Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 22:23 (239 days ago) @ dhw

PLANTINGA

dhw: Throughout the discussion, you have never once offered a single point of disagreement, and even now you endorse his view of theodicy. His explanation of evil is that God wants us to love him, and he can only be sure the love is genuine if he gives us free will, although in his omniscience, he knows all the evil that we will inflict on one another. Hence my bolded question, which you refuse to answer.

I've answered in indirect ways: 1) I am not joined at the hip with Plantinga! I take from Him what I wish. His defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel. His loving God (note Adler's point) is pure Christian theology, not mine. Your worthless use of the holocaust to accuse God when it is totally a human problem, when He has put us in change of ourselves, and leaving the OT times, He is no longer our Shepard of the OT.

DAVID: I may present an individual for this website's discussion, but without fully accepting that person's total opinion. As for 'free will' and the Holocaust, what that shows is God put us in charge of ourselves. My feeling is God intervenes now on a personal basis as individuals relate to Him, as above.

dhw: You accepted Plantinga’s theory, and even now you are dodging my question. Yes, we have free will, and your new theory of one-to-one relationships has nothing to do with your acceptance of Plantinga’s theodicy. Your championship of what you call your “personal theology” is also a remarkable switch from your recent attack on process theology and deism because they are not “mainstream”. It appears that personal theologies are only justified when they agree with yours.

Process theology and deism definitely are secondary stream theologies. Just do the numbers.

HELD

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." And I added: I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

DAVID: You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.

dhw: I do not criticize theism. I criticize your firm positions by pointing out all the illogicalities and self-contradictions with which they are riddled and which you consistently try to dodge when they are pointed out. Even your Plantinga comments today illustrate the point.

Your strawman "Holocaust" is why I have to dodge around your so-called agnostic logic about God. u

DAVID: I am not as wishy-washy as you pretend. I have a firm belief in a purposeful God, knowing exactly what He wishes and does it.

dhw: If God exists, I agree with you 100%. That does not mean he does what you wish him to do, and is what you wish him to be, and it does not explain how a God who loves us knowingly allows evil because his one and only concern is that we should love him of our own free will although, according to you, he is selfless, i.e. has no self-interest.

DAVID: God in not 'needy ', does not create to satisfy Himself. You can't seem to understand a God of that type.

dhw: I don’t know where you get your inside knowledge from, but since you accepted and still accept Plantinga’s view of theodicy, which is based on God’s desire to be loved by us of our own free will, I can’t see how you can regard him as being without self-interest. Please explain.

See above. Plantinga is not swallowed whole as you imply. I use him sans love.

DAVID: You constantly forget I accept what God has created without questioning the underlying reasons or His choice of method. Most human suffering is human created! What is fair to blame God for are natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of His creation.

dhw: You assume that you know the underlying reasons and choice of method, and you refuse to question your own illogical theories. I agree that humans create human suffering – that is the human “evil” your God deliberately and knowingly allowed to happen, and you have accepted Plantinga’s theory that he did so because he wanted us to love him. I’m intrigued to see that you are now blaming God for all the other suffering he has inflicted on us in his love for us and despite his being all-good.

Bold is totally off point as your invention. God's creation has dangers for human beings, cannot be denied. It is all how you see proportions. You see mostly black. Is it purposeful?