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

by dhw, Saturday, June 17, 2023, 10:53 (523 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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: It is obvious from the safeguard editing systems, God knew there would be errors in the biochemical system of life.
And:
DAVID: Magnifying the error rate is itself an error. The actual rate is miniscule.

“Evil” is not confined to errors in the biochemical system of life!

DAVID: You ignore my point that an all-knowing God built the only system available.
And:
DAVID: 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.

You make it sound as if your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, first-cause God was somehow forced into using a system he knew would create evil! I am as glad as you are that we are here. That does not mean I must shut my eyes to the sufferings of millions of people which result from what you believe to have been his deliberate creation of all the “evils” he apparently knew would happen. It is the age-old problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore.

DAVID: 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 [alter?] His grant.

If God exists, and if he is all-knowing, as you claim, then he knew perfectly well that we would commit evil. Since we agree that he would only have created what he wanted to create, in your scenario he must therefore have wanted all the evil he knew would happen. Hence the problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore. (I have made this complaint before!)

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.

DAVID: 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.

When we try to ascertain his purpose/s, you come up with just one: to create us and our food. You have no idea why he therefore created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. When you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and wants our recognition, and that we “reflect” him (so he and we have thought patterns and emotions in common), you contradict yourself by claiming that these aspects of his personality make him too human. And it is patently absurd to claim that they could not at least be part of his purpose/s.