Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, November 19, 2020, 11:07 (1463 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He may well produce humans without interest in what humans do.

dhw: Firstly a quote: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” Your certainty in itself should be enough to make you take the theory seriously. Secondly, there are lots of theories, and they will all entail guesses concerning your God’s nature. Inevitably that will be described in “humanizing” terms, and there is no reason to believe that he does NOT have human attributes – as you have acknowledged (though clearly you wish you hadn’t) when stating that he probably has thought patterns, emotions etc. similar to ours.

DAVID: Same old problem: The bolded quote could mean His interest is at the one percent level, since we have no way of knowing the truth!!! And the only belief I have about his thought patterns is the use of logic. Please accept that and stop dredging up the past misunderstanding.

And since we have no way of knowing the truth, we offer theories. You have kindly informed us that you are sure he sees what is going on (which I suggest means that he is looking at it, not just catching a glimpse out of the corner of his immaterial eye), and if his level of interest might be one per cent, it might also be one hundred per cent, so why dismiss the theory? Ditto with your acceptance that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. There is no “past misunderstanding”. If he probably has all this, it is absurd to dismiss a theory because you don’t believe he might have what he probably has.

dhw: […] 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. […]

dhw: You can’t find a logical explanation to connect your anthropocentric theory of evolution with the history of life forms that preceded humans, and you can’t find a logical explanation for the existence of evil as exemplified by your God's direct design of bad bugs, but you insist that there can be no errors in your inexplicable theories!

DAVID: You have no idea where errors might exist in your thoughts or mine.

True. I offer a variety of explanations. I do not insist on the truth of any of them. You have one illogical explanation for evolution and none for theodicy, which you consider from only one point of view (your God is always in control, and therefore must have deliberately created the bad bugs), which leaves you flummoxed. But you claim your theories are without errors.

DAVID: Both our theories are based on logical interpretations colored by our background scholarships.

I have pointed out the illogicality of your overall theory of evolution on the “error corrections” thread. On this thread, you have offered no logical interpretation of theodicy.

DAVID: As for my theory of evolution I have pointed out your constant errors in interpreting my theory as demanding 'direct creation of humans'. God chose to evolve us over time. Live with it. History doesn't lie.

Your twist concerning “direct creation” is dealt with comprehensively on the “error correction” thread.