Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, November 16, 2020, 18:23 (1466 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, November 16, 2020, 18:34

DAVID: The word 'probably' is a cautionary term, and the second quote is on target. I can absolutely accept God uses logic, and anything else is probable or maybe, not rigid.

dhw: It is absurd to rule out a theory on the grounds that it endows God with human attributes, although he only "probably" has them. I too can absolutely accept that if God exists, his logic is probably like ours, and that is why it is totally absurd to dismiss a theory because it makes him use logic like ours.

I don't dismiss your theories in the realm of logic, It is your logic about God as you humanize Him.

dhw: 2) Why did you raise the subject of theodicy in the first place?

DAVID: Because it is necessary to look at it. It creates a problem that partially comes from how we interpret what what God did. I look for answers but I admit I'm not satisfied with the answer God did it for His purposes we do not yet understand.

dhw: I’m delighted to hear that you not satisfied with your own non-answers. I wish you would also apply your non-satisfaction to your anthropic theory of evolution (see “error corrections”), which also defies logic.

'
Only your unbelieving logic in the other thread.

dhw: 3) What logical reason do you have for rejecting my own proposed explanation?

DAVID: Because, as usual you have God releasing control and I don't think God loosens any controls.

dhw: That is not a logical reason for rejecting it, especially since it provides logical answers to the questions we have been discussing in relation to the vast bush of life forms and the problem of theodicy.

My view of God's personality vastly differs from yours.

dhw: In my (theistic) theory, he did NOT make the bad bugs but only the original cells from which they descended. And they designed their own modes of survival just as the good bugs and every other organism did, using their perhaps God-given form of intelligence. Survival was their purpose, and God’s purpose was to create a self-designing system that would be an endless source of interest to him, though we can’t know his thoughts as he watches us with interest.

DAVID: Your usual humanizing approach. God is not bored and does not have to create any interests. My God is under full control of how evolution advances. The bad bugs are His. I accept that and still believe strongly in God.

dhw: I am not asking you to abandon your strong belief in God, and none of my (theistic) theories exclude God! Your only objection to this theory and the others is that it does not conform to your personal view of God and his methods. But you cannot find an explanation for your anthropic view of evolution’s vast bush of unconnected life forms or for the existence of evil in your God-designed world. I would suggest that this might mean that your view of evolution and theodicy and of your God’s personality, purposes and methods might just possibly contain an error or two.

Based on my view of God's personality there are no errors. Your view of God from the distance of possible belief is off target from my viewpoint.