Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 23, 2020, 11:29 (328 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t [know] what constitutes the logic in your belief that he deliberately designed the bad bugs and we don’t know why.

DAVID: The logic is we don't know why as yet.

dhw: That is the strangest example of logic that I have ever seen.

DAVID: The logic is taken from many examples I have given you about so-called design errors in the human body. The bugs may have a purpose we still have not learned.

We are not talking about the errors in the human body. You say he deliberately designed the bad bugs. “We don’t know why” is not a logical reason for his doing so, and you’ve given us no logical basis for your belief that he did so.

dhw: Here is an example of logic: you are sure that God is interested in his creations. Therefore it is possible that he created them because he wanted something he could be interested in. Why can’t this be called a “logical thought pattern”? Besides, you also explicitly included emotions in your original agreement, and another of your statements was that God “very well could think like us”. And in any case “His logic is like ours” makes no sense if we can’t understand his logic!

DAVID: Mashing up past quotes out of context cannot refute current statements of position:...

There is no “mashing” and no reason for you to disown your own statements. If God created us with our thought patterns, emotions, logic and other attributes, it is perfectly logical to propose that these are “probably” part of his own identity too.

DAVID:... God and we use logic is the only position I take about God's thinking. That doesn't mean we can understand His logical choices, based on His chosen purposes. What we have to accept is He produced what He wanted to produce, with no consideration of what might potentially amuse Him.

How do you know he uses logic like ours if you don’t understand the logic behind the choices you impose on him? Of course we must accept that he produced what he wanted to produce. But I don’t have to accept your claim that he doesn’t share thought patterns, emotions etc. with us even though you say he probably does. Please stop trivialising “interest” with words like “amuse” and “entertain”. You are sure he is interested in his creations. Just stick to “interest”.

DAVID: Consider the logical thought God might be simply a creator without any self-interest! Just as possible as religions' loving God. That is Adler's indefensible 50/50.

We don’t need references to religion or Adler. The subject of this thread is “theodicy”. You raised it and are therefore looking for an explanation of evil. I have offered you one which, at the same time, explains the whole of the evolutionary bush (which you can’t explain either – see under “errors”). I’m not telling you this is the objective truth. I’m asking you to find flaws in its logic. So far...not one. Just the dead duck of humanization and now the “logical” thought that it might not be true.

The rest of your post is covered on the “errors” thread.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum