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

by dhw, Thursday, June 15, 2023, 08:52 (317 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

DAVID: It is not God's fault that free-will people create evil.

If your all-powerful, all-knowing God created all life from scratch and knew in advance that some of his creations (e.g. bacteria, viruses, humans) would cause untold suffering through "evil", of course it’s his fault. But if evil was an unexpected consequence of his experiments, he might plead mitigating circumstances – only you won’t countenance that. You wrote: “Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of things He has done because he is ignorant of them? Nonsense.” You insist, then, that he is guilty.

DAVID: As for biochemical mistakes, noted in the past, reactions occur at trillions of times a second, and safeguard mechanisms catch most mistakes, so when one happens it is an exceedingly rare event. I believe God gave us the best system of life He could as all-knowing.

Your usual desperate attempt to avoid the problem of theodicy by pretending that evil is so rare that we should ignore it.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The bold is a clear description of a human being, not a God. In comparison, we mimic Him but He in no way mimics us. It is not a two-way street.

Since God came first, of course he doesn’t mimic us! Our enjoyment etc. “reflects” his enjoyment etc.! And that means he enjoys etc., and you have said you are sure that he does.

DAVID: 'Experimenting' means drifting into the future, based on the results of each experiment. There is no goal.

There are two types of experiment: 1) trying different ways to achieve a precise goal; 2) seeing what will happen if… My alternative theories cover both types. And you are still stuck a) with an all-powerful God who incomprehensibly sets out to achieve his goal by deliberately setting out to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, and b) with an all-knowing God who deliberately creates things he knows to be bad, although it’s not his fault that he deliberately creates things he knows to be bad.