Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 12, 2021, 11:14 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Considering the constant turnover of living cells, even the mistakes that lead to cancer are the result of rare errors in the system.

dhw: I’m only surprised that you consider cancer to be an extremely rare awful disease.

DAVID: I said rare errors!! Cancer is all too common as result, but thanks to a God-given brain we are curing over 80%.

What do you mean by “rare errors”, if the errors cause a disease that is common? Every instance of the disease is the result of an error! Your second comment reinforces your theory that your God could not prevent or correct some errors, and therefore left it to us humans to do what he couldn’t do. And yet you think he is all-powerful.

DAVID: Your extreme negativity toward God shows clearly. Of course I introduced the issue of theodicy, which is evidence it doesn't turn me against God.

dhw: According to you, your all-powerful, all-good God designed a system that makes mistakes he can’t control, and designed “bad” bacteria and viruses he can’t control! I have proposed a different theory. He didn’t WANT to control the “bad” bacteria and viruses, and he didn’t WANT a perfect system, and – to continue the same theory - he didn’t WANT just one species and its food. I am proposing that the world and the history we know is what he WANTED. Nothing is permanent, species come and go, individuals come and go, all in a deliberately designed free-for-all. The problem of theodicy – if God is all good, why is there bad in the world? – simply disappears. What is bad for us is good for the bacteria and viruses that kill us. God himself (if he exists) is neither good nor bad. Such “humanizing” judgements are irrelevant and meaningless. He creates the free-for-all, and then lets it take its course. That doesn’t turn me against him! I am delighted to be part of the passing show, and I recognize that my very transience and that of all things material are integral to their value, whether there is a God or not.

DAVID: This fits Adler's estimate that the possibility of God caring about each of us is 50/50. But the other side of Adler uses our exceptionalism to prove God exists…..

Good for Adler, and I’m delighted that my theory fits in with his.

DAVID: I'm still with Adler. God works with purpose, and your free-for-all makes Him pointless. We will never agree here.

I have always agreed that God, if he exists, works with purpose. But unless you tell me what his purpose was for producing humans, his production of humans becomes pointless! Your certainty that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, suggests to me that his purpose was to give himself the enjoyment of creating and to provide himself with interesting things to watch. And we humans, with our vast potential, must be very interesting to watch. Does Adler tell you what was God’s purpose for creating humans and all the life forms not connected with humans?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum