Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, July 22, 2021, 13:57 (1218 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have never said that fine-tuning etc. was done by free-for-all! If God exists, I accept that he would have designed the conditions for life and the first forms of life. The free-for-all concerns EVOLUTION! And yes, WOW, it provides a solution to the problem of theodicy. If organisms were given the means to design their own ways to survive, God is not responsible for the means that they designed. […] Now instead of misrepresenting my proposal, please tell us what faults you can find in its logic.

dhw: Your reply is to repeat your earlier response – that God had to control evolution in order to produce us. That only reproduces your own illogical theory of evolution. Please indicate any logical flaws in my own proposal.

DAVID: You consider my theory that God chose to evolve us as illogical. I don't and we cannot cross that moat and agree.

Your illogical theory is that God chose to evolve every life form plus lunches that ever existed, although the only one he wanted to “evolve” was humans plus lunch. But we are now discussing my solution to the problem of “theodicy”. Once again, you fail to reveal one single flaw in the logic of my argument.

DAVID: It seems you cannot think from a purpose standpoint as you try to be a theist. I start with a very purposeful God, you don't, a good summary of our difference.

dhw: All my theories start out from a purpose, and one of them (experimentation) even adopts your version of that purpose. The free-for-all starts out from your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, which suggests that maybe his purpose in creating life was to provide himself with the enjoyment of creation, with the added interest of the unpredictable (free-for-all instead of puppet show). That is when you dodge from the fallacy of purposelessness to the self-contradiction of moaning about humanization even though you are certain that we mimic God in many ways.

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. I have guessed that the bold might be true, but admitted I have no solid idea. I have always said 'guesses'.

All our theories are guesses, but in your case, they have become beliefs. You believe your God’s purpose was humans, and you believe that he designed every other life form, so if you say you are certain that we mimic God in many ways, why should I downgrade that to a guess, especially when you contradict yourself a moment later by telling us you know God is not human in any way?