Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 11:30 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The only difference between us is that you prefer to dodge the problem of theodicy by focusing only on the wonderfully positive sides of the system. If you hear and see no “evil”, then you think the problem of “evil” will go away.

DAVID: God was in full control of what He accomplished; the only system that could be developed is what He did in starting and evolving life. Since I believe there can be no other way and your objection implies it is God's limitations we are, as usual, in full disagreement about God, Himself. My God knows exactly what can be accomplished.

Because you believe there can be no other way, I am supposed to ignore the fact that YOUR way imposes limitations on him! Your way means he can’t control the system he designed and he can’t correct all the errors he knew would happen. My proposal is that he created precisely what he WANTED to create: a system in which life forms would come and go, all in turn seeking their own means of survival.

The rest of your post consists of one dodge after another, as you seek to avoid answering this straightforward question; if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and their food, why would he have designed countless extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Here are some of your dodges:

DAVID: Evolving humans from bacteria entails exactly those events to which you object.

How does that answer the bolded question?

DAVID: Why He chose that method are from His reasoning, to which I am not privy.

dhw: If you are not “privy” to his reasoning, how do you know that YOUR choice of method is from HIS reasoning?.

DAVID: What other explanation? Chance? UFO's? I view God as creator of all reality. History happened because of His reasoning.

I have offered you three alternative theistic explanations of reality, and you agree that they all fit in logically with the history, unlike your bolded theory above.

DAVID: Your humanized God creates a logical theistic reasoning in that limited scenario.

The “limited scenario” is the same as mine: the history of evolution, i.e. of the whole bush of life, most of which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Evolution requires different-sized bushes all the way from bacteria onward.

Of course it does. All those life forms that had no connection with humans had to be fed. Bolded question unanswered.

DAVID: But He didn't tell me why He used evolution as His preferred method.

I am not questioning the use of evolution. Bolded question unanswered.

DAVID:It is as if I am on the inside with God, and you are always on the outside complaining.

No one can be “on the inside with God”? You have no more knowledge of him than I do. And I am not complaining about God but about the bolded theory that makes no sense even to you. Will you ever stop dodging?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum