Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, August 20, 2021, 15:37 (980 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: ...he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: So you agree that your God gave cells an autonomous ability to solve problems. Simple.

As you twist my words to fit your theory, the autonomous ability comes by simply following His instructions. Of course there is no godly intervention with that arrangement.

FESER
DAVID: Feser asked for limitations in implying various possibilities in descriptions of God.

dhw: […] You have agreed that all my alternatives explain the history of life. How do you and Feser know that none of them are correct, and we must all accept your unprovable theory that your God’s nature corresponds exclusively to such human concepts as good, immutable, all-knowing etc.?

DAVID: You have every right to your views of a very humanized God which explain the history of evolution/life very differently than I do. We have outlined our differences.

dhw: You and Feser impose an arbitrary list of “limitations” on descriptions of a possible God. If you say he is all-powerful and all-knowing, the rest of us are not allowed to suggest that he might deliberately create something that functions without his control, or that he might experiment and/or learn new things as he goes along. (See below on “humanizing”.)

You are allowed any fantasies about God you wish. Some may accept them.

dhw: What on earth does that mean? What does watching with interest symbolize?

DAVID: He does not watch in a human way.

dhw: I don’t suppose he has a pair of eyes peering through a pair of spectacles, but do you or do you not think he has his own means of observing his own creations?

He observes in His Godly way, not in a human sense.

DAVID: You are right about all the different deism/theisms of which I am totally aware. I follow Thomism thought in thinking about God. Thus I read Feser.

dhw: All my alternative explanations of life’s history deliberately allow for God – they are compatible with theism. So please stop pretending that your way of thinking is the only way any theist can possibly think about God. Why don’t you focus instead on the reasonableness of the theories?

I repeat. I agree with your theories if God is humanized.

DAVID: Your approach is uninhibited and wide open to all imaginations possible.

dhw: My approach in all cases has been to find a rational explanation for the history of life as we know it. You have agreed that every single one of my theistic proposals is logical, unlike your own, which leaves you with premises you simply cannot explain.

DAVID: You rigidly oppose my point of view. You keep forgetting I accept your theories only if I accept a very humanizing form of a God, which I don't. Please remember the point even if you don't like it.

dhw: I don’t like the silly argument that a God who created us could not possibly have endowed us with some of his own attributes. Nor do you, because you agree that he possibly/probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you are “sure that we mimic Him in many different ways”. But you think you can discredit a logical proposal merely by using the word “humanize” if the “mimicry” does not correspond to the “humanizing” you believe in.

We are in an area of discussion imagining how we might be made to mimic Him, but since He is not a human person the mimicry is uncertain.