Theodicy (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 15, 2020, 18:25 (314 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You must realize I am discussing God's attitude about Himself and what He accomplishes. He never does it to purposely please Himself or to enjoy self-satisfaction. That is how you are humanizing.

dhw: You keep repeating that the humanized feelings of interest, liking and satisfaction which you are sure your God experiences have nothing to do with a humanized motive for designing his creations, as if you know this for a fact. Of course you don’t. Neither of us has any facts. That is why we theorize and analyse each other’s theories. Stating your opinion as if it were a fact does not provide one single argument against the logic of the theory.

Full agreement: we are in total disagreement about our personal concepts of God's personality. I don't state my positions as facts, but my concept. You studiously perch on your Janus fence and constantly forget that I have acceded to you that your version of God logically allows your theories. I'm not up in the air on a fence. I have very specific views.


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

dhw: 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. :-)

DAVID: Smile all you want, but your question needs no answer: As His prime goal is humans all the other steps leading up to that are necessarily secondary purposeful steps/goals.

dhw: “Prime” goal again, so what are the other goals? Even “prime goal” is an assumption, not a fact (though it is possible to make out a logical case for this belief). “All the other steps leading up to that” is your usual glossing over of your admission that 99% of earlier life forms and food supplies had no connection to humans, and you have “no idea why He uses that method”. (See also under “Sea turtles”)

Same old issue. The reason humans are not directly connected is a time concept. Your illogical complaint chops up time into unrelated segments. My God is in charge of creation. Evolution happened so God ran the evolution whose history we know. Our connection to the original bacteria is common descent as shown by the existing DNA, and you accept that connection, and then illogically complain about detachment in time.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum