Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 13, 2021, 10:13 (307 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I have accepted God as the creator of all history, and don't have to explain it.

If God exists, of course he is the creator of all history, but you insist on explaining it (God wanted to design humans, and so he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans), and then you complain when I point out that your explanation is illogical!

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.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: The bold is your error in viewing my thinking. God KNEW errors could happen because of the system He HAD/WAS REQUIRED to create. The editing systems are very good, just not perfect.

So he knew he couldn’t control the system he had created. He is supposed to be the first cause, so who or what made him create an imperfect system (“had to/was required to”)? Please answer my earlier question: how does his inability to create a perfect system make him less “humanized” than a God who deliberately chose to create a system that gave cells the freedom to do their own designing, complete with the capacity for making “errors”?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum