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

by David Turell , Friday, June 16, 2023, 19:43 (316 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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?

It is obvious from the safeguard editing systems, God knew there would be errors in the biochemical system of life. You ignore my point that an all-knowing God built the only system available. Yes, they cause troubles, but are the exception of many trillions of proper reactions every minute. I'll stick with Dayenu, God gave enough. As for human evil, God knew it would happen when He gave us necessary free will, but it falls into our hands to control it. God can't after His grant.

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.

dhw: 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.

The human-like aspects of God's personality of course are reflected in our personalities, but these are minor points when we try to ascertain God's purpose/s aside from His possible personality. You always use this weak argument when I point out how human your God appears to be.

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.

dhw: 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.

Magnifying the error rate is itself an error. The actual rate is miniscule. You cannot distort that an all-knowing God, that you seem to abhor, would know the only system that can work. Be glad He did, as we are here to argue.