Theodicy (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, December 14, 2020, 17:56 (1438 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.

dhw: 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: My imagination of God is not as humanized as your God.

So a God who, you are sure, is interested in and likes and is satisfied by his creations is less human than a God who does things for interest and liking and satisfaction, and that is why you oppose the theory. Although of course you have no more idea than the rest of us what God is really like.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I know the dispute, which will never be resolved. Humans obviously are God's prime purpose as I follow Adler's reasoning.

As before, “prime purpose” means there are other purposes, but you never tell us what they are. In any case, the dispute does not concern the specialness of humans, but your belief in a method of fulfilling his one and only goal (specially designing millions of life forms and food supplies unconnected with humans) which – you may remember – leaves you with “no idea” when you are asked for an explanation.