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

by dhw, Sunday, April 18, 2021, 12:44 (1105 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [...] If God chose to evolve us from bacteria, you have described the exact history of what had to happen. Adler and I have shown God's obvious purpose. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Repeating Adler’s name does not prove that God’s obvious purpose was to create H. sapiens, let alone that his method of doing so was first to create millions of life forms etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. It is patently absurd to say that your God “had to” specially design all these millions “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” when even you can find no direct connection.

DAVID: Same repeated illogical position. God didn't have to do anything. but as Creator He chose to evolve us. History is a result of God's creation. A study of history solves your confusion.

See above for another "had to". Three days ago:
dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, that is exactly what he had to do starting from bacteria, as history shows.

On Friday I asked you why azhdarchid pterosaur “had to” be designed in order for your God to specially design H. sapiens and our specially designed food supply, and was told that it was “all part of necessary ecosystems at that time” – i.e. no connection with our human time! A study of history shows that there is nothing but confusion in your theory of evolution.

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

dhw: You simply refuse to listen to yourself! Here we go yet again. In your own words (including the capital letters): “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: Different bushes for different consecutive periods after periods. Do dinosaurs play with us now?

dhw: You are agreeing with me! Past bushes and life forms had no connection with us! They were not “necessary” for the creation of us and our current bush! Thank you.

DAVID: No thank you. Past bushes are not time connected, but connected as stages in progressive evolution.

Please explain how azhdarchid pterosaur and his food bush are connected “as stages” with H. sapiens and our food bush.

DAVID: I view God in fully allegorical terms, as explained, but I never consider Him experimenting, […] looking for things to enjoy, wanting a free-for-all without a purposeful end point, all humanizing proposals.

dhw: You have never explained what you mean by “allegorical”. What do God, his purposes, his methods, his wishes, his possible nature symbolize? […] However, you have summed up your approach to the subject very succinctly: you never consider him having any of the humanizing thought patterns I propose. You only consider him having the humanizing thought patterns you propose: one purpose, total control, enjoyment and interest that are nothing like human enjoyment and interest...I’m sorry, but the fact that you have never considered any alternatives does not make them any less likely than the proposals which you stick to with such rigidity.

DAVID: Allegorical has a meaning that never changes. When I say God thinks it doesn't mean He thinks like we do, but in a God-like way. His interests may not be like our interests. The difference must always be recognized.

Thank you for using the word “may”. This quite rightly leaves open the possibility that his interests and his thinking “may” be like ours. The possibility “must always be recognized”.

DAVID: I have to use human words and their meanings in our sense but God is different and the words are not fully adequate. I think you have never recognized this issue in its fullest sense which results in your constant humanizing.

Of course if your God exists, he is different. But when you say he had only one purpose (us), knew exactly what he was doing, was always in control, may have had a good reason for designing bad bacteria and viruses etc., in what way do you think the meanings of these words might be different from what we mean by having one purpose, knowing what we’re doing, always being in control, and maybe having good reasons for our actions? If it’s OK for you to use such human terms, why is not OK for me to use human terms that denote something contrary to your human terms?