Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Thursday, February 25, 2021, 12:45 (1157 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My view of God is not your humanized view. I'll repeat: All we can guess about God's desires is He uses logic to satisfy them.

Thank you for acknowledging that your God has desires. Now please explain why it is not logical to guess that since you are sure he is interested in his creations, he may have desired to create something that would interest him.

DAVID: Simply, He is a purposeful creator. using evolution from bacteria. We know He has created a being that recognizes Him, that has a very fruitful, very expanded lifestyle. That is obviously what He wanted to do. Does that give Him self-gratification? He has no need.

dhw:[…] Yes, if he exists, he is a purposeful creator, yes ALL multicellular organisms including humans evolved from bacteria, yes humans recognize him. Now please tell us what you meant by “he has no other motive than the creations themselves”?

DAVID: Not to find something interesting to watch. That is called 'pass timing' in human psychology. He is timeless and doesn't need it as you imply in humanizing Him.

You have told us what you did not mean. Now please tell us what you did mean.

DAVID: Back to a human God who needs interesting events.

dhw: Why “needs”? Why not “wants” or, to use your own word: “desires”, as in your belief that he seems to be “full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.”

DAVID (under “How roots fight compacted soils”): The quote stands on its own. God 'desires' are not equivalent to human desires.

So we can now drop the word “needs” and agree that God has desires. And if God does what he “desires” to do, why is that different from him doing what he is interested in doing?

dhw: I eagerly await your explanation of his desire to create them all (not just humans) for no other motive than the creations themselves, bearing in mind that you are sure he is interested in his creations and that previously you have claimed that they were all "part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans" Please don't dodge.

DAVID: Never dodging. You and I have widely differing viewpoints. Your worry about the 99% gone is a total dodge. God knew He had to create a huge bush of current life to create food energy for all. You have accepted that need. His goal in evolution was humans. Our brain proves it as Adler noted. What is your point?

Yes, in your theory he had to create a huge bush of current life to create food energy for all. The problem you dodge here is that if humans were “His goal in evolution”, why did he have to create a huge bush of past life to create food energy for all the past life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans (his goal)? Please stop this particular dodging game. You have admitted that you have no idea, so we should leave it at that.

Viruses (taken from “Miscellany”)

DAVID: What this seems to mean is that viruses are not an aberrant life form but necessary to the overall balance scheme for living organisms. That tells us there are good and bad viruses just like good and bad bacteria, good and bad predator animals, and good and bad humans, all playing a role in our reality.

dhw: Yes indeed. This is the great problem of theodicy. Your Swinburne tells us of God’s omnipotence and “perfect goodness” (though I don’t know how he knows, or even what his criteria are), so how come God created so much that has turned out to be bad? If he’s omnipotent, he could have created whatever he wanted to create. So he must have wanted to create the bad. But if he’s all good, why would he want to create the bad? Out of interest, may I ask you whether your concept of God includes “perfect goodness” (whatever that may mean)?

DAVID: It's your British Swinburne, not mine. As a Christian theologian he has extremes of belief I ignore, using only parts of his ideas I agree with.

So why do you keep reproducing his ideas and then trying to support them instead of facing up to his contradictions? And he is your source, not mine!

DAVID: God is good is acceptable to me.

Why? Aren’t you attributing a human quality to him? (But see the next problem.)

DAVID: Viruses are so common and numerous God obviously created and used them for his purposes. The 'bad' forms are our interpretation of them. There may be good involved.

I have to agree that “good” and “bad” are subjective terms, but how else can we discuss such things? If God says that Covid and cancer are good, who are we to argue? But I’d like to think that there is a general consensus among us humans that certain things like cancer and Covid are “bad”, and that can be used as a basis for discussing your God’s possible nature and intentions. So why would an omnipotent God of “perfect goodness” create “bad” things?