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

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 17:28 (1129 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution and alternatives

DAVID: Same logical answer starting with the belief God is the Creator, creating all His actions as history shows. We came evolved by His design from bacteria. Therefore He chose to evolve us through all the 99% extinct stages of development. You still imply why not direct creation? You'll have to ask God why. I don't know that answer.

dhw: Let us not forget that you believe your God personally designed every species, econiche, strategy etc. What do you mean by “stages of development” here? Please tell us how he designed us “through” the brontosaurus, or how the brontosaurus was a “stage of development” in his design of humans, or how the brontosaurus was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans", bearing in mind that you have told us there is no connection between us and the brontosaurus. If you can’t explain it, then please let’s accept that this illogical theory is your belief, and leave it at that.

The only 'belief' involved is God as creator used evolution to produce today's organisms, us included. The brontosaurus connection is the part you won't accept. The development of the huge bush of life food supply. For example I've eaten zebra in Africa, whale steak in Japan. kangaroo in Australia, and alligator here. All entirely logical following the acceptance of God.

DAVID: You are discussing points about God with a person who firmly believes He exists. I don't need further proof, but you do.

dhw: In ALL our discussions concerning evolution and theodicy, I have allowed for the existence of God (you can’t discuss theodicy without doing so). You have asked me not to dig further than his existence as Creator, but you yourself constantly hammer out your own preconceptions about his purpose, his methods of achieving his purpose, what he wants and doesn’t want etc. And when I question your logic, you tell me to stop digging, and when I propose logical alternatives you tell me that they are not proven – as if only your interpretations can possibly be correct.

As I keep telling you each of our concepts about God are wildly and widely different. Lets leave it at that.

Theodicy

DAVID: Same old point. My view of God's personality is diametrically opposed to yours.

dhw: That is not an answer. Your only criticism of my proposal is that it ”humanizes” God. Why is a God who wants total control less “human” than a God who wants a free-for-all?

dhw: ...you said that he gave us our giant brains so that we could correct the errors he hadn’t corrected. Why do you think he wanted us to correct the errors?

DAVID: Strange question for what purpose? God certainly does not want/like the errors (just as you don't) and wishes they didn't exist, but He knows we can solve many of them with our huge God-given brain, those that escape His corrective editing mechanisms He created.

dhw: And there you go again, telling us what your God does or doesn’t want/like. Now look at this immensely revealing comment of yours under “How antibiotic spores spread”.

DAVID: The war between organisms is a permanent part of living. These are very complex molecules that well could have been designed by God.

dhw: So it may well be that your God designed the whole of life because he wanted precisely what we see: a war between organisms. In the context of theodicy, a war between good and evil. I’ll refrain from further comment until you have made your own comments on the possibility you have presented us with.

Of course there has to be a war. Everyone has to eat. Good and evil are human concepts. God may view it differently than Moses' proposed Ten Commandments. Just as humans propose badly designed organs that are really excellent in design.