Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 20, 2021, 07:55 (332 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same distorted take. God tried to protect the system from errors. […] Extremely rare errors build up over time to give the appearance of common.

dhw: 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:

dhw: […] maybe the errors were essential to ensure that history would mean constant change, on an individual as well as a general basis.

DAVID: You are ignoring the huge gaps in all fossil series, per Gould. There is no constant change in the record and our lifespans are too short to see major changes.

The huge gaps have nothing to do with what I am proposing, but in any case, it is absurd to expect a change-by-change fossil record for the last 3+ billion years. By constant change I mean the comings and goings of individuals and of life forms throughout the history of life. These could not happen without what you call “errors” in the system. Every individual ages and dies, and whole species die out because their “system” is inadequate to cope with new conditions.

DAVID: Guesswork does not make logic.

dhw: 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 logically see that evolution is a continuous process? It is logical to assume God chose to evolve us.

Why the bold? Evolution is a continuous process in that all life forms descended from the earliest cells, but life branched out into countless different and unconnected forms. Yes, if God exists, he may have chosen to evolve (by which you mean design) us, but as usual you leave out the other premises: that we were his sole purpose, and yet he also “chose to evolve” [= specially design] all the other forms that had no connection with us. This editing of your theory is a silly dodge which is long past its use-by date.

DAVID: [later:] Your complaining view obviously implies why didn't God just directly create us? And then you complain about my next answer, I don't know why God made that choice.

Not only do you not know why he didn’t create us directly, but you also can’t explain the bold above. Well maybe he didn’t make the “choice” you impose on him. Maybe he thinks more logically than you.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum