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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 23, 2021, 16:11 (1070 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: First dodge: Your theory is not “history”, so please stop pretending that it is.

DAVID: My theory is based on belief in God creating our reality.

dhw: It is based on your belief in your interpretation of your God’s one and only purpose – to design humans – and your interpretation of his method of achieving that purpose, which entailed designing thousands of species “de novo” plus all their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

That is your strange distorted version of what I think. I believe in God as the force that is first cause. His final creation was humans. He may have done this and over in His past.

dhw: This is not “history”, and it is illogical.

My beliefs are based on a history we both know.

dhw: Every alternative theory I have offered you allows for belief in your God “creating our reality”. and you have accepted that they are all logical. That doesn’t mean either of us has to believe any of them – they are only theories – but at least you agree that unlike your own, they provide logical theistic explanations of the history we know.

To a person like me, your attempts at theism give an obvious impression of humanizing God. I might ask you to stop dodging, but your rigid thought pattern cannot change. You simply do not understand the view of theism, God, I have

dhw: This is irrelevant to the question of why your God would have specially designed every species that has ever existed in order to specially design humans and our food supply. You don’t know why he would have chosen this method of designing humans, but you have a fixed belief that this is what he wanted and did. Why do you continue to pretend it is logical while at the same time admitting that you can’t explain it logically? I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Stop distorting my position as stated in the bold. I simply accept God's choice of method in creating us and admit I cannot know why God chose the method.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, none of us know anything beyond the fact that there have been countless life forms and their food supplies, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. ... It is your interpretation of his choice both of goal (us) and method, and the fact that you cannot find a logical reason why he would have made such a choice suggests that your interpretation could be wrong. And so instead of saying you accept his choice, why not just say that your illogical interpretation of his choice is fixed and you do not intend to consider any alternatives, even if you agree that they are logical.

How do you dare to tell me I was so tunnel-visioned I only considered one alternative when I was first studying the issue of God? I have reached my conclusions that God exists and creates, based on a mass of reading.

Under: “Introducing the brain”
DAVID: My declaration as to what I believe is arrived upon by my logic and reading expert thought as a basis.

dhw: So your logic tells you that your God designed every life form “de novo”, 99% of them had no connection with humans, but humans were his only goal and this was his way of designing them. I wonder how many “experts” agree with you.

DAVID: Are you telling me you don't accept anything unless nameless experts agree with you? Sad.

dhw: You wrote that your belief in your theory of evolution is based on your logic (but you can’t find any logical reason for it) and on “reading expert thought”. That is why I wondered if any experts agreed with you that your God’s method of designing the one and only life form he wanted to design (humans plus food supply) was to design million of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans. Or did you mean that you had read the work of lots of experts and your belief is based on the fact that you don’t believe any of them?

About 150+ estimate of books starting in the 1980's. In contrast to you I ended up with a firm belief in God.