A possible God's possible purpose and nature (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, June 27, 2021, 09:37 (1244 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Not a dodge. My theory is God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Why are you so puzzled by that idea? He did what He had to do along the way.

dhw: I am not in the least puzzled by that idea. I am puzzled by your refusal to recognize that if he exists, he must also have chosen to evolve every other life form, and even you are puzzled (since you have no explanation) by the idea that he “had to” specially design millions of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles etc. along the way, although 99% of them had no connection with humans or our lunch.

DAVID: Same empty confusion. If God is in change, history shows exactly what you object to. It is your same tunnel-vison of how God might work. All the stages and branches you object to are/were required to develop complexity stepwise and offers a required huge food supply along the way.

I don’t object to the stages and branches! They are facts. I object to the theory that all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and our lunch.

DAVID: I can't dislodge any of my thoughtful conclusions about God. I can't be brainwashed by your illogical complaints.

dhw: Your thoughtful conclusion is that you have no idea why your God would have chosen the combined purpose and method you believe in, you keep admitting it, but you can’t face the fact that it might mean that at least part of your theory must be wrong.

DAVID: I fashion my theories from the available evidence seen in God's works. I don't question His possible reasoning.

It is not HIS reasoning that you don’t question. It is your own: namely, that your God had only one purpose (us plus our lunch) and therefore “had to” design millions of other life forms and lunches that had nothing to do with us.

dhw: You agree that there are errors, you yourself insist that your God designed the murderous bacteria and viruses, and it was you who raised the problem of theodicy in the first place. Your solution to all these problems is to look on the bright side. If we pretend these problems aren’t there, then they won’t be there. This is a wonderful new branch of philosophy, already embraced by some of our politicians. It needs a name. How about headinsandism, or blinkerism, or…perish the thought…turellism?

DAVID: Yes, as you note, I recognize and accept the problems raised by the issue of theodicy. I don't pretend the problems raised are not there. Why do you pretend I did that? Unfair!!

In response to my efforts to find an explanation for theodicy, you wrote: “All you can see is the dark side. You should be thankful you are here.” Theodicy IS the problem of the dark side. And your solution (apart from your faith that one day it will be shown that the dark side is actually good, because you believe your God’s intentions are always good) is to look on the bright side, which I can only take to mean that we should forget about the dark side.

DAVID: My view of God is that He knows what He is doing and what has to be done.

I have no doubt that if he exists, he knows what he is doing. I presume “what has to be done” refers to your theory that he couldn’t have designed us plus lunch without designing millions of life forms and lunches that had nothing to do with us plus our lunch.

DAVID: We keep explaining away the issues human judgment thinks, before adequate research, the so-called mistakes. My optimistic view is we will continue to logically explain God's questionable works. You present a pessimistic muddle forgetting the power of our God-given brain. Turellism certainly exists in the minds of those searching scientists who present all the fodder for discussion I present and interpret from a Godly viewpoint.

It was you who introduced the term “errors”, but claimed they were inevitable and were therefore not God’s fault. The problem of theodicy is not confined anyway to what you regard as errors. There is no pessimistic muddle: I have actually used my (perhaps God-given) brain to try and explain why all the “nasties” that create the problem of theodicy exist (i.e. through his possible decision to create a free-for-all). But instead of considering the logic of this explanation, you prefer to revert to the silly “humanizing” argument – as if 1) it is possible to discuss motives and methods without some sort of humanization, 2) as if you didn’t humanize him yourself, and 3) as if you hadn’t agreed repeatedly that he probably/possibly and, last week, surely has some human attributes. (See also under “Miscellany”). Your alternative solution to theodicy is to look on the bright side.