Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 04, 2020, 11:22 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

Nobody knows if he exists, let alone his purpose or reasons, his way of thinking, and whether he designed every life form or allowed evolution free rein. That is why we have different theories. And it remains absurd to dismiss a theory just because it has him thinking like us even though you believe he may think like us.

DAVID: your objection is to God, the designer.

My objection is to your belief that your God directly designed every life form and every food supply in the history of the planet as part of his goal to directly design H. sapiens and his food supply.

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

We don’t “KNOW” anything! We only theorize! History does not show any such thing. History shows bad bugs. It also shows that organisms have developed defences against some of them and not against others.

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.

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

How do you know? Humans would be the most interesting part of the "show"! Why do you think the question of purpose ends with the production of humans? Didn't your purposeful God have a purpose in producing humans?

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

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

That is the problem we are supposed to be dealing with on this thread, which you started. I have offered you two “reasons”, each of which fits in logically with the history of life as we know it. All you have done so far is tell us how good and clever your God is, because the body generally works well.

DAVID: 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.

Evolution is not a continuum from bacteria to humans. The rest of your comment tells us how humans can fight some of God’s “evil” creations, and so has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy. The only relevant remark here is to the issue of God’s benevolence. That is the subject we are supposed to be discussing. So back we go: why can’t my interest theory be true, and if you can’t even begin to explain the evil your God appears to have deliberately or accidentally created, why did you raise the subject in the first place?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum