Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 19, 2021, 10:28 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

Protection from mutations
DAVID: You forget God recognized the possible error problem and our biochemical system is full of constant editing systems.

dhw: If he designed a system which produced errors which he didn’t want and tried (often unsuccessfully) to “edit”, then clearly he was not in control. I simply suggest that rather than the incompetent designer who can’t control his invention, your God might deliberately have designed the system so that it would produce errors.

DAVID: Same distorted take. God tried to protect the system from errors. Your bold means God knew errors were coming, but the only system He could invent had to allow them. Often unsuccessfully ( in red) shows how much you misunderstand how living biochemistry works. Extremely rare errors build up over time to give the appearance of common.

According to you, your all-powerful God tried, but in some cases failed, and these extremely rare errors led to such common diseases as cancer. Why is your all-powerful God so fallible? Here’s an alternative: he wanted what you call the errors. See below for a possible reason.

DAVID: Conclusion: God wanted a controlled system. You would not be your age if your body ran by free-for-all.

dhw: Millions of people fail to reach my age, and in any case, unless I am killed by accident or by an irate contributor to this website, my death will eventually be due to some kind of “error” in the system. So maybe your God designed the system to ensure that I did not live for ever as the handsome, dashing young man I wish I had once been!

And maybe the errors were essential to ensure that history would mean constant change, on an individual as well as a general basis.

DAVID: Your Ashkanazic genes gave you your age, and you die from built-in aging primarily.

Thank you for identifying the “errors” that make me age and then die.

DAVID: My God fits logical conclusions from His works.

dhw: Your guesses include thought patterns similar to ours, enjoyment of creation, watching his creations with interest, wanting us to recognize his work, and wanting a relationship with him. Why do you try to dismiss them all when I use them to link his works to his purpose?

DAVID: Guesswork about God is just that, guesses as to His real reasons.

dhw: Yes indeed, and I have quoted your guesses and logically linked them to his purposes, whereupon you try to dismiss your own guesses because you don’t like their logical implications.

DAVID: Guesswork does not make logic.

What do you mean by “make” logic? What do you find illogical in the hypothesis that your God wants to create a creature that will recognize and admire his works and have a relationship with him (and to provide it with food), and so he experiments with different life forms before finally producing the creature he wants. Compare that with the hypothesis that your all-powerful God wants to create the above creature (plus food), but deliberately designs countless creatures that have no connection with that one creature (plus food). Where is the logic in that?

DAVID: Why can't you accept that point that God chose to evolve us from bacteria over a long time. It is entirely logical to me. Your illogical complaint escapes me.

dhw: What you desperately try to escape from is your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed the “evolution” of ALL life forms from bacteria, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans (plus food), although his one and only purpose was to design humans (plus food). Please stop editing your theory in order to leave out its illogical components.

DAVID: Nothing is edited in the statement God chose to evolve us from bacteria over time.

But you have left out the bolded part of your theory which makes you theory illogical!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum