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

by dhw, Tuesday, April 27, 2021, 11:28 (1096 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The continuous evolutionary process has resulted in what you called ““a huge bush, all branches and twigs in every direction”. There is not one continuous line from bacteria to humans, and that is why it is absurd to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

DAVID: There is a continuous line we can trace from bacteria to us. Just search for it. For example, mammals were there with the dinosaurs, and guess who survived.

Of course there is a continuous line. My fault for not spelling it out clearly enough. Evolution is a huge bush that spreads out in all directions – it is not one continuous line from bacteria to humans, but thousands of lines, 99% of which do NOT lead to humans.

DAVID: The giant bush comes from branches and twigs in all directions. As econiche food supply.

All econiches require food. All econiches do not supply food for humans. It is therefore absurd to claim that all life forms and econiches etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

dhw: All bushes past and present were/are necessary for food supply, but you continue to ignore your own agreement that PAST bushes were for the PAST, not the present, and extinct life has no role to play in current life.

DAVID: Surprisingly evolution has a past and a present in a continuity you insist upon chopping up into seemingly unrelated segments.

For the umpteenth time, they are not chopped up. Each of the thousands of lines is continuous, but only one of them leads to humans. Please stop making me repeat the same old answer to the same old objection, based on your distorted use of language. And please stop trying to gloss over your totally illogical theory that all 99% of the lines that had no connection with humans were part of the goal of designing humans.

dhw: … what is all this nonsense about allegory and symbolism?

DAVID: To try and help you see how blind you are about your constant humanizing of God.

dhw: How does that remove the sheer illogicality of your theory of evolution? And why should my “humanizing” be any less valid than your own, especially in the light of your agreement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and also logic similar to ours?

DAVID: Allegorically similar, but means may not be the exact same.

There is no allegory in the statement that he may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours though they may not be the same. They may be the same. Nobody knows. You build your theory on what you think are his thought patterns and logic, and your theory is illogical by human standards and maybe by his standards too. You agree that my alternatives are logical, and my logic may be the same as his. Nobody knows. But personally I’d have more faith in a theory that seems to us humans to be logical than one which seems to us humans to be illogical.

dhw: And indeed, having said that, why do you now regard it as impossible for a creator to create a conscious being which might in some way reflect his own consciousness (“in his own image”, as the Bible puts it)?

DAVID: I've never said your thought about God creating us 'in His own image' was impossible. His 'image' is fully allegorical you must agree.

You are playing with the word image. An allegory is indeed an image: The character of Giant Despair in Pilgrim’s Progress symbolizes despair. “In his own image” does not symbolize anything; it means that we resemble him in some way.

Our personal backgrounds:
(No need to repeat our earlier posts.)

DAVID: […] you are primarily atheistic in your views.

dhw: I have always accepted the logic of the design argument, as you well know, and this whole website grew out of my dissatisfaction with Dawkins’ attempts to dismiss God as a delusion. You frequently attempt to brand me atheistic in your attempts to divert attention from the illogicality of your own “humanized” and totally illogical interpretation of your God’s purposes and methods and character in relation to the history of evolution. Sorry, but I really am an agnostic. Perhaps you should read the “brief guide”, which was the starting point of this website.

DAVID: I know you are somewhat agnostic in accepting that God is perhaps possible, but there are degrees of agnostic, just as Dawkins pointed out degrees of atheism. I am not a full theist, since I try to ignore all religious opinionated teachings about God's personage. All positions have wandering/flexible boundaries of reasoning.

Theism does not depend on religion. Either you fully believe in God or you don’t. What type of God is up to you. But I agree that there are degrees of theism and atheism: anyone who has no doubts at all must be intellectually completely blind. I’d count myself as 50/50, but it doesn’t matter if you think I’m 40/60 or whatever, so long as you don’t pretend that this has a bearing on the logic of my arguments.