Watching asteroids; possible damage (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, March 10, 2017, 11:53 (2816 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Perhaps the universe and everything in it COULD have been created with and potential for callamity, but in doing so it would removed the possibility for variety, free will, surprises, and any other number of things that make life worth living.
DHW: I presume you mean “without the potential”, and this is an approach I find far more rational than that of a God who can create a universe and life, but is at the mercy of his own limitations. It fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that he deliberately created the possibility for variety and surprises etc., and all the ambivalences. I then ask myself why he did so. And one perfectly logical answer is that it produces a fascinating spectacle for him to watch.

TONY: Is it possible that he left the possibility of wonderful variety out of love for his creation, as opposed to the more selfish motive of his own amusement?

If he exists, then of course I would like to think he is as capable of love as we are. But just as I gaze in wonderment at the richness of this variety, and recognize that you cannot have the good without the bad, I also ask myself whether this in itself is not a reflection of the God who created it all. I wonder why your God should have created a system whereby life depends on the indiscriminate slaughter of the innocents through natural disasters and diseases, and one creature having to eat another in order to survive. David doesn’t like any attribution of human qualities to his God, but since you are clearly willing to see him as loving, perhaps you will understand why I can see another side to him through the not-so-lovable things he has created. The idea of a spectacle does not exclude love, and I can well believe that your God might for instance love humans who worship him, but it also allows for “selfish amusement” and indifference to suffering.