Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 27, 2020, 18:19 (1486 days ago) @ dhw

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.

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

Of course, by running the entire process of evolution from bacteria.

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

dhw: 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.

Whatever God created shows his purposes. We study His works to undertand his purposes

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

dhw: 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.

Not my God who purposely creates what He wishes and has purposeful goals. Not humanizing goals.

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.

dhw: 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”.

Adler explains why I am correct, and you belittle the unexplained uniqueness of humans arising from apes with no driving force kn own to us.

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.

dhw: 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?

I don't see interest as the point of His creating us.

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.

dhw: 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?

It was not His purpose to find something interesting to create. We guess at his relationship to us, and I'll stick with Adler: 50/50 possibility of interest. You are again humanizing