
DAVID: […] God chose to evolve us from initial bacteria, and provided the huge bush of life to feed all, especially the huge present human population. A major tenet of mine: God designs in anticipation of need.

God, if he exists, chose to evolve ALL forms of life from bacteria, though you say he directly designed them all, and again you omit to mention that 99% of extinct organisms had no connection with us or our food supply, although according to you, we and our food supply were his one and only purpose. The huge bush of life fed ALL 99% of the unconnected extinct organisms – not just “especially the huge present human population”. Your major tenet does not explain the bold above. Please stop this silly dodging game.

DAVID: Humans were His goal and He chose to evolve us from bacteria. You still illogically imply God should have used direct creation.

dhw: The same as above: why have you edited out the 99% of dead species which your God chose to directly design even though they had no connection with us?

DAVID: Not edited out. What are you smoking? Your same implied illogical idea that God should have directly created us. I taught you about the 99% loss of previous necessary stepwise species.

I did not say he should have directly created us. I’m challenging the illogicality of the bold above, though elsewhere I have offered you various alternatives, which you accept as logical. Whatever you may or may not have taught me does not explain the illogicalities of your theory.
[…]
DAVID: We use allegorical words to define God, and you use the words as distinctly human in meaning.

dhw: I cannot for the life of me see how words like “desire”, “like” and “enjoy” can be “allegorical”. Please explain what they symbolize, and in what way your God’s desire to design humans is allegorical.

DAVID: That desire is not allegorical, but words that describe God Himself or His person attributes must be allegorical.

Transferred from “Miscellany”: just over a month ago you wrote,: “His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires”. I would certainly agree that he is unlikely to have human desires for sex, money, chocolate etc, but you later wrote: “He seems to me to be full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves”. I can well imagine him desiring to create, and have no idea why - even though you are certain that he has that desire - he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he had the desire to create.

DAVID: I'm glad you alone have the ability to find my old quotes so easily.

So should I ignore what you write today because in a month’s time you’ll have changed your mind?

DAVID: Your logic has no flaw once you have established primarily how human God seems to be to you.

If it is OK for you to be sure that your God has the desire to create and likes/enjoys creating, why is it excessively “human” to propose that this might be a reason why he does his creating?

DAVID: I can't allow you to change my image of God or challenge my logic. Please try to remember we have no common ground when it comes to thinking abut God's personality.

I’m not sure what image you have of your God, but you are certain that he is purposeful and likes/enjoys creating, and this can be regarded as common ground between us. And so I have no idea why you refuse to accept his desire to create as a possible purpose for his creating things he likes/enjoys creating. Please explain.

Theodicy
DAVID: Yes you theory is logical for fully humanized God.

dhw: The God I offer as an alternative deliberately designs a free-for-all which results in “good” things as well as “bad” things. What makes your God less “human” than the one I am proposing?

DAVID: My God differs. As totally purposeful in creation He is fully hands-on and in full control of how evolution develops according to his plans.

I know. Why is that less human than a God who is totally purposeful in creating a free-for-all?

DAVID: God cannot control nor did He invent 'evil' in humans. They did. As for evil bugs, it is our interpretation and they may have a rational use, which we will discover. Alternatively they are a challenge to be solved by our God-given brilliant brains.

dhw: May I suggest that […] he could have controlled them if he wanted to, but he preferred to give them free rein. Everything we say about God […] is our “interpretation”. Your vague “may have” is no more likely than my concrete proposal. Out of interest, why do you think your God would want to set us a challenge?

DAVID: Fully covered in the past discussions: He gave us our giant brains so we could research and correct some of the errors He knew would happen in a biochemical living system in which free- acting molecules might make mistakes.

Mistakes which he himself couldn’t correct! So why do you think he wanted us to correct the errors in the system he created?