Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 27, 2020, 09:16 (659 days ago) @ David Turell

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

Nobody knows his reasoning (or even if he exists). We can only theorize. But if you accept that your God has thought patterns similar to ours, it is absurd to reject a theory on the grounds that it entails thought patterns similar to ours. For instance, you are sure that he is interested in his creations. It would be absurd for me to say to you: you are sure that he is interested in his creations, but I reject your theory, because humans are interested in their creations and so you are “humanizing” him. That is what is wrong with your “perfect answer”.
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”!

DAVID: 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.

"Evolved" is too vague. Please remember your belief that your God directly designed ALL species, including humans.

DAVID: Purposes singular or in multiples is a bogus straw man.

Your belief that every life form was “part of THE goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans” is not a straw man. If there are other purposes, please tell us what you think they are.

DAVID: We see what God did. These were all His 'purposes'. we learn about God from His works.

Assuming your God exists, we know of millions of extinct life forms and econiches and natural wonders which you say he directly designed, and you claim they were all “part of THE goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” If you are now saying that all of them were his purposes, and they were NOT just “part of THE goal…etc”, and if we remember the fact that you are sure he is interested in his creations, then for the life of me I cannot see why you object to the proposal that he created them all in order to have something interesting to watch. i.e. they were NOT just stepping stones to humans.

DAVID: 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.

Now THAT is a straw man. I have never said that your God – if he exists – should not have produced the bush of life that makes up the history! I say that the vast diversity of the history makes a mockery of your claim that every single organism was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” All dealt with under “error corrections”.

DAVID: 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?

DAVID: 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.

Of course we can only guess, and I suggest that directly designing humans would be “a very secondary purpose”, as the prime purpose would be his reason for directly designing humans (and all the other life forms that preceded us). In fairness, you have offered such purposes when pushed: e.g. to have his works admired, to have a relationship with us. Nicely human of him. And the purpose of evil? You say: “To make life interesting, again for us, not Him.” Why not him? And so we return to theodicy: Could it not be interesting for HIM to see how our free will leads to good and evil?

DAVID: […] 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.

DAVID: Again, totally humanizing views of God.

See above re the silly “humanizing” argument. Now will you please finally answer the question: since you are sure he watches it all with interest, is it not possible that he created it all in order to have something interesting to watch?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum