Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, June 07, 2023, 14:18 (325 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My God created evil just as you describe below in your examples of unexpected side effects. Your unknowing guy doesn't anticipate the bad results, but my God knows they will appear and puts in many safeguard mechanisms which you never recognize or comment upon, until finally below.

dhw: I have repeatedly pointed out that your so-called safeguards are woefully inadequate, since millions continue to suffer from the consequences of your God’s inefficiency and lack of control. The problem of evil is not solved by focusing solely on the good!

Where do you find support for your offhand 'million are suffering' while billions are just fine.

DAVID: Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of the bad things He has done because He is ignorant of them? Nonsense.

dhw: Once again, you take a pride in finding your God guilty. You may be right. But you have skipped a stage in my theories. He does not know the evil consequences IN ADVANCE. You then go on to ignore my examples and my questions concerning good intentions and bad consequences. I’ll repeat just one: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh, who popularized smoking in this country, is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

Your distorted God ignorant of consequences is like no other God I've ever heard of. In the one form of life both Gods have given us trillions of cell divisions occur daily without error, as some are automatically corrected. A rare mistake happens. Your distortion assumes only my God added the corrections, but they are there under your God's watch. How did that happen, if He didn't know what to expect? Your theoretical now-nothing God has all sorts of frayed edges.

DAVID: Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bad side effects. An all-knowing God would know that.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-purposeful God said to himself at the very beginning: “I want to create H. sapiens (plus food), and there’s only one way to do it, which is to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food, and it will result in all kinds of natural disasters and nasty bacteria and viruses which I shall try but generally fail to control, and I shall let humans do whatever they like, although I know they will create all kinds of evil – but that is the only way I can do it, and I am perfect.” You may be right. I hope you’re not.

Again theoretically distorting how much good and evil exist in the world.

DAVID: How was your God going to invent life? By experimentation? And His experiments came up with the same system. So it must be the only one available.

dhw: We are not talking here about inventing life, but about evolution and evil, and you are confusing the system with the result! We have the same result: the history of life as we know it. You interpret that history as being a success (the arrival of H. sapiens), although the system he used also produced 99% of failures, and the deliberate creation of evil.

God did not directly produce evil. You've agreed to that.

dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work. But I do not find such self-interest in any way reprehensible or unnatural.

Just very human-like for an imagined God.

(The “Neanderthal experimentation” post repeats the above arguments, so we can drop it.)

DAVID: The system cannot be perfect: note our cells a constantly dividing and you and I have lived to be ancient, so it works for most folks. I see the glass relatively full, and you complain that it isn't full.

dhw: We are discussing the problem of evil. It is not solved by pretending there is no problem.

How big is the problem compared to the number of non-problems??? Any numerical support for your skewed view?