Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, December 13, 2020, 12:59 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your entire discussion is about God does not eventually describe a God as I see him. You want him to be interested and self-satisfied as reasons for creations.

I don’t “want” anything except possible and logical explanations of life and evolution as we know them. For the sake of our discussions, I am accepting the existence of God. I have taken one of your own comments – you are sure that your God is interested in his creations, and likes and is satisfied with them – and I have suggested that this might provide us with his motive for creating life, and might also explain the vast variety of life forms, including the 99% that have no connection with humans, and also the bad bugs which illustrate the problem of theodicy. (You have no idea why he would have designed them if all he wanted was humans and their food supply. Remember? :-) )

DAVID: God is a Creator, first and foremost. Whether He is pleased, or not, interested in the result or not, satisfied or not, is simply a look at a possible human side to Him, which may not exist at all. Yes we can discuss it as we have, but we conclude nothing. My version of God is nowhere as humanizing as you attempt.

I don’t know often we must repeat that our theories are theories – including the very existence of God – and they may all be wrong. You have agreed that this particular theory, based on human attributes of interest, liking and satisfaction about which you personally are “sure” and “certain”, is feasible. So what are we arguing about?


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.

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

dhw: All I’m trying to do is find logical explanations for the history of evolution and for theodicy. I agree , however, that a definition of what is weak and what is strong has to be subjective. And I think a God who theoretically has limitations that make him incapable of directly designing what he wants to design (your humans) is actually weaker than a God who directly designs what he wants to design (my intelligent cells).

DAVID: As before, I raised the idea of God forced to evolve humans for completeness. I believe He chose to evolve us, as I've shown you it is His preferred method for the universe, for the Milky Way, for the Earth, and finally for life.

First point: You raised an idea that God has a weakness (he couldn’t directly do what he wanted to do), and then moaned that my theory, which had him doing precisely what he wanted to do, made him weak. Second point: if God exists, and since you and I believe in evolution, of course he evolved all the items on your list. That is not in dispute. You know very well that the dispute is over your interpretation of the purpose and method underlying the history of the evolution of all the different life forms.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum