Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 11:49 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: Dying is purposeful.

And its divine purpose is….? I would suggest the possibility that, if your God exists, its purpose is to ensure that life both individually and generally is an ever changing process of comings and goings which, in your own words, provides him with both the enjoyment of creation and with something interesting to watch. And humans would certainly be the most interesting of all! This would explain the vast extinct variety of life forms that had no connection with humans and would also do away with the problem of theodicy.

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.

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

DAVID: Way in the past, logically, as we have agreed.

So why do you keep telling us that the WHOLE bush was necessary for our food supply? That is the basic illogicality of your theory, since you believe he specially designed EVERY life form and food “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food.

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.

dhw: I’ve repeated my alternative theistic theories umpteen times. [No need to repeat them here]

DAVID: I've agreed with your proposals for God only if I consider your very humanized God who is bumbling along. The fine-tuning designed into His creations show a brilliant mind who knows exactly what He intends to do and does it.

No “bumbling”, brilliant mind yes, “knows exactly what He intends to do and does it” applies to the free-for-all and the experimenting, while getting new ideas fits in with the purpose/intention of setting something in motion in order to see where it will lead.

DAVID: Accepting us as the final intended goal makes what we know of His works fit beautifully into that conclusion.

How does the design of countless extinct life forms which had no connection with humans “fit in beautifully” with the conclusion that we were his “final intended goal”?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum