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

by dhw, Saturday, April 27, 2024, 08:38 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Remember! There are no guidelines to God as an image or personality.

Agreed, and I wish you would remember that when you tell us that he is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, selfless, never gets bored etc.

DAVID: Why God 'chose' to evolve us is God's own reasoning. As usual you are blind to real evolution. It can be viewed as God producing us and all the living resources we might need. Everything produced is connected to us because it is there for our use!

As usual, you focus on the present and try to blind yourself to the billions of years’ worth of species and ecosystems which had no connection with us.

DAVID: That some of evolution was messy is simple history.

You have used the terms messy, cumbersome and inefficient to ridicule the method you impose on your God in his efforts to achieve the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: As with anyone, I can make my own theology and don't care if I don't exactly mirror every nuance of different religion's views.

No objection. I only object when your theories either make no sense to you, or contradict one another.

DAVID: I begin by accepting their basic God form as being all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. The rest follows. What gives you the right to complain? At least I believe.

What do you mean by “the rest follows”? How does it follow that an all-powerful, all-knowing God finds that he “has to” design and cull 99.9 species out of 100 that have no connection with his purpose, that an all-good God is to blame for creating bugs that kill millions of people, that a selfless, all-knowing God deliberately creates a system which he knows will result in millions of deaths, so that he and we can avoid boredom? I only complain about your illogicalities and contradictions.

Double standards

DAVID: “Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine, and just as valid as any other.”

dhw: Your view of God as an inefficient designer who messily had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose is no more mainstream than the view that your God learns as he goes along, or God created life and then left it to run its own course. But you say these views are not “worth using” because they are non-mainstream, whereas you clearly think your views are worth using, even though they are not mainstream. One standard for them, but it doesn’t apply to you. That is the meaning of double standards.

DAVID: Exactly my point There are no established standards for who God is.

Correct, so stop pontificating about his omnipotence etc., and stop rejecting other people’s theories as “not worth using”, because – just like your own – they are not mainstream. According to you, not being mainstream is a reason for rejection, unless it's your non-mainstream theory.

DAVID: […]. I am not required to accept deism or progress theology. I have the right to reject any theology I don't like.

Agreed.

DAVID: Throwing two theories at me because you have reviewed them proves what! I am aware of them and totally unconvinced.

No problem.

DAVID: You are aware of all theology and reject it all. That is your prerogative.

I am not aware of ALL theology, and I do not reject all theology either. If God exists, it seems almost certain to me that some versions will be correct, but as you say, “there are no guidelines”. The only thing I am certain of is that he will not have attributes that contradict each other. See above for the now bolded examples relating to "the rest follows".

DAVID: You are using a double standard against me, aren't you?!

No. I am pointing out that your views are illogical and self-contradictory. Once more: A double standard is when you reject an argument for a particular reason (e.g. deism is not “worth using” because it is not mainstream), while at the same time you accept and defend a different argument, although the particular reason should also make you reject it. (e.g you defend your own version of panentheism, although it too is not mainstream). A similar example would be an atheist rejecting your faith in God because it not based on scientific fact, and then announcing that he has faith in chance as the creator of life, although his faith in chance is not based on scientific fact either. You’d leap on that as “double standards”, wouldn’t you? And that’s what you’ve done with non-mainstream deism and process theology.