Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, June 09, 2023, 08:08 (323 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: What world are you living in? Each year approx 12.7 million people discover they have cancer and approx. 7.6 million people die from the disease. Do you never watch the news? According to you, your all-knowing God would have known in advance that today, as a result of his knowingly inventing the human mind’s propensity for evil, somewhere around 100 million people would be fleeing the death and destruction caused by the human-made evils of war and civil conflicts […and] by all the floods and famines. This is the problem of theodicy, which you think you can solve by shutting your eyes to the MILLIONS of people suffering.

DAVID: Place your numbers against eight billion living. Cancer deaths are .0085% of the human population, taking your numbers as just one example. Your God is so ignorant He isn't responsible for those same numbers. What world theology are you living in?

You asked me where I got my “millions” from, and I told you. If you really regarded the above sufferings as insignificant, it would make you as callous as the God you are imagining. (Having known you all these years, I can assure everyone that this is not the case!) The problem of theodicy is not based on comparative numbers but on the question why an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God would produce evil. What world theology are you living in?

DAVID: 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. […]

dhw: Evil is not confined to faulty cell divisions!!!

DAVID: I'm showing the great good with cell divisions. You characteristically ignore it.

Yet again: the problem of theodicy bolded above is not solved by telling us about God’s GOOD works!

dhw: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh […] is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Sir Walter is not guilty of anything.

Then perhaps you will understand how my alternative theories provide logical explanations for the existence of evil without your all-knowing God deliberately creating it. If he did NOT know initially that his successful experiments, discoveries, new ideas etc. would lead to evil, he is not the callous sadist you imagine.

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.”

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

dhw: Again: The problem of theodicy - why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God would create evil - is not solved by telling us there is more good than evil.

DAVID: God did not directly create evil!!! You agree. It is a secondhand event from His creations.

Deliberately creating life forms which he knew would commit evil deeds (e.g. murderous viruses and bacteria and human beings) is direct enough for us to ask why, if he is all-good, he would do such a thing.

DAVID: Are you inferring humans should not have been created?

No. I am asking why an all-good God would create evil – and you are spending all this time dodging the question or trying to brush aside my alternative explanations.

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.

DAVID: Just very human-like for an imagined God.

dhw: Your usual silly fall-back on “humanization”, though you agree that the Creator might well have thought patterns and emotions like those of his creations (and you are certain that these include enjoyment and interest), and it’s you who have proposed that he might want our recognition.

DAVID: You are blind to the fact that your God is just like you. I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

If you are sure we reflect God, why are you sure that although he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want recognition for himself and his works, he cannot possibly have created life so that he would be able to enjoy creating things which he would be interested in and which might appreciate him and his works?