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

by dhw, Saturday, June 10, 2023, 09:02 (322 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

dhw;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: Once again God did not produce evil. He produced bacteria which do more good than evil and viruses, both of whom do no evil unless ending up in the wrong places. Giving free wiil to humans allowed them to be evil.

You seem to have forgotten that your God is all-knowing, which means he knew that some bacteria, some viruses and some human beings would do evil. The problem of theodicy is why your “perfect” and all-powerful God would knowingly create a system which produced evil and the suffering it causes. The problem is not solved by putting on a pair of blinkers that allow you only to look at the good things he created.

DAVID: But those good works are 99% of God's story.

I have no idea where you get your statistics from, but even if they were correct, a perfect God is not 99% good. It’s no defence to say that Dr X saved the lives of 99 patients but murdered the 100th.

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.

dhw: 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: Makes no sense that your God blundered ahead not knowing consequences of His works.
Lack of knowledge of criminal law does not help criminals escape punishment.

The ultimate contradiction. You think your God is perfect, but you find him guilty, whether he did or didn’t know that the consequences of his work would be murder.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: God may have those thoughts as secondary to His purpose in producing humans.

And so far, his purpose in producing humans is to have them recognize him and his works – which is a nice humanizing addition to the list of purposes I have proposed in order to explain the 99 out of 100 designs which had nothing to do with humans. Your agreement that he may have these thoughts finally invalidates your objection to my alternatives on the grounds that they “humanize” your God. Thank you.