Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, July 23, 2021, 10:47 (92 days ago) @ David Turell

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

DAVID: Your theory is logical if we assume a God who is not purposeful.

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?

DAVID: Of course God is not human in any way, except as we guess about His personality as it compares to us.

It is absurd to dismiss logical theories on the grounds that we do not “know” God’s nature, but then to have a fixed belief in a theory because you have a fixed belief in certain human aspects of God’s personality. It is also absurd to tell us you know that although you are certain we “mimic” him in many ways, God is not human in any way!

DAVID: 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?

Your “very logical” belief leaves you with no explanation for your illogical theory of evolution, and no explanation for theodicy, beyond the fact that you are sure your God has “good intentions” though we don’t know what they might be. Being comfortable is not, I’m afraid, a guarantee of truth. I expect Dawkins is just as comfortable as you.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum