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

by dhw, Sunday, May 02, 2021, 12:20 (1091 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Why design a thousand branches of the bush if you only want to design one?

DAVID: Ask God. He chose to evolve us, and I don't question His reasons, although you do. [And later:] I cannot have you extract from me an answer I cannot give, nor have you impose your curiosity on me. I have simply accepted what I see God did although somehow you want more, and I can't give it. Not as dodge, a position of theistic belief.

dhw: Same old dodge. The question is not why he chose to evolve [specially design] us, but why – if we were his only goal – he chose to evolve [specially design] vast numbers of life forms, ecosystems etc. which had no connection with us. I am not questioning his reasons but your illogical theory, and clearly you have no idea why he would choose the method you impose on him in order to achieve the purpose you impose on him. But this is your fixed “theistic belief”, so we should leave it at that rather than you repeating the same string of dodges and me repeating the same string of responses to the dodges.

DAVID: Given God is the creator, and we evolved from bacteria, how can you question my theory as a dodge?

Your theory is not a dodge. The dodge is your blinkered emphasis on what we both accept – namely, that we evolved from bacteria – while you keep omitting your acceptance that all the other life forms also evolved from bacteria, 99% of them had no connection with humans, and yet you go on insisting that all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

DAVID: It doesn't fit the way you try to think about God which never appears to be a thorough exploration. I don't think you appreciate the complexity of living biochemical reactions.

My exploration leads to various alternative views. I have always totally accepted the complexity of life, which is relevant to belief in a designer but has absolutely no relevance to your theory that all species were specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why your God should choose such a method, and that is why you keep dodging. This illogical theory, however, is your fixed belief, so by all means stick to it, and let’s leave it at that.

dhw: The symbolic sense of allegory would mean that when you say God’s thoughts are of just one purpose, of having total control, of always knowing what he is doing, and of doing everything for “good” reasons, all these terms represent something other than themselves. What else could they “symbolize”? Please stop pretending that by calling your belief in these human attributes “allegorical” you can mysteriously remove their “humanized” connotations, whereas if I propose that he might possibly experiment, or learn as he goes along, or want a free-for-all as opposed to a puppet show, you try to dismiss such alternatives as “humanizing”.

DAVID: This statement misses the point. My version of God's personality, based on analyzing His total works from big Bang onward, tells me He is an exact purposeful planner with definite goals in mind. Note I must use human meanings in the words I use. I don't know if He does it for enjoyment or experimentation, your humanizing guesses. You guess, I don't try to.

Thank you for finally jettisoning your meaningless use of the word “allegorical”, which you refuse to define. We both agree that if God exists, he must have had a purpose for creating life. I have dealt with your own theory above, and I have drawn attention to all the “humanizing” aspects of your “version of God’s personality” (purposeful, always in control, knowing what he’s doing, doing it all for “the good” etc.), which fit in with your earlier acknowledgement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Nobody knows the truth, but you have agreed that all my (theistic) alternatives fit in logically with the history of life as we know it. And so I have no idea why this discussion is still going on.

DAVID: Your 'probing' questions are unanswerable, requiring guesswork beyond what we can analyze from His total works. They are your problem leading to confusion in interpreting God's actions and thus agnosticism.

My probing questions concern the logic of your particular theory of evolution, which you yourself cannot explain. I offer you alternatives which you accept as being logical. The only confusion I can discern in these discussions is your own, since you cannot find the logic behind your own theory. My agnosticism is irrelevant. All my theories allow for the existence of God. I am not an atheist.