Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 09:17 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: Once again you have avoided answering my point. There cannot be a perfect system of biochemical life. Once free-floating molecules must change shape to perform function mistakes can happen. You want a perfect God who an overcome that problem. In my view He doesn't exist.

I’m surprised to hear that your once all-powerful, all-knowing God could not invent a perfect system, and was so concerned about the errors in his design that he even tried to correct them, but sometimes couldn’t and therefore left it to humans to do what he couldn’t do. I can, however, visualize a God who actually wanted a system that would result in what you call “mistakes”, in order to ensure that life would be a process of the constant comings and goings and changes we observe in the history of evolution. The difference between us is that your theory makes God helplessly limited, whereas my God has him doing precisely what he wanted to do.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Same totally illogical objection. Why can't you accept the concept God chose to evolve us?

That is your dodge. I accept that if God exists, he chose the method of evolution to produce EVERY life form that ever existed, including us. I do not accept the illogical combination of concepts which 1) has God individually designing every life form (plus food), the vast majority of which had no connection with humans, although 2) his one and only goal was to design humans (plus food). There is no point in repeating the rest of your post, since it comprises one dodge after another, but I will answer your final point.

DAVID: My interpretation of your objection is simple: why not direct creation by God? But that isn't what happened. Can you explain your objection in a way that I can interpret it differently?

Firstly, direct creation is not what happened, but you don’t know why your God did not create us directly. Secondly, you believe he designed every life form individually, but thirdly, you believe that although the vast majority of those life forms (plus foods) had no connection with humans, his sole purpose was to design humans (plus food). And so I ask you why you think he did not create us directly, and why you think he created all the other life forms that had no connection with us, if we were his only purpose. Either you dodge, or you tell me to ask God. You refuse to accept that the illogicality of your combined beliefs might suggest that something could be wrong with them.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum