Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 08:48 (449 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: Whatever God created shows his purposes. We study His works to understand his purposes.

So apart from the purpose of directly designing H. sapiens, what purposes have you gleaned from his works, and how do they fit in with your claim that every extinct life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans” although “extinct life plays no role in current time”?

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

My proposal also has your God purposely creating what he wishes and having purposeful goals. I am tired of this silly “humanizing” objection. Why have you left out my latest response to it:
[…] 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: 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”.

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

First straw man demolished: I have never said that your God should not have produced the bush of life. So up you come with another straw man: I have always accepted the uniqueness of humans, and your driving force argument can be applied to all species after bacteria. You are simply repeating dodge after dodge to avoid the question I put you on the “error corrections thread”.

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?

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

Please explain why you are sure he is watching us with interest, but you don’t believe he created us in order to have something he could watch with interest.

DAVID: 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.

How do you know what his purpose was or was not? Forget Adler. YOU are sure your God watches us with interest, so please answer my question. Your silly “humanizing” argument carries no weight, as explained above.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum