Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 22, 2021, 18:40 (1218 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Once again, you fail to reveal one single flaw in the logic of my argument.

Your theory is logical if we assume a God who is not purposeful. Your theory and mine must depend on the personality of the God each of us imagines after logical analysis of God's works. Our God's are diametrically opposed in character. Yu must realize this fact.

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'.

dhw: 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?

Of course God is not human in any way, except as we guess about His personality as it compares to us. And those guesses depend upon the personality each of us sees in God. I am comfortable in my beliefs, arrived at very logically. Are you comfortable as an agnostic?