Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, December 11, 2020, 15:56 (614 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My point is my God does not do any creating to satisfy His own self-interests. He simply creates.

dhw: 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: Same old illogical complaint. That God chose to evolve us from bacteria is a simple conclusion from known history.

dhw: As is the fact that if he exists, then according to you he chose to “evolve” [= directly design] millions of non-human life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. THAT is YOUR “choice”, and in your very own words: “I have no idea why he uses that method” to design the only species (plus food supply) that he wanted to design. :-)

Easy choice with a belief in God. :-P

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.

dhw: 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 reject it on the basis that I see God's personality differently that you do. Granting a more humanized form of God, your theories are logical.

dhw: Thank you. The “humanized” version I have offered you here is in keeping with your own certainty that your God is interested in his creations, and likes and is satisfied with them.

But the difference is I believe God is the business of creation, not to be interested or satisfied, which are entirely secondary results.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: It is feasible if God is weak, and gives up tight control over events.

dhw: So my theory that he wanted and created a free-for-all is feasible if it’s right. We’ll never know, but I’ll settle for feasible. Forget “weak” – that is your highly subjective view of a God who knows what he wants and gets it.

You are just as subjective always trying for a weak God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum