Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 18, 2020, 19:07 (44 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Totally humanized view of a spectating God. I still believe that God presented challenges for a more interesting life than in Eden. We've got the brains for it.

dhw: More interesting for whom? Do you think your God is watching or not?

I'm sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.


DAVID: Part of the equation is human ability to be evil through free will actions.

dhw: I don’t know what equation you’re referring to. Why don’t you use the word spectacle? What other reason can you think of for your God creating or allowing evil?

You want the spectacle for your humanized God.


dhw: The “errors” thread has moved on to your whole theory of evolution. As regards errors in particular, it makes no sense to claim that he tried to correct them because he didn’t want to harm us but he also directly created bad bugs whose purpose is to harm us.

DAVID: The bad bugs which harm us could be a side effect of the role they play in the ecosystems of life. This is where the problem of God's unknown intentions appears.

Yes, theodicy deals with the problem of God’s intentions when he created or allowed evil. Do you think your God designed the bad bugs to play a beneficial role in the ecosystems of life? At least your previous theory made a bit more sense (see above, on “challenge”).

They may well play a beneficial role we do not yet understand through research.


DAVID: 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.

dhw: What do you think was your purposeful God's purpose in getting humans to dominate the Earth (after he had directly designed millions and millions of life forms and econiches that wouldn't even be there when humans arrived)? You have agreed that free will provides plenty of spectacle. What is wrong with the idea that God wanted to create plenty of spectacle? All you can come up with is “weak” and “humanizing”, the first of which is a meaningless judgement and the second of which is countered by your perfectly logical conclusion that a God who creates a being with certain thought patterns, emotions and other attributes probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: You are correct. Our ability to think, construct concepts, plan is mirrored in the way God's mind works. All the same. But that does not mean our thoughts can directly know the reasons God has for His purposes. We must look for them by induction from His works. what does the pattern seem to tell us.

dhw: No, we can’t “know” his purposes, so I don’t know why you keep insisting that you do know, and any other theory is to be dismissed.

I have reached my conclusions from studying His works, which includes our unusual appearance. As a follower of Adler, our very strange difference from everything else tells of the importance of our appearance as a strong guide to God's purpose. You give lip service to it.


DAVID: He obviously wanted us to appear. We are here with the ability to recognize the evidence that He exists and can wonder about Him. No other organism on Earth can do that.

dhw: So we’re going back to your own humanization of God: he wants us to recognize his existence and wonder about him. I have no objections. My objection to your theory in this case is why he bothered to directly design millions of non-human life forms etc. which wouldn't recognize or wonder at him before he directly designed us.

Same strange rejection of God's choice to evolve us. God does not 'want us' to recognize Him. It is obvious to Him thinking people will do that.


DAVID: …you wonder that God is part human in His thinking about His purposes.

dhw: I don’t “wonder at it”. I am the one who keeps saying it’s only logical. You are the one who moans about “humanization” whenever I offer a logical explanation for the vast bush of life that preceded humans.

DAVID: I start by recognizing God is a person like no other person, and all I can use are His works and as I result I see Him as purposeful and go no further. Beyond that are your guesses and mine.

dhw: But you go miles further! You have fixed and non-coherent beliefs concerning his precise purpose and his method of achieving that purpose. See the post on “error corrections”.

I have perfectly logical reasons for my views of carefully seeing God as fully purposeful in reaching the goals that history demonstrates, and going no further, which you love to guess at, with no supporting facts.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum