Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2020, 14:16 (1444 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Two questions for you: 1) what do you think was your purposeful God’s purpose in creating life?

DAVID: Perhaps with our consciousness, it has been proposed by Davies He wanted us to recognize Him and research and understand His works.

dhw: Yes, recognition especially would be gratifying, just as it is for us humans. I’d be quite happy to accept that as a reason for designing humans (and their food supply), and like you, I am sure that he would watch us with interest to see if we recognized him. […]

dhw: 2) What do you think was your God’s purpose in creating bad bugs (i.e. give us your solution to the problem of “theodicy”)? […]

DAVID: My answer has been given. They have a God's purpose we still do not understand. It is our interpretation they are bad. They may have an important undiscovered purpose.

dhw: I agree that it is our interpretation. From a bug’s point of view, it would be doing what your God apparently designed it to do – finding ways to survive. Or maybe he didn’t design it at all, but simply gave it the intelligence to find its own ways of survival. At least that would let your God off the hook of directly designing something he knew would harm humans. (Theodicy problem solved.)

DAVID: My God is too purposeful to become your humanizing form. God controls call.

So he’s a non-human control freak. And you still haven’t offered a solution to the problem of “theodicy”, and you still haven’t offered a single objection to the logic of my proposal, and you still can’t understand that a God who creates things in order to give himself something interesting to watch is a purposeful God.

DAVID: All these humanizing theories do not fit my concept of who God is personally.

dhw: […] it would be interesting if once and for all you would tell us exactly what IS your concept of God “personally”.

DAVID: As above, wholly purposeful with no self-interest.

Then please tell us why you think your God might possibly “want us to recognize him”.

DAVID: I guess, to see if conscious beings might think if Him, since He stays hidden. Don't seize on the guess as you usually do, as we know nothing for sure about God.

So how do you know he is wholly purposeful, and how do you know he is without self-interest? Of course you don’t, so you object to the logic of my proposals because we can’t know if they’re true or not. We might as well give up proposing and discussing all our subjects if your only answer to any theory is that “we know nothing for sure”. So why do you bother to propose theories of your own?

DAVID: He is solely in the business of creation.

dhw: That makes no sense. If he is highly purposeful, he must have a purpose for creating whatever he creates.

DAVID: What wrong with creation for the sake of creation? I am sure we were the major purpose.

And you are sure he watches us with interest, and you are sure "He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor”. So as I suggested yesterday, maybe he created it because he wanted to create something he could be interested in, which he would like and would give him satisfaction.

DAVID: Back we go to a God with self-interest, a weak humanized version as usual.

I really can’t follow your reasoning. How can you be sure that the result of his creativity (interest, liking and satisfaction) does not arise from him wanting something that he might like and that might interest and satisfy him?

dhw: ...you’ve made a very logical and convincing case, which comes astonishingly close to my own proposal. I don’t know why you are so coy about it.

DAVID: I'm not coy. I've told you constantly why you are wrong about Him.

Yes you have: I am apparently wrong because you say I am wrong, because your own theory (no self-interest) is right although “we know nothing for sure”, apart from what you ARE sure about, which actually supports my theory!