Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 00:06 (50 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How do you know He does have human desires?

dhw: I don’t. I simply offer alternative theories to explain evolution and theodicy. How do you know that he exists/individually designed every life form and food bush/his sole purpose was to design humans and their food bush? You don’t. And unfortunately, your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

I reject the bold. I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

DAVID: God is not human and my analysis of His personality from His works show determination and purpose and direct intention to reach His goals, a primary one of which is sapiens and very obvious from our highly unusual abilities compared to any other organism.

dhw: You have categorically stated repeatedly that his only goal was to produce sapiens (do you want another list of quotes?) – epitomized by your claim that all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. “A primary goal” means there are other primary goals. If that is what you now believe, please tell us his other primary goals. Meanwhile, all my alternative theories also show determination and purpose and ”direct intention to reach His goals.”

What is wrong with God having a goal of producing humans with consciousness, and decides to produce them by evolving them by design Archaea?


DAVID: My 'humanizing' that you attempt to invent is because I am trapped in the words I have to use.

dhw: It is impossible for us to discuss any subject without using words. Nobody “trapped” you into saying any of the above quotes, and you and I both know exactly what the words mean.

But do the human words have the same meaning when applied to non-human God?


DAVID: Your God's actions are perfectly logical if one assumes He is unsure of himself, needs to experiment, and wants to set up free-for-alls for His enjoyment in watching the fracas, all humanizing traits. And I agree your theories fit the history when viewed from the point of your version of God. Conclusion: we see God totally differently.

dhw: I reject “unsure of himself”, but the other terms are correct, and I’m glad you understand them. There is no language problem, and your “humanizations” are no less “human” than my own, but are different. Your conclusion is therefore also correct, and so you are left only with the problem that your vision of God leads you to an illogical theory of evolution and an explanation of theodicy which amounts to no more than that you don’t have one, but you believe the future will reveal your God’s good intentions. My own theory offers a clear explanation of theodicy, but you have ignored my request that you point out any logical flaw in it.

I've told you your theodicy solution implies a weak God. My strong purposeful God recognized errors can happen and has editing corrections in place, working as best they can.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum