Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, December 10, 2020, 12:04 (46 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you describe a humanized God with a self-interest desire for entertainment.

dhw: There is no reason to suppose that a God who you are sure is interested in us, and has likings and satisfaction (human attributes you appear to accept), should not create things to like and interest and satisfy himself (dismissed as “humanized”). In fact, it sounds pretty logical to me. I don’t remember ever using the superficial term “entertainment”. Let us stick to your own terms: interest, liking and satisfaction.

DAVID: Spectacle (your word) surely implies entertainment. My point is my God does not do any creating to satisfy His own self-interests. He simply creates. The problem is we must use our human terms to describe a non-human person, God.

I have accepted your objection to “spectacle”, and have proposed that we use your own terms: interest, liking, satisfaction. Your point is that you have a fixed view, which now appears to be that your purposeful God creates without any purpose except to directly design different stages of H. sapiens plus his food supply. Unfortunately, this does not explain why he created all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans (i.e. 99% of the rest of evolution), or bad bugs (which we’ve taken to represent all evil – the great problem of theodicy).

DAVID: […] We can continue to disagree about our personal images of who God is. It is obvious we will never agree because you and I imagine Him totally differently. […]

dhw: The difference between us is that you can see the logic in all my theories to explain evolution and theodicy, and your grounds for dismissing them are the silly one of “humanization” (see above), and the fact that 1) they are different from your own (evolution), and 2) you don’t have a theory to explain theodicy, and 3) you are convinced that your satisfied God doesn’t create for “self-satisfaction”. None of these provide a single flaw in the logic of my theory.

DAVID: My repeated answer to theodicy is not yours. God created things we interpret as 'bad' for His reasons we do not yet understand, using the previously 'useless appendix' as a prime example.

Our prime example is bad bugs. Thank you for acknowledging that you do not have a theory other than the theory that one day we will understand. I do not see that as a reason for rejecting the reasoning behind my theory.

DAVID: I don't accept a version of God who gives up primary controls over creation. That is what your theory does.

I know you don’t accept the theory that he wanted a free-for-all and created what he wanted. I would simply like to know why this explanation of evolution and of theodicy is not feasible.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum