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

by David Turell , Monday, May 24, 2021, 15:49 (1069 days ago) @ dhw

d hw: That does not make your theory of evolution (bolded above) logical.

DAVID: My beliefs are based on a history we both know.

dhw: The history is the bush of life itself. Your belief that your God designed every life form etc., and they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus our food supply is not history, and since 99% of them had no connection with humans, even you cannot find a logical reason why your God would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal.

The bold is your usual distortion. I simply accept that God chose to evolve us, since I believe He is the creator. I can not know His reasons. Simple acceptance is logical.

dhw: The issue between us is not the existence of God, but your theory of evolution (bolded above).

I recognize our views on evolution differ. I simply state God originated life and evolved us.

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

dhw: Not the issue. My question concerning the experts was quite explicitly whether they agreed with your theory (bolded above) that “your God’s method of designing the one and only life form he wanted to design (humans plus food supply) was to design millions of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans.”

ID and I state God designed life forms.

And under “Gamma rays”:
DAVID: God is obviously in the role of creator. We are here. Therefore God created us. We evolved, so that was the method He used. Your approach is why any God at all? You question, I've stopped. We even interpret the process of evolution very differently.

dhw: My approach is not “Why any God at all?” It is your interpretation of evolution (bolded above) that I have challenged here. The other issue is theodicy, which is based entirely on the premise that your God exists. There is simply no need for any of these digressions or misrepresentations of what is at issue. You have agreed that you cannot explain why your God would have “evolved” [= designed] us and our food supply by “evolving” [= designing] all those other unconnected life forms and food supplies if we were his only “goal”. But that is your belief. I must accept that you will not budge. I have presented my theistic alternatives which you have rejected. The discussion is over. So let’s leave it at that.

Fine