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

by David Turell , Thursday, April 15, 2021, 19:06 (1108 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You implication, as over the years, is obviously why didn't God directly create us? The answer is a large bush of food supply, but perhaps you wish He snapped His fingers and bush and humans appeared presto all at once.

dhw: There is no direct connection between 99% of past food bushes and our food bush...I am not promoting the Genesis view of creation, in which God snaps his fingers etc. I believe in evolution. But I do not believe that if God exists, he would have specially designed millions of life forms and food bushes etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans, in order to specially design one life form and its food bush.

If God chose to evolve us, that is exactly what He had to do starting from bacteria, as history shows. Do you want to change history to fit your views?

dhw: Our specialness does not explain why their specialness somehow makes them “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”!

DAVID: Your usual total distortion of my thoughts! Evolution of us required each step, but the unexplained amazing giant step was our bodily dexterity and our special brain, not anticipated in apes. We are of a special design. Evolution works is steps, small and giant.

dhw: So how does that come to mean that the brontosaurus, which had no direct connection with humans, was “part of the goal of evolving (= specially designing) humans”. This is not a distortion but a quotation. 99% of the small steps and the giant steps were irrelevant, if – as you have just told us – your God SPECIALLY DESIGNED our amazing dexterity and brain!

All early branches evolved into the necessary current giant bush of food supply.

DAVID: The suppositions you present above about God apply only to a very human God, unsure of Himself.

dhw: Dealt with in the previous post: purposeful experimentation and openness to new ideas do not mean “unsure of himself”. And neither of these is more human than wanting full control.

God has full control to to advance evolution He cannot give it up, or humans might not appear

DAVID: Free will is part of His design of special humans. His control over evolution had to be precise and giving up free will is not comparable, as you strain to create the impression it somehow applies to our discussion.

dhw: Free will is an example of his willingness to give up control. If he wanted a free-for-all, then he did not want precise control of evolution!

God has full control to to advance evolution. He cannot give it up, or humans might not appear. God is not human in any way.

Ed Feser’s take
dhw: I’m sorry, but I’m going to opt out of this. […]

DAVID: Fine. I had hoped you might learn how not to humanize God by studying how theists see Him. It forms my views.

dhw: I would expect you to be able to defend your views without asking me to read somebody else’s views.

I gave you snippets of Feser's philosophy/theology to show my thinking. I've read many theologians and their concept of God. We've discussed the allegorical necessity in describing Him. You do not understand how you humanize Him when you give us your idea about His thoughts and purposes.