Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 09:37 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: No matter how much you try to draw attention to the successes, it is the failures that make the problem of theodicy. Your dismissal of the vast suffering caused by what you believe to be your God’s deliberate design of bad viruses and bacteria, and by the uncontrollable errors in the system he designed, is tantamount to saying that we should ignore the subject we are supposed to be discussing.

DAVID: As the only available working system, its tiny error rate is amazing. And yes, great suffering by a few.

Apparently 41% of Americans get or will get some form of cancer, and it’s 50% in the UK. I always thought cancer was a disease caused by malfunctioning cells. And then we have the diseases caused by the murderous bacteria and viruses that your God apparently designed with good intentions.

dhw: Since your faith in God’s limited powers is unshakable, let us reach a compromise. In the context of this particular example of “bad”, let us say that he wanted to have this system, in spite of its uncontrollable errors. And so we agree: he designed what he wanted to design. You have him showing his very “humanized” good intentions (your idea) and trying to make up for the “errors” by correcting those he could, whereas I have him – to use your own expression – watching with interest. Which of these would you say was more human?

DAVID: Watching or designing something for interest is not something my God would do or need to do, as hour human God seems to need.

How very strange. Quotes:
I’m sure he likes what he creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as an inventor.”
I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest.”
His concern for us like our concern for others.”
“God did not create a Garden of Eden for us, as
dull.”

And I remember but sadly did not record your comment that he enjoys creation much like a painter enjoying his paintings. Your God seems to change his nature whenever I like your suggestions, the most glaring example being your agreement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and we mimic him – but then you disagree with yourself, because that might give credence to my “humanizations” as opposed to your own.

dhw: […] It’s the bad things that raise the problem of theodicy, but you’d rather not talk about them. […]

DAVID: God's intentions produced us, against all odds of chance. I see the glass of life's processes as 9999999999.% full. You see the .000000000% error rate as a glass half empty.
Logic?

dhw: You have again totally missed the point of the problem of theodicy, which is not solved by ignoring the bad. And how comforting would your estimate of the error percentage have been to all your patients?

God's genetic errors would be hard to find in my compliment of patients. I do remember delivering a newborn with no cranium. I had a teenager with a Meckel's diverticulum that required surgery. I have known Down's syndrome folks. Nothing more.

What a pity you never knew about the other patients. See above.

God’s editing systems
QUOTE: The team studied membrane attack complexes (MACs) – components of our immune system that punch minute holes in the membrane of invading bacteria. If enough holes are punched, the bacteria will pop and die.

DAVID: All the editing systems show God knew what systems to edit for errors.

And his reason for creating the invading bacteria in the first place was…?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum