Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 17, 2020, 12:34 (638 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

But you have no idea which human attributes he may have, so how can you dismiss a theory that endows him with the human attribute of being interested in his creations (you agree) and therefore possibly having created them because he wants (human attribute) to create something that will be interesting for him?

dhw: 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: Your fixed opinion 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.

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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.

An extraordinary claim. How can you possibly know that your view of God’s personality is correct and therefore your anthropic interpretation of evolution’s history (which you can’t explain) and your insistence that your God deliberately designed the bad bugs, though you don’t know why, can’t contain any errors?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum