Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 09:08 (329 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: Cell proptosis is planned death. Our death is required. Perhaps we are agreeing that all of us change from birth to death. I will accept that God knew errors would fit into His plan that all die at some point.

So they weren’t errors at all. He wanted and planned “the comings and goings of individuals and life forms”. They were required for his purpose. But not every individual and every life form and every strategy and every lifestyle and every wonder was required for the creation of homo sapiens and his food, so maybe his purpose was not confined to us.

DAVID: Why can't you logically see that evolution is a continuous process? It is logical to assume God chose to evolve us.

dhw: 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: We are His obvious goal along with a survivability food supply from the whole bush.

There you go again. The "whole bush" contained countless extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with us!

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: What does He logically think about producing us? Please explain how He decided to make us.

I’ve repeated my alternative theistic theories umpteen times. Quite apart from the free-for-all (with possible dabbling), he may have experimented in order to find the right “formula” for a creature which according to you would recognize him and admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. Or he keeps getting new ideas as evolution progresses, either with or without his dabbles. Three possible proposals, all of which you have agreed provide a logical theistic explanation for our arrival AND for the vast bush of life forms that had no connection with us.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum