Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, October 26, 2020, 22:15 (39 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't contradict myself. Note my bold of your usual trope about God's thinking. Using the same pattern of thought NEVER tells us His reasoning for his purposes. You can't disagree!!!

dhw: Nobody knows his patterns of thought, but since you agree that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours, it is absurd (a) to dismiss a theory on the grounds that it entails thought patterns similar to ours, and (b) to say you are sure that God is interested in his inventions, but he could not have invented them in order to give himself something to be interested in.

DAVID: Answered below:

Neither of these points is answered below.

What is wrong with this perfect answer to your humanizing? And again: HIS THOUGHT PATTERNS DO NOT TELL US HIS REASONING!!!:

DAVID: God's being interested is not the issue. His personality is creation for the sake of achieving His purposes. Creating something for His own interest is very secondary. It is humanizing Him again. God does not need interests!!!

dhw: Yet again: What plural “purposes”? As above, you have named only one, which contradicts the whole history of evolution, because you agree that there is no connection between such organisms as the brontosaurus and humans, and “extinct life plays no role in current time”!

Another answer as a distinct response to your chopped up view of the relationships in evolution by common descent: God evolved humans in my belief. Purposes singular or in multiples is a bogus straw man. We see what God did. These were all His 'purposes'. we learn about God from His works. And your arguments that in your mind He shouldn't have done it that way don't accept my view that history tells us what God did.

DAVID: Again quoting out of context and inferring meanings that do not exist. I am discussing events that are only time separated but are fully connected through common descent and similar DNA genes.

Fully covered under “error corrections”.

dhw: How do you know that your God, who you are sure watches us with interest, does not WANT something he can watch with interest – a characteristic which could be exactly the same as ours, since we also like to create things we can watch with interest? And let’s not forget that this theory also solves the vexed problem of theodicy, which is the subject of this thread and for which you offered have no

DAVID: I have offered many thoughts which have been left behind as you have produced distortions of my statements out of context. We have agreed God wanted to make life interesting, not a Garden of Eden, again for us, not Him.

dhw: We have not agreed. We humans were not around for millions and millions of years. Do you really think your God was not interested in any of the things you say he designed during that time?

My view is God produced what He wished for purposes we can only guess At, and His interest in the result is a very secondary purpose, if a purpose at all.

DAVID: Just as we have discovered why certain body parts are necessary, as in the purposes of the appendix, we have yet to fully understand why nasty bugs exist. My view, previously expressed and still is God had reasons we still have not discovered. Cancer is generally due to genetic molecular mistakes, for which God has provided, recognizing the issue, very effective but not perfect editing.

dhw: As a solution to the problem of theodicy, these comments take us nowhere. We don’t know why he designed nasty bugs, he tried but failed to provide a cure for cancer and other diseases caused by errors in the system he designed, and although you are sure he is interested in everything he created, it is not possible that he created it all in order to give himself something that would interest him.

Again, totally humanizing views of God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum