Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 09:12 (1364 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Pure humanizing. He doesn't need interests.

dhw: Why do you ignore my responses to such comments? Yesterday I asked: Why “needs”? “Why not “wants” or, to use your own word: “desires”, as in your belief that he seems to be “full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves”. I also asked what you meant by that.

DAVID: Why does God need to interest Himself in something? Having been around since forever He is accustomed to his foreverness.

I have just answered you by using your own term “desire”. Not “need”. It’s clever of you to read God’s mind and tell us that he is accustomed to his foreverness, but if he exists (and I always don my theist’s hat in these discussions), he created life. Why? You keep telling us how purposeful he is, so he must have had a purpose in creating ALL of life, INCLUDING HUMANS and their food supply. Bearing in mind that you are certain that he watches his creations with interest, please tell us once and for all why you think he did so, if it was not because he desired to create something he would find interesting.

dhw: I do not have a problem with the idea that God, if he exists, chose to evolve us. […] I do not accept your assertion that every single extinct life form plus food supply was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

DAVID: Why don't you take a close look at what God created by using evolution. My explanation fits the history. What you object to is us as the goal, and I agree with Adler. We cannot b e explained any other way. […]

I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that my objection is to the COMBINATION of your two beliefs that 1) we (plus food supply) were the one and only goal, but 2) he directly designed millions of now extinct life forms (plus food supplies) that had no connection with us. You simply keep dodging. Herewith the last sentence of the post you have responded to: “If you can tell me how the special design of 100% of the millions of extinct life forms and food supplies were essential for him to be able to design humans, I will stop attacking your idea of logic.” If, as on previous occasions, you have “no idea”, then – as on previous occasions – I suggest we leave it at that.

Viruses (taken from “Miscellany”)

dhw: So why do you keep reproducing his [Swinburne’s] ideas and then trying to support them instead of facing up to his contradictions? And he is your source, not mine!

DAVID: I said I take bits and pieces I agree with.

dhw: So I trust you agree with the objections I have raised to the idea that our identity is independent of what we can and can’t do, and whether we are “good” or bad”.

DAVID: Yes

Thank you. It would save us both a great deal of time if you would always give me such straight answers. See the exchange above concerning your combination of beliefs, and the discussion on dualism under “Miscellany”.

dhw: I have to agree that “good” and “bad” are subjective terms, but how else can we discuss such things? If God says that Covid and cancer are good, who are we to argue? But I’d like to think that there is a general consensus among us humans that certain things like cancer and Covid are “bad”, and that can be used as a basis for discussing your God’s possible nature and intentions. So why would an omnipotent God of “perfect goodness” create “bad” things?

DAVID: To repeat, so-called bad has turned out to be OK with further research.

dhw: I admire your faith that research will prove to us that cancer and Covid are OK, not to mention all the “bads” that you believe your God has directly designed. It’s not much of a solution to the problem of theodicy, though, is it?

DAVID: Obviously we don't have a solution acceptable to all of us.

We don’t have a solution at all – we only have theories. I have offered you one: that your God gave all life forms a mechanism with which to work out their own methods of survival in the free-for-all that has resulted in what we humans consider to be a mixture of “good” and “bad”. You can hardly deny that this fits the facts of life’s history. And I am still waiting to hear why you find it illogical, apart from the fact that it doesn’t fit your personal view of God, that he would not want to lose control, that there must be a “good” reason for his directly creating what we consider to be “bad”, and one day we shall find out what it is.