Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 16:23 (24 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

No, the difference is God's personality as each of us views Him. My God picked the best system possible, knowing mistakes were necessarily built in, but had to be accepted. He designed evolution with direct intentionality to reach the production of sapiens. The steps of increasing complexity are obvious. Your view of your wishy-washy God has evolution drifting. How would that guideless evolution produce us? Chance? Luck? Or my God's purposeful activity.


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?

dhw: 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?

dhw: 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.

You have repeated your same hodgepodge of illogical thought about God. I don't have to know why God did what He did. I accept what He created as His intentions. What you do not accept is that our exceptionality is a major philosophical consideration in questioning whether God is present. Adler covered the point to my satisfaction. You constantly degrade it as an attempt to diminish God. My deeply considered views have arrived at a picture of God you don't recognize. We cannot cross that gap. I don't dodge. I don't accept your criticisms as coming from a very skewed approach to theistic thought. It is simple for me to accept God chose to evolve us over 3.8 by's. No rush, but careful stepwise design while carefully creating a massive bush of ecosystems supplying food for all. You can sneer at that construction of reasoning, as you do, but you don't deny the logic of a necessary food supply.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum