Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 09:08 (49 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

It is you and I who are using the words. When you say you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches us with interest, is all-powerful and full of good intentions, you know perfectly well what you mean. The question is not what the words mean - we both know what they mean - but whether the statement is true or not!

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.

DAVID: 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.

I haven’t the slightest idea why you should regard a God who creates a free-for-all as “weak” or as lacking in purpose. On the other hand, a God whose design contains errors, and who puts in corrections, which sometimes work and sometimes don’t, seems to me anything but all-powerful. Weak and strong have nothing to do with the subject anyway. The question is why does evil exist if God is all-good? Your answer: because he’s strong and tries to correct errors, and one day we shall find out his good intentions for deliberately creating “bad” things. My suggestion: he gave all life forms the freedom to pursue their own means of survival, and so what we call “bad” is the consequence of that freedom, epitomized by the manner in which some humans use their freedom to further their self-interest at the expense of others.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum