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

by dhw, Thursday, May 06, 2021, 12:48 (1087 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I recognized there were different time frames for different segments of evolutionary history. I won't move on as long as you insist upon a segmented history of evolution as you try to tell me I am illogical, when you are.

dhw: You recognize different times for different segments, but you don’t recognize different segments, and that is supposed to be logical. I have never used the word “segments” anyway – that was another of your straw men. I use “branches”, because evolution is a continuous process of life forms branching out in different directions from their bacterial “roots”, but 99% of those branches (plus food supply) had no connection with humans, although – with an illogicality which you continually try to dodge – you claim that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

DAVID: Same old, same old. I am referring to time segments which I know includes huge new branching's.

Same old, same old. You accused me of segmenting evolution, but evolution, like time, is a continuum. And since you know that it branched off in all directions, why do you persist in telling us that every branch “was part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans", when 99% of the branches had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Now is not then. Humans now need the huge branching bush for food.

Now is indeed not then. Humans do not need the huge branching bushes of food that PRECEDED their existence!

DAVID: Earlier humans, and before humans, eating animals needed an adequate bush of some necessary size for that period.

Yes, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, so why do you persist in telling us that the huge bushes of the past were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans?” Please stop this silly dodging game so that we can put an end to the repetition.

DAVID: You have never understood how your free-for-all loving, experimenting God is weak and purposeless and not acceptable to me as a valid view of God. We will never agree on it. And:
DAVID: Your logical humanized God is a weak form of the God I envision. Please accept our Gods are totally different and we can move on.

dhw: Of course I understand that my alternatives are not acceptable to you because you already have a fixed vision of your God. I do not understand why you think you have a monopoly on “humanizing” guesswork, and I do not understand why you should consider alternative purposes as “purposeless”! And why should I accept your highly personal judgement that allowing freedom of choice, or experimenting, or learning new things constitute weakness – especially when you agree that all of these fit in logically with the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: I've agreed your very humanized God fits your theories logically. We can leave it at that. The initial premise each of us has about God differs and we will always differ.

dhw: Another dodge and distortion which I cannot accept. In my alternative theories, my “humanized” God always fits in logically with the history of life. In your own theory, bolded above, your “humanized” God does not fit in logically with the history of life, but that is what you believe and so we can leave it at that.

DAVID: The bold is your confused and seemingly forced misinterpretation. It is logical my God knew humans would become a huge population and needed a huge current bush for food. Yours should also.

It is not logical that your God created millions of past food bushes that had no connection with humans if his only purpose was to provide a food bush for humans.

DAVID: Evolution is God's continuum from God's designed start of life with Archaea to finally introduce sapiens. With your skewed theistic hat you never see the sort of God I do. That difference will continue the discussion. The 99% gone are necessarily gone. But you must admit they played a necessary design role.

Evolution in your theory is not ONE continuum from Archeae to humans, but thousands of branches, only ONE of which is a continuum from Archaea to humans. I do not admit that the 99% of life forms which had no connection with humans were necessary for your God to design humans!!! You have admitted that you have no idea why he chose to design humans by first designing millions of life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans, so why are you continuing this discussion?