Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 11:08 (1136 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The biochemical background of the Cambrian I've discussed: underlying vital biochemical processes were perfected in the simple organisms before the more complex Cambrian was introduced. There are precursors in the sense that these vital processes were carried forward.

dhw: So he used the knowledge he had gained from his earlier special designs in order to specially design the brand new organisms (no precursors) which eventually he would specially turn into the special precursors of the only organisms he actually wanted to design – us and our food – as well as all the other organisms that had no connection with us and our food. No wonder you can’t understand why your all-powerful, all-knowing God used such a roundabout method to fulfil his one and only purpose. And yet apparently he knew right from the start exactly how to produce whatever he wanted to produce.

DAVID: How do you know God had to learn? I view each stage as known by god in advance and planned in advance, no learning required.

I don’t “know”. It is one of several theories I offer to explain the fact that history reveals countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food.

DAVID: You are not God and cannot enter His mind to analyze His motives.

dhw: Nor are you and nor can you. However, at least you have accepted that all my alternative answers are logical. Only your own theory leaves that question unanswered.

DAVID: Unanswered only in your mind. Your alternative answers fit a highly humanized God who thinks only like a human. That is how I accept them; not a real acceptance, is it?

dhw: By acceptance I do not mean that you have to believe any of them (they are all different anyway). You accept that they are logical. And you have in the past agreed that our logic is like God’s, and we probably have thought patterns similar to his.

DAVID: Again quoting my guesses about God as fact.

Not as fact. All our theories are “guesses”, but once you yourself offer such guesses, you can hardly complain if I use them to produce an explanation of something you yourself cannot explain.

dhw: So you solve the problem of theodicy by telling us your God didn’t have the power to control the system, despite his all-powerfulness. I solve it by proposing that he didn’t WANT to control it but deliberately gave cells/cell communities the freedom to work out their own modes of survival.

DAVID: God is not in full control of each of our lives which are built to run on their own. He tried to stop errors by His designed editing systems showing He didn't want a free-for-all.

I’m not talking about individual human lives. If your God tried but failed to stop errors, then of course he didn’t want a free-for-all. You are advocating an all-powerful God who simply lost control. Why does that make him less “humanized” than an all-powerful God who deliberately produces a free-for-all because that is what he wants?