Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 03, 2020, 17:19 (1479 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Of course we have no direct knowledge. That is why we come up with our different theories. And for the n+th time, since you agree that he may think like us, it is absurd to reject a theory just because it has him thinking like us. That doesn’t mean the theory is true, but it does mean that you have not found a single flaw in its reasoning.

Still no answer to the issue that similar logical thinking dos not tell us His reasons for His choices of action.

DAVID: Yes giving up control is equivalent if you ignore, as you have, which controls of what process. All organisms are free living. God can theoretically only exert control over their evolution and maybe Chixculub events. Poor analogy at best.

dhw: Your objection was that deliberately giving up control of evolution made God “weak”. Why? If it is not “weak” to allow us for instance to deny his existence and to wreck the planet, why is it weak to allow the weaverbird to design its own nest (natural wonders), or to allow the cell communities of the pre-whale to change its legs to fins (speciation)? I’m interested in what you mean by “free living”. You can’t even allow bacteria and fungi and plants and animals to form symbiotic relationships without your God stepping in to give them instructions!

your objection is to God, the designer.

dhw: And so we formulate our theories to try and explain theodicy. I have now offered you two: one based on his interest, and one based on his not caring. You have not found a single flaw in the reasoning, and they both fit the facts of life's history as we know it. You raised the subject, so what is your theory?

We really don't know if He is interested in us. Evidence shows He tried to protect us from mistakes and bad bugs

DAVID: As for 'purpose' as a personality topic I view God, as stated, as highly purposeful, as a primary characteristic, deciding on the goals of His present creation (as eternal, there may well have been other previous universes with similar or different goals) and proceeding to produce it, without experimenting or looking for spectacles.

dhw: Yet again: I also see him as highly purposeful and proceeding to produce what he wants to produce. We needn’t go over the illogicalities of your theory, as dealt with under “error corrections”, and experimenting is one theory to explain all the non-human forms which you are unable to explain, while looking for something that will interest him is a purpose that fully explains the whole of evolution and theodicy.

Totally humanizing. God may produce us and not show interest. We are his goal, not finding an interesting show.

DAVID: Look at your descriptions of God. Not the same. Strictly theodicy looks at what is bad that God seems to have produced. It is our interpretation of bad at the basis of discussion. All the evidence shows God knew of many problems for which He devised the best editing systems He could […]

dhw: How well the body works has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy! This concerns the origin of evil.

Evil, as we define it, is here. God allowed it, perhaps for reasons we do not yet understand.

DAVID: Did He purposely give us challenges out of His interest in how we would handle it, or without interest for Himself (your failing) simply gave us a challenge to keep life interesting for us?

dhw: You seem to forget that life and bad bugs and self-interest and suffering existed long before we appeared. Now you are simply asking whether my “interest” theory might be true! Without reverting to “humanization” and “weakness” (both dealt with above), please tell us why you think it can’t be true, and do please tell us your own explanation of evil.

Now you are reminding me of the continuum of evolution. Excluding human caused evil, bad bugs and tornados are here from God. We have explained some bad bugs and fought them and we have tornado warning systems, so He gave us brains to handle it. The issue is whether God is purely benevolent as religions try to tell us. He may not be. But He has made protections in his editing systems. Fighting Bugs is our job.