Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 16, 2021, 17:44 (42 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: it is your imagined God who is n-p even if you point out the weird purpose as reasonable, which for me isn't. I did answer the bold with an answer you reject, so now I didn't answer???

dhw: Firstly, why is it namby-pamby to design a system that will produce the constantly changing spectacle that is formed by the history of life as we know it? Secondly, you have NOT answered the bolded question. Why is it less “human” for your God to be unable to produce a perfect system, and also unable to control some of its errors, than for your God to produce a system that he wants to produce?

The 'changing spectacle' is the process of evolution, nothing more. You need spectacle for your humanized God. Difference is I don't think God could have produced any other system of life and purposely edited for errors.

DAVID: History reeks of purpose. He made a universe fine-tuned for life. He didn't have to. He designed an Earth with perfect conditions for life. He bothered only because He wanted life to survive. And as the only consciousness around He decided to add an organism with consciousness. The last step we debate as to His motives. Now we are at all guesswork, with all the possible motives previously listed, so take your pick. I'm content to accept God did what He wished.

dhw: If he exists, I have no quarrel with any of this. I simply propose that the vast variety of life forms, including those that had nothing to do with humans, is what he wished, and what you call the “errors” in the system are also what he wished.

DAVID: He did not wish for the errors. He had to accept them for life to exist, a major consideration you ignore.

dhw: I don’t ignore it. I challenge it. You present a first-cause, all-powerful God who finds himself unable to produce the perfect system he would like to produce. I propose that if your first-cause, all-powerful God exists, he is more likely to produce what he wants to produce than what he is forced by his own limitations to produce. (He can’t even correct some of the errors!) And I challenge your dismissal of my all-powerful version of God as “namby-pamby” and as more “human” than your own helpless God who tries his best – but sometimes fails – to correct the errors in his design.

You don't seem to separate God from His living biochemical system. In my view He designed the only system that would work to produce life. His system can make errors, but there are no errors in his design to which He also designed editing for errors. My view of God is that He designed a system that He knew would result in rare errors.

DAVID: Corrections: 1) His choice of how to create is His choice, which I accept, without guessing at His reasons.

dhw: But you have no way of knowing that his choice of how and what to create is the same as your interpretation of it! You are “accepting” your own theory about him having limited powers. You are not “accepting” some God-given truth!

Our difference is my God knew what single system would provide life, and accepted it. He cannot invent would could not work!!!

DAVID: 2) God did not 'produce' errors. he had to accept the unstoppable mistakes and price of creating living organisms, accepting this system is the only one possible.

dhw: Poor helpless God, whose powers are so limited that he has to accept that he can’t do what he wants to do, and can’t even correct some of the errors his design has to produce. How can you say he did not ‘produce’ the errors if he designed the system?

I separate God from His life invention in the quotes above.

DAVID: 3) a non-humanized God knows exactly what He wishes and does it without any human reasoning.

dhw: I agree totally that if God exists, he would know what he wishes and would go ahead and do it. That is why I suggest that the ever-changing history of life, including all those life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, and the so-called “errors” in his system for life, are what he would have wished for and produced. For some reason, you think this “humanizes” him and makes him “namby-pamby”.

He didn't wish for the only life system that could work. Since He made life appear from an inorganic Earth, His miraculous result works. He accepted what would work. And you call Him limited while we have consciousness as humans, the only consciousness existing besides His.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum