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

by David Turell , Saturday, March 27, 2021, 17:44 (1126 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again you ignore the huge bush provides necessary food for all.

dhw: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” (D. Turell). And “extinct life has no role in current time” (D. Turell). Therefore it is clearly absurd to claim that every life form, food supply etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

Growth of the bush is part of what has been necessary throughout the development of complex forms and, especially now, vast populations of organism on a limited-sized Earth. God chose to evolve us from bacteria and you agree with some qualifications evolution from a start with bacteria is correct giving us common descent of which humans are a part of teh overall goal. From my view your bolds are all illogical distortions proving nothing.

DAVID: Your usual distortions: I clearly say we have very different views of God's personality and purposes. Your theories logically fit into type of God you seem to describe.

dhw: What distortions? Your clear statement that our views are different does not provide us with a logical explanation of why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he designed millions of life forms, food supplies, strategies etc., 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. My theories logically fit different versions of your God in with the history of life, whereas you attempt to fit the history of life into the only type of God you are prepared to imagine, and then have no idea why he would have chosen your view of his method to fulfil your view of his purpose.

I've agreed with you, your wishy-washy form of God would fit your theories. My form of God doesn't. I've stated we cannot agree about this. Relax. quit arguing, as I agree with you, we will will never reach any conclusion on the point. I believe God chose to evolve us, as history shows for His own reasons that I never would try to explain and simply accept. Logical thought can go no further.

Theodicy

dhw: Your objection to my theodicy theory is that it makes God “human”, and so I’m asking why you consider wanting total control to be less “human” than wanting a free-for-all. […]

Ad nauseum: our separate imaginations (for that is what it is) of God's personality and purposes are diametrically opposed. They will not meet. My God is strictly purposeful and in total control. Yours allows freestyle evolution. So be it.

DAVID (under “How antibiotic spores spread”): You are the humanizing theorist. Of course there is a constant war at the bacterial level. We observe it, and learn to use it by finding antibiotic molecules. We find what God put out there for us to find. Research to find the good happens all the time and we most likely find good in the 'bad'.

dhw: This does not answer my question above, which also applies to your God’s apparently deliberate design of what we consider to be “bad” bugs and viruses. My theory proposes that he did NOT deliberately design them, and so last time I complained that “you still haven’t explained why NOT deliberately creating what we consider to be “bad” makes him more human than deliberately creating “bad” things which you hope will one day turn out to be “good”".

I’d better repeat that I don’t expect you to accept my theory. But just as I dispute the logic of your own theories, I would like to know what logic underlies your attack on mine.

God designed all parts of all branches of life. I view His personality and purposefulness as very different than yours, as stated above. As above, imaginations of God start with personal logic. You are an agnostic, I'm a believer, so the starting points are different. I logically see a preponderance of evidence for God's existence, and you don't. There are some places in discussion where we must naturally remain apart. This is one of them.