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

by dhw, Friday, June 16, 2023, 08:08 (316 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: Since we are looking at the same evolution performed by both our Gods, we see safeguards in place. How did your unknowing God know to provide safeguards? Your God does not fit the evidence.

You seem determined to switch attention from the problem of theodicy to all the good things your God may have done. I don’t know what safeguards he provided against human evil, but if he did, thry were clearly inadequate! As for diseases, if there really are safeguards, I could argue that he didn’t know initially that they would happen, but when they did, he tried his best – often unsuccessfully – to correct his errors. Now would you please return to the subject: if your God deliberately created “evil” life forms which he knew would cause untold suffering, is he or is he not responsible for the suffering? If he is guilty, then how can he be called all-good?

DAVID: Mistakes can't be helped under the current system. There would be no life without it. I accept it with its warts.

So you accept that your God deliberately created bacteria, viruses and humans which he knew would commit murderous acts because that is the system he created, and although he is all-powerful, he couldn’t even provide efficient safeguards to protect victims from the consequences of his unavoidable “mistakes”.

DAVID: 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. […]

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.

dhw: 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: Doesn't change the humanness of your God. Trying to compare Him to my God's aspect of human- like traits doesn't diminish your God's overwhelming humanlike thoughts.

It is you who told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and may have wanted us to recognize him and his work, and you are also sure that we reflect him. That means that our enjoyment, interest and wish for recognition reflect his, since he came first.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: My God must stick with the only system He provided for life, since as all-knowing, He realizes it is the only system that will work. While yours has no idea of what will work.

The only system that will work for your God is 1) to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, even though he is perfectly capable of designing life forms “de novo”, and 2) one that will result in all the sufferings caused by the natural disasters, diseases and evil humans he has created in full knowledge of their future evil deeds, though he tries to provide safeguards but despite his omnipotence, frequently fails. My alternatives include experiments in which he finds out what will work, gives himself new ideas, or simply observes what new ideas his autonomous invention can come up with. You accept that they fit in with life’s history as we know it, and your only objection is that we humans reflect him, but you can’t see that this means we have thought patterns and emotions like his, and therefore he must have thought patterns and emotions like ours.