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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 14, 2023, 08:47 (318 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You seem desperate to confine “evil” to the odd crash by racing molecules. Do you never read the newspapers or watch the news on TV? Have you never heard of diseases, floods, famines, wars, crimes etc., all of which – including all those perpetrated by your God’s specially created human beings – your God apparently knew would happen, and yet he deliberately went ahead creating all the causes of these evils!

DAVID: You concentrate on the slim edge of reality which is evil or bad. I view the world as 95+% good.

Much as I admire your positive attitude towards life, I have to point out that the problem of theodicy is to reconcile the conventional view of an all-good God with the fact that as first cause, he is responsible for creating evil. You do not solve the problem by telling us that we should not think about it.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

DAVID: God knew of the problems His creations might cause, and in the biochemistry of life many safeguards are in place.

The problem of theodicy is the evil that exists outside of whatever safeguards you think your God may have provided.

dhw: I have no idea why you think it is ludicrous for your God to want to do something with his eternal time. If he exists, then clearly he wanted life to exist, or he wouldn’t have created it. You are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his own creations, but you refuse to believe that he might have started life with the goal of doing something he finds enjoyable and interesting. You are also sure that “we reflect God”, and so one of his goals might have been to create a being that would reflect him (and he conducted experiments in order to find the best formula for such a being). Why did he want to create such a being? According to my resident expert, he wanted recognition of himself and his works, and maybe to have some kind of relationship with us. Thank you for answering your own question, but please don’t ask it again.

DAVID: I asked about YOUR God and got a discussion of my God. Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. So out of the window goes your silly objection that although we reflect him, he mustn’t be “humanized”. If we reflect him, then – again I agree with you – we must have thought patterns and emotions like his.