Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, October 16, 2020, 15:37 (661 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Why is it weak for God to create a free-for-all if he wants to create a free-for all? And why is it strong to try but fail to correct errors in the system he designed, and to design bad bugs for reasons you can’t think of?

DAVID: My God is purposive and has firm objectives in mind. It is a difference in whom God might be as a personality and how firm His direction happens to be. You keep imagining a weak God as I view it.

dhw: You know very well that the God I am describing is just as full of purpose as yours. The only difference between us is that I am prepared to say what that purpose might be: to provide an ever changing spectacle. Now please tell us what you think was his firm objective in designing bad bugs. If your answer is that he wants to challenge us, please remember that bad bugs existed long before we did, and also tell us his purpose in wanting to challenge us. And while you’re at it, tell us why you view a God who wants and creates a free-for-all as “weak”.

Our images of God's personality are totally different. I view Him as having a direct course to humans. I can't tell you why the bad bugs exist. God isn't talking. He has his reasons and we have the brains from Him to fight them.

DAVID: It is all guesswork. Have you heard a speech by God on the subject as yet? You and I have totally different views of God as well as approaches to His possible personality type.

dhw: Did God tell you his only purpose was to design H. sapiens, or he couldn’t design a life system without errors but has tried to correct them, or he directly designed every bad bug you can think of but he ain’t gonna tell you why? Of course it’s all guesswork, but at least my guesses concerning both the process of evolution and the reason for the existence of “evil” do, by your own admission, fit in with the history of life. You go on and on about purpose, but as I wrote yesterday: have not offered a single solution to the problem of theodicy, and your only objection to my own proposal is that if it’s true, you will call God “weak”.

DAVID: Theodicy is a human view of what God might have done wrong. There is nothing wrong for us believers to assume God has His own reasons we do not understand.

dhw: So did you start this new thread to tell us that you can’t think of an explanation and there is nothing wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with assuming God has his reasons. I've not read theologians' thoughts but tried to develop my own.

DAVID: You should understand that faith involved in that statement.

dhw: Yes, I do. You have faith in all your theories, even when you can’t find any logic behind them (see the post on “error corrections”) and you reject any explanations that don’t fit in with your preconceptions concerning God’s nature and purpose.;-)

I've explained my logic about errors. You illogically reject them: simply God gave us the best living system He could.:-)

DAVID: As for free-for-all we free-will folks provide plenty of spectacle if He wants to note it. But we do not know if that was his reasoning in granting free will to us. I believe He felt free will was an important attribute we needed to have.

dhw: If he exists, then obviously it was important or he wouldn’t have given it to us. A free-for-all among all organisms that have formed the vast, 3.8-billion-year-old bush of life would also have given him plenty of spectacle. And that would be a purpose for your purposeful God, as opposed to your purposeful God directly creating all of them, including free-will humans, for a purpose we can’t guess at.

My guess is that God created humans to dominate and control the Earth when evolution ended. My purposeful God doesn't care about spectacle. Again you are humanizing God

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum