Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, November 13, 2020, 07:18 (1470 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He is NOT a human inventor. His reasons for His creations are unknown to us but I fully believe not for a primary purpose of making something to create entertaining interest for Him.

dhw: It was you who drew the analogy between him and a human inventor. I never used the “frivolous” word "entertaining", and you should drop it. You have said you are sure that he is interested in us. If so, why are you sure that he could not have created life in order to have something he could be interested in?

DAVID: Same humanizing try. No.

dhw: You have already demolished your own “humanizing objection” over and over again by agreeing that he probably has thought patterns and attributes similar to ours, and your certainty that your God watches us with interest makes this objection doubly irrelevant. If he watches us with interest, why do you find it illogical that he might have created us because he wanted to create something that he could watch with interest?

DAVID: My view of God is that He does not create to have something interesting to watch. Michelangelo did not create David to sit and watch the statue with interest. God is in the business of creating what He wants to create with any interest coming as a secondary event.

I know that is your view. Now please give me a logical reason why my proposal is not feasible. Michelangelo would have died of boredom if he had sat watching his statue for the rest of eternity. Do you never wonder what your God would have felt like if for eternity he had had nothing to do but think about himself? (And before you start muttering “humanization”, please remember your firmly expressed opinion that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to ours.)

Transferred from “dhw’s confusion”
DAVID: I don't view your theory in theodicy as logical based on my view of God in control.

dhw: You are simply saying that my theory is illogical because it differs from your theory! My idea that your God did not WANT control is no more and no less feasible than your idea that he did. Nothing to do with logic. Your theory leads you to admitting that you have no idea why he would have created bad bugs. You call that logic. My theory explains logically how the bad bugs could have come into existence, and why your God allowed them to do so, and it also explains the vast variety of life forms and natural wonders which have/had nothing to do with humans.

DAVID: Each theory has a background of facts to be considered. Our considerations differ. My view of Godadn his intentions are not yours.

The only intention you have offered is the direct design of humans – as dealt with on the “errors” thread. You have no idea of the intention behind his direct design of most extinct life forms and econiches, since they don’t fit in with your belief that every life form was part of the goal of directly designing humans, and you have no idea of the intention behind your God’s direct design of bad bugs. And you have yet to come up with a single logical objection to my theory other than the fact that it doesn’t fit in with your personal view of God.